HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:16:52 GMT

In article <d29t03zNc2hg00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>In article <LSR=JzB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>  Jobs Created
>>  Jan. 1982-1989 {Expansion Only}
>>
>>              Number          Percentage	  1989 Median
>>Job Category  Number (mils.)  Increase	     Earnings.
>>
>>Managerial/
>>Professional   7.600          33.1%         $32,873
>>Production     2.194          19.0%         $25,831
>>Technical      6.630          21.8%         $20,905
>>Operators      1.374           8.2%         $19,886
>>Services       2.210          16.8%         $14,858
>>Farming       -0.116          -3.7%         $13,539
>>
>>Total         19.892          20.3%         $23,333
>
>  So does this include the jobs lost during the '80s as well?  

Gee, Doug, look at the Farming numbers.

>I wonder what the "Expansion Only" alludes to.

1982 to 1989, as the chart says.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9393 misc.legal:21349
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: 15 Dec 92 01:08:44 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Dec11.152259.14531@cs.rochester.edu>,
fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
|>
|>  
|> Notice that Japan:
|> 
|> A) has very limited land area, for a substantial population.
|> B) consists 70% of non-arable mountains.
|> C) has no mineral resources worth mentioning.
|> D) is not self-sufficient in food, except for rice, which costs
|>    several times the world price there.
|> E) contains many of the world's most successful manufacturing firms.
|> F) places numerous barriers in the way of foreign competition.
|> G) owns much of the world's debt.
|>  
|> Gee, I wonder when the Japanese are going to notice how much those
|> trade barriers are hurting them :-).
|> -- 

Mark, are we to conclude from this that a high percentage of non-arable
mountains leads to economic prosperity?  If not, then why did you chose
F) versus B)?  Surely there must be a good explanation that goes with
it, only I haven't read one yet.

I'm quite certain that Jim and I are on opposite ends of the economic/
political spectrum, but I have not seen *one* of his points intelligently
rebutted by anyone.  There has been much bait and switch, and much confusion
but we have yet to be given an example by which the Japanese gained economic
prosperity as the result of a combination of unfair or uncompetitive
trade practices, notably dumping abroad and protecting at home.

His basic points all stem from two principals:

    you protect a highly capitalized, high competitive market by keeping
    it free, and

    you cannot effectively compete in a highly competitive, highly capitalized
    markets by engaging in non-competitive practices.


Both dumping and protectionism are non-competitive since they do nothing
to strengthen the perpetrator.  You strengthen yourself when you find 
a way to do something better, faster, cheaper, etc.

If the US is losing jobs, I have not seen a cogent explanation showing that
those jobs are ending up in Japan.

Paul Collacchi
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9468 alt.amateur-comp:376 talk.politics.misc:64733 misc.misc:4113
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:19:11 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.BzGtFz.Ar6
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <37961@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:

>again. The best method for keeping the money supply relatively stable
>is the gold standard.


  Oh pshaw!  I've been a precious-metal investor for 15 years.  During
  that time gold has fluctuated FAR more wildly than the dollar.  (and
  before you give me the usual gold-nut answer, "you mean the dollar
  has fluctuated wildly relative to gold?"  -- I mean even if you
  measure gold's value relative to the amount of gold it takes to 
  buy a pair of showes or a loaf of bread).

  Why should we place the value of our currency in the hands of
  corrupt, unstable states like South Africa or Russia, who have
  vast possibilities to mine and dump gold?

  Also, note that sometimes you might WANT to have the tool of
  monetary policy.  The correct solution is to make sure it's
  used sparingly and wisely.


---peter
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Inflation (Was: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:06:13 GMT

In article <BzD8H6.IBG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>In article <1gnkm6INN7op@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>I give up.  What are the benefits of inflation?  Why is constant
>>inflation better than any other kind?
>
>Economists, who are notorious for being in disagreement, have shown a fairly
>broad agreement of two things: The desire for 2-4 percent inflation, and 
>perhaps 3-5 percent rate of unemployment.  Their *real* disagreement begins
>when they start talking about *how* to achieve such a rate.

so, why?
what is the benefit of inflation?
just because economists agree that it is good doesn't convince me.


>I have to run, so I can't give an elaborate answer to the benefits of
>inflation, so I'll give you an example:
>
>The US is able to discontinue deficit spending, therefore leaving itself
>with $4 trillion in actual debt.  In real terms, without making a single
>payment to reduce the $4 trillion debt, the debt is shrinking just becuase
>of inflation.

WRONG!
you've forgotten one little thing: interest on the debt!
as long as real interest rates (nominal rates minus inflation) are above
zero (as they almost always are, which is why interest rates go up
when inflation does) the US's debt will increase even without additional
deficits. which is why we are in so much damn trouble.

>In general, inflation helps all borrowers (the young) and hurts all savers
>(the elderly) but the elderly *more* than make up for that with how they
>are getting away with the COLA's out there, but that's another hornet's
>nest.

hornet's nest is right. 
so how can inflation be good?

--
charles
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade Deficit
Date: 11 Dec 92 14:11:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: edinboro.1992Dec11.091103.9478
 <1992Dec4.155214.26523@midway.uchicago.edu> <1992Dec4.173514.20660@linus.mitre.org>
Organization: Edinboro University of PA

In article <1992Dec4.173514.20660@linus.mitre.org>, bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> In article <1992Dec4.155214.26523@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> :In article <1992Dec4.140822.11757@linus.mitre.org> bs@gauss.mitre.org (Robert D. Silverman) writes:
> :>>> Why  are the United States in a major trade deficit  with  Japan?
> :>>
> :>>I haven't examined it; I've seen other likely sounding explanations 
> :>>(disparities in defense spending, non-recipricol trade agreements, higher 
> :> 
> :>I think everyone complaining about the trade deficit as if it were a bad
> :>thing is being quite stupid in overlooking one simple fact:
> :>
> :>We have over twice the population of Japan!!!!
> :>
> :>One should expect the U.S. to buy more from Japan than they do from us,
> :>because we have more people buying.
> :
> :Don't we also have more people selling and producing?
> 
> This is irrelevent. The total amount one society can buy depends on its
> income. [without going into debt]. Total income in the US is much higher
> than in Japan because we have a bigger economy. Their economy simply can't
> buy as much as ours can, unless their per capita income is much higher.
> 
> Per capita, Japan buys MORE than we do.

I think its VERY relevant.  If their per-capita productivity is so high that
they can have a trade surplus as large as they do, per-capita income will
increase for them.  It shows just how far ahead Japan is in productivity:
their per-capita income is about the same as ours, but they produce so much
more.  They will eventually have a higher living standard.

_/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\_
|Shawn Duffy    Edinboro University of PA,     United States of America     | 
| s462075d@edinboro.edu/ A student in need of a job/Go Steelers-Cowher Power|
|               "We've upped our standards, so up yours."                   |
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:42:07 GMT

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> I don't know, Intel seems to be doing alright.  Other semiconductor
> firms also seem to be doing quite well.  We excell at high technology,
> memory chips are a commidity item.

This raises an interesting point.   Back when the US dominated the
world steel market, it was a bunch of high tech ventures founded by
some fortunate and unfortunate entrepeneurs.  But then it got old, and
management stopped pushing the envelope, and it became a low-tech,
commodity business.  And the Asians came in and took it right off our
plates.   

There are a lot of empty steel mills around Pgh now, though not as
many as there used to be.   The steel business has an incredibly high
startup cost.  By the arguments of some people in this thread, you
would think that no one could ever start up a new steel mill in the
US, but it's being done.  There are (relatively small) high-tech new
steel mills in the US that are now quite competitive.  

Lyle		Transarc		707 Grant Street
412 338 4474	The Gulf Tower		Pittsburgh 15219
      If you can't join 'em, beat 'em.

Newsgroups: sci.econ,ucb.org.csua
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: SODA, SUPER HEROS AND OUR INTERNET (branch)
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Distribution: ucb
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 15:18:22 GMT

hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander) writes:

>It's so useful for me to have it on line because I can quickly search for
>quotes that apply to whatever situations come up.  And I can also post the
>whole thing to news, or the motd, or where ever else seems apropriate.
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Newsgroup sci.econ does not seem to be an appropriate place for this
stuff.  Please take it elsewhere so that we can return our attention
to the "Stupendous" and "Dumping" wars. :)
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9367 alt.fan.warlord:9495
From: nweaver@soda.berkeley.edu (Nicholas C. Weaver (The Weeniehead))
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ucb.org.csua,alt.fan.warlord
Subject: Re: Sigs, wwas Re: SODA, SUPER HEROS AND OUR INTERNET (branch)
Date: 14 Dec 1992 05:03:01 GMT
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Distribution: ucb
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu

	This actualy isn't TRUE warlord material, but I can't resist

In article <c164-aa.724286732@po.berkeley.edu> c164-aa@po.berkeley.edu (Paul DuBois) writes:
>--
>Paul DuBois				    Permanent: pld@soda.berkeley.edu
>  If you call this a short .sig, you oppose its reality.  If you do not call
>  it a short .sig, you ignore the fact.  Now what do you wish to call this?

	I wish to call it an ugly .sig, OK?

	:)  <- FOR THE HUMOR IMPARED

-- 
Nicholas C. Weaver                                nweaver@soda.berkeley.edu
It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, .signifying nothing.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:30:36 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1gieqsINNma6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>>> But usenet has the potential to be a source of solid info when 
>>> the people who have access to it and time to post are the people
>>> with accurate, first hand or independently researched info on
>>> what they are posting about.
>>
>>Exactly. Most of the time the people with the time to post are not the
>>people with the accurate, first hand or independently researched
>>information.
>>
>But there are times when such is the case and usenet has then helped
>to make a real breakthrough.
                                             
  I'm sure occasionally it has done someone, somewhere some good.  
  The technical computer groups, are, in my experience, good
  sources of technical information.   Although even that, IMO,
  reflects the fact that for most people on Usenet "somone else"
  is paying for it.  That is, on Compuserve you are paying $12
  an hour.  At those rates you generally want to get in and out 
  quickly, posting your question or looking for answers to your
  earlier question(s).   Most CI$ users can't afford to read
  hundreds of daily postings and consider providing answers to
  a few of them, at least I can't.  Selfish?  Practical.

  But on Usenet I spend more time reading other people's posts
  and answering them.  I've noticed in general when I post the
  same question to Usenet and CI$ I get far more and more detailed
  answers on Usenet almost every time.  

  But as I say, I believe this reflects the charity or gullibility
  of the corporations and schools that fund Usenet.
  
  But I honestly don't know why any corporation, school, or other
  organization funds access to any of the talk, soc, alt, or rec
  newsgroups, or even most of the sci ones, including this one.

  The noise to signal ratio on those groups is incredibly high
  and they have little significant value except recreation.  
  Despite the fact that I happily waste time on groups such as
  this, if I had any input into the decision at all I would 
  cheerfully vote to end any and all HP support and tax support
  for Usenet, or at least the nontechnical parts of it.


---peter


Xref: sparky sci.econ:9327 misc.legal:21265
From: wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Clinton's Econ Conference and Non-Traditional Economics
Date: 17 Dec 1992 08:12:36 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

During the election, I heard various "fringe" candidates, like Bo Gritz,
discuss the evils of the Federal Reserve, and how the entire national debt
could be wiped out overnight by the production of a single 4-trillion-$
coin (actually of negligible intrinsic value), which woul be turned
over by the US Government to the Fed and thus negate the entire existing
debt. This woul be followed by the elimination of the Fed and the return
to United States Notes and eventually a bullion-backed currency.

This view and proposal was completely ignored by the mainstream media,
and so I've never seen any objective evaluation of this proposal. The only
people discussing it were its proponents. So I have no real idea if
the plan is or is not feasible. (Has it been discussed on USENET or net
mailing lists? Do archives of such discussion exist?)

What I was wondering is whether anyone of the multitude participating
in Clinton's economic conference brought up this topic and presented it
as an alternative to be considered. If it would work, it seems to be a
salvation we shoud not ignore. If it would not work, I sure would like
to see it rationally refuted by "mainstream" economists.

Any comments or pointers to info on this? Thanks!

Regards, Will
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: Re: Dumping
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:08:21 GMT

 fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>And, incidentally, GM still is losing buckets of money on Saturn.
>Quality is high, and demand is through the roof, but production has
>lagged way behind projections.

  This seems somewhat deceptive.  GM did lose money on Saturn in FY 1992,
but this ignores the trend that losses have been lower and industry
expectations are that Saturn will turn a profit in FY 1993. (Per various
sources including WSJ and US News&WP.)


Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9391 misc.legal:21347
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Dumping
Date: 15 Dec 92 00:44:16 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <Bz3M2K.7Io@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter
Nelson) writes:  
|> 
|>   The situation being discussed here is trying to establish yourself
|>   in a market already dominated by huge, well-capitalized players,
|>   with name recognition, established distribution channels, patents, 
|>   economies of scale, and market recognition.  

Yes.  Exactly.  Thanks for a nice description of the situation.  Posters on 
this thread appear to be confusing two sets of situations:  "dumping", and
the success of Japanese companies in establishing and then dominating certain
U.S. industries like steel manufacturing, electronics, televisions, etc.

It is not my understanding that the Japanese "dumped" their way into market
dominance in any of these instances.  Their "formula" seemed to be

     establish market share in mature technology segment of an industry
     using price.

     dominate that market by price, thus building capacity,

     once having established capacity, use this position to springboard
     to higher margin products in the same industry.

This pattern seems to have been the strategy in electronics, televisions,
and automobiles.  I have no knowledge of Japanese entry into the steel
market.  They appeared to try this strategy in computers and it didn't
work -- the low-end, old tech, commodity segment is too capitalized and
too competitive even for the Japanese.

If the Japanese have near-market dominance in any of these examples, it is
not because they "dumped" into them.  They won these markets fair and
square.


|>   The real world is not an ivory tower.  Just because, on paper, 
|>   you can "just go in an undercut an established company if they 
|>   raise their prices" doesn't mean this is a *practical* option.
|> 

This I disagree with.  You can ALWAYS enter a market if you are able to
deliver a comparable, lower-priced product.  This does not guarantee that
you will ever dominate that market, but there is always a niche that will
buy from you.  Expanding your share is another story.

It is true that some markets can not be entered by nickle and dime
players.  For example, it would be tough for a nickle dime outfit to bid
on a Trident submarine manufacturing contract.  It's kind of tough to
just enter the nuclear sub business, but then, it's not a hell of big
market, either.  At equilibrium, I would expect the amount of capital
and number of players chasing a market to be proportional to the actual
size of the market, naturally.

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 09:53:40 GMT

In article <louis.724011004@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:

>Did you know that the Apple PowerMate portable is manufactured entirely
>in Japan?  By Sony.  Apple is becoming a "hollow" company.  Apple
>employees are not profiting by making portable computers.

>A healthy American (and Canadian) economy needs high-tech
>*manufacturing* jobs, not just MacJobs.  

Then you are saying that you are interested in having the government stop
raising the cost of labor with things like plant closing laws, health
insurance laws, minimum wage laws, family leave laws, pro-union laws, etc.

One thing I find interesting is that when news of changes for the better 
occur in employment, they are criticized by the left no matter what segment
they occue in.  If the new jobs are well-paying, they claim that this neglects
the poor.  If the growth is in low-wage jobs, they complain that it is "McJobs".

I should point out that high-tech manufacturing jobs are often quite low-wage
jobs.  Inserting circuit cards in slots, or assembling plastic cases, or
inserting chips in boards is not particularly high-vlaue work.

--Brian



Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:11:54 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec18.010103.16762@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <BzCx38.pr@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  The simple, empirical refutation to your argument is even
>>  easier:  In the computer industry there hasn't been inflation,
>>  there's been DISinflation:  the prices for computer products
>>  have been *plummetting* for decades!
>
>that is not relevant, because that disinflation is due to technological
>progress, and is particular to an industry. inflation or disinflation is
>normally considered from a larger-scope perspective.

  But overall, US workers are far more productive than they were
  a few decades ago.  So technological progress is not a unique 
  circumstance to one industry but a major driving force of 
  modern economies.  It was responsible for the Industrial 
  Revolution.   No economic model that assumes steady-state
  productivity or technology can possibly succeed in the 
  modern world.

 
>also -- have prices really gone down? or has computing power just
>gone up?

  Prices have gone down.  You could not have bought a functional
  computer in 1970 for 2000 1992 dollars.   You could not have bought 
  a functional Unix workstation in 1985 for 7000 1992 dollars.



---peter