HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bj368@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Mike E. Romano)
Subject: Economists Predict Unemployment (theirs)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 92 02:37:28 GMT


Stephen Tomlinson under the message "The New Economy" quotes economist
Beck as stating that one of the great "four new engines of economic
growth" in the U.S. is the health industry.
Great.  First we get the great recession.  Then NAFTA comes along....
taking hundreds of thousands of more jobs across the border.

Now we can look forward to the great new engine of economic growth:
the health care industry....in the only western country without a national
health care system, where health costs are ridiculous...
I guess I can look forward to getting a job in a hospital if nothing else.
Somehow I cannot view health care as a fundamental --positive-- driving
force in any economy.
I prefer to look at it as a necessity.  Perhaps similar to the fire depart-
ment.  If for some reason the U.S. is headed for a great increase in fires,
then that would mean new jobs in fire departments...and therefore a "great
new engine of economic growth..."
-- 
            Mike Romano     Univ. Calif. Berkeley
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: adamg@eff.org (Adam Gaffin)
Subject: New England economic data online
Originator: adamg@eff.org
Organization: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:11:46 GMT


The Federal Reserve Bank of Boston and the University of Maine have run a
BBS for a couple of years to disseminate all sorts of economic data. Now
most of the files from this New England Electronic Economic Data Center
are available through anonymous FTP at neeedc.umesbs.maine.edu (note the
three e's in "neeedc")
 
They cover everything from unemployment to housing to energy 
statistics going back to 1969, and are updated monthly. As you might 
expect, they tend to focus on the New England states and cities, but 
most of the files also have a column for nationwide numbers.  Almost 
all the files can be imported into a spreadsheet (they provide simple
directions for Lotus and Quattro).
 
The ftp site also has gross state product data from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis.  Unfortunately, one thing not on the ftp site, at 
least not yet, is the Commerce Department's National Trade Database. 
To see that, you'll have to dial into the original BBS:  (207) 581-
1867.


-- 
Adam Gaffin
adamg@eff.org     Voice: (508) 626-3968
Putting the Internet on paper!
From: fpf@cepheus.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Empty Philosphies
Date: 13 Aug 92 15:02:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: gasco.1992Aug13.150256.2934
Distribution: na
Organization: NorthWest Natural Gas Company of Portland Oregon

Despite numbering your paragraphs, you've STILL not made
a single, substantive point.  Perhaps discourse, for you, really
is nothing more than unsubstantiated, declarative statements.
Well, since logic and demonstration won't do, lets move to a different
level, the heart. 

Let's not talk about what Libertarianism "needs" as an intellectual
justification, rather let's focus on what it "feels" like as an
experience.  Whatever rhetoric it may spout about "choice" and
"individual rights" and "Liberty", Libertarianism is a cold hearted,
almost cold blooded creed.  It does not argue against compassion, empathy
and humanity, it simply has no place for such concepts--save as examples
of individual consumption decisions, of no particular interest in themselves.

This is a doctrine which flows from the dark side of the human spirit.  It
does not encourage one to ask of his fellows "how do you feel?", "can I help?",
but rather engenders the "you've made your bed, now lie in it"  response.
This may be sometimes be vaguely satisfying, but it is so in a dark and
unhappy way.  Of course, you will claim I miss the point (or worse).  
Libertarianism (you might well claim) doesn't discourage personal "goodness"
but merely sees this as another issue outside the boundrys of the doctrine.
Exactly, being warmly human is something you do outside of your cold hearted
doctrine, like choosing to play baseball, or buying a piece of bubble gum.
The creed has no enmity toward "fellow feeling", simply no place nor feeling
for it.  

Bye the way, I really am sorry about the "weasel" bit.  It was unnecessary
and unfair.  Still, I really am not at all afraid to tease any weasel.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: alfred@fml.tuwien.ac.at (Alfred Lehar)
Subject: Option on Bond Futures
Organization: Technical University of Vienna
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 11:29:34 GMT

Dear readers.
I am looking for a model to evaluate options (american and european style)
on bond futures.
If anyone knows some literature, please let me know.

Thanks for your help in advance.
Alfred Lehar
alfred@fml.tuwien.ac.at

Financial Makets Lab
Technical University of Vienna, Austria 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Ontario Deficit?
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 19:40:07 GMT

In article <9208201757.AA16202@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>
>       Well, out of curiosity.  Can anyone confirm that the province
>   of Ontario is running an 11 billion deficit? !

That sounds like a HIGHLY familiar number that I remember seeing in
the Ottawa Citizen a few weeks ago.

The original estimate was of a 9.6 Billion dollar deficit, and
apparently the economic difficulties all around have resulted in lower
tax revenues than expected, resulting in approximately $11B in
deficit.

Any particular reason for the curiosity?  Just my curiosity kicking in
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Libertarian platform...
Date: 18 Aug 92 13:04:32 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


 From <marty@hoqaa.att.com>: I haven't seen a consistent platform
in this newsgroup. I still don't know what that consistent platform
is. etc..etc...


  I happen to have a copy of the Libertarian platform in its
entirety on file. If you are indeed interested (many anti-
libertarians are not even interested in the Libertarian point of
view, totally misunderstand our position, and have never bothered
to read the Libertarian platform to see what we are truly about)
I will either post it or email a copy to anyone interested. It
might surprise many that the libertarians are not interested in
anarchy, do NOT want to eliminate government, and are not in favor
of lawlessness and fraud. Most are simply people who are fed up
with paying 1/3 of their income in taxes and watching government
meddle in their private lives! Hey give us a sound hearing and
a chance!

Jeff

potter@usna.navy.mil
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Empty Philosophies
Date: 18 Aug 92 12:44:06 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug12.003453.3536@informix.com> proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
>Yep, listening to lib'ians telling us that they "don't like paying
>taxes, shouldn't have to pay taxes, not gonna pay taxes" reminds
>me of listening to 5 year olds asserting that all they want to eat
>is ice cream, and they shouldn't have to eat anything else, and
>they won't, so there.

I have a different impression. This "it's mine, it's mine" ranting
of the propertarians reminds me of nothing so much as teenage 
"stay out of my room"-ism.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: Free Trade or Comparative Advantage
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: University of Minnesota
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:06:24 GMT

jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:

>Using Ricardo's example, here is a dynamic wrinkle...

>If we assume that free trade and comparative advantage is operational,
>the per-capita income and demand for both goods of both countries increase.
>If we may consider wine a food item, Engel's law states that
>the proportion a consumer's income going to food decreases with
>income.  As England's per-capita income doubled, its consumption
>of wine would increase, but less than double.  Manufactured items
>like cloth are less likely to follow the Engel pattern, thus
>Portugal's demand for cloth should double if per-capital income
>doubles.  Real world data seems to show that because of declining demand
>for food, and for primary products in general, there exits
>declining terms of trade between industrial focused and agriculturally
>focused countries (with the decline harming the agricultural).

You can introduce Engel's Law into a static model.  No dynamics are
needed.  The case for free trade in a Ricardian model is independent
of the specific pattern of demand for goods.  In the Ricardian model
free trade raises national income unambiguously.  Thus each country
can continue to consume exactly as much of each good as before free
trade, and more if they wish.

The argument that terms of trade move in a secular fashion against
primary commodities (hence against developing countries) is not new.
It is commonly known as the "Prebisch Hypothesis" and rests on some
questionable assumptions about how technological change is distributed
internationally.  (By "questionable" I mean "unverified".)  It is also
not clear whether the declining terms of trade are a real empirical
phenomena.  It depends on the time period that you look at.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
T. Scott Thompson                  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics
University of Minnesota
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 19 Aug 92 06:44:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: desire.1992Aug19.014425.3590
 <1992Aug18.133518.3570@desire.wright.edu> <52034@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52034@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.133518.3570@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <7994@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>>Who am I supposed to believe is the serious Libertarian?  George
>>>>Tucker, who believes that scams by business are as nothing compared to
>>>>what government perpetrates?  Or Jimbo Wales, who wants government to
>>>>watch business stringently to keep it honest?
>>
>>	Milton Friedman, economically.
>>
> 
> The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
> world over.

	Ahhh, that's Milty.  Nobel Prize, likes American cars, can run small
countries from his college office.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Derailing the Reagan Revoltion, part I: Reverse Reaganism
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:22:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.093945.9023@dscomsf.desy.de> hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phill  
Hallam-Baker) writes:
> 
> Running up the worlds largest budget deficit in the process. 

Voted for by a Democraticly controlled Congress that agreed to cut spending and  
then reneged.

> Derregulation caused the S&L disaster. 
> 

By insuring S&Ls regardless of their stability.  Again, look to the  
Congressional fatcats (Dems and Reps both) and their buddies like Keating. 


--
Barry Wise
From: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Date: 19 Aug 92 15:03:21 GMT
Article-I.D.: usenet.1992Aug19.150321.29646
Reply-To: au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)


In a previous article, burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris) says:

>In article <22713@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>>In article <3dbb033e4f1400@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>
>
"Growth" is a false category. So is "investment" . These false
categories have led us into the economic mess that the U.S. is currently
in.

Growth can mean more yachts or golden staircases are being produced
by backward hand labor - and the whole society falls apart as the 
wealthy are catered to.

Or as a Wall Street Journal arttical a couple of years ago talked about
-
funding *casket* makers to make more caskets to bury people (and the 
economiy in)).

What is needed is that more of the wealth of the society go to more
of the people of the society.

And there is a need for more *WEALTH* for the society, not *growth*
for the wealthy at the expense ofthe society.

This requires figuring out where such walth comes from. It does 
*not* come from *investment* but from *labor* and *nature*, as
Sir William Petty, the Father of Scientific Economics, pointed out in
the 17th Century. He explained that Labor is the Father and Nature the 
Mother of*WEALTH* and that Labor is the active element and Nature the 
passive.

That means labor legislation at the very minimum which shortens the
hours of work and vigorously enforces health and safety regulations,
the rights of workers to ORGANIZE into LABOR UNIONS OFTHEIR CHOICE
(which means getting rid of mandatory membership and dues collection -
i.e. returnign to the right of a union to represent workers in a shop if
they have a majority vote, but workers keep the right to voluntary join
or pay
dues to that union.)

Only an economic policy of government which enforces high standards in
how employers treat their workers can begin to change the economic
crisis in the U.S.
     Rond

-- 
Ronda Hauben  Amateur Computerist Newsletter
P.O. Box 4344   other email addr:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126
From: fpf@cepheus.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Empty Philosophies
Date: 12 Aug 92 22:35:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NorthWest Natural Gas Company of Portland Oregon


	I return from a refreshing vaction and find a posting from
one Jimbo Wales taking me to task for my comments on what I view
as Libertarianism's empty philosophical basis.  From 
a purely objective perspective, Jimbo's response to my posting is even
more empty than the philosophies I attack.  Mr. Wales huffs and preens and
bellows and mounts a number of personal attacks, but fails to
make a single, substantive point.

Jimbo denies that Libertarianism has even a touch of materialism about it,
and asserts independence from so much as an iota of Enlightenment
thinking.  I am accused of attacking a "straw man"--of attacking something
other than the Libertarianism I claim I'm attacking.  This may be true, but
Mr. Wales surely fails to demonstrate such.  Indeed, all he does demonstrate
is a tendency to pompus proclaimations.  

In response to my pointing out the obviously "atomistic" nature of the 
individual in Libertarian (indeed even Lockean) thought, and the irony
in the fact that such a thinker would fail to understand the fundamental
Christian worry about the danger of wealth to the immortal soul; Mr.
Wales comes forth with some irrelevant nonsense about "Capitalism" and
"Liberty" and the kind of men these "social gifts" work for: men who
are somewhat interconnected and prone to logical error. Fact is, all
this totally misses my point.  In final refutation, Jimbo assures
all that anyone who knows him knows how far removed from Enlightenment
thought *his* philosophy is.  Actually, I don't care a fig about Mr. Wales
philosophy, nor is it clear (Mr Wales obvious beliefs to the contrary)
that anybody else should.

While Mr. Wales agrees that a philosophy that focuses on the material is
doomed to a cancer of alienation, he is stunned at the mention of Marx
as even a partial pallative.  In any event, he fumes, those who think
Libertarianism has anything to do with materialism obviously haven't
done their homework and are "half interested" critics.  Again, this is
merely a proclamation, not a demonstration.  I must point out that
anyone who thinks Marx lacks a non-materialist, humanist side obviously
has not done HIS reading, and merely demonstrates his ignorance in his
flippant "Marx?  A solution to Materialism?" response.  

My original posting stands unscathed.  Jimbo  has merely proclaimed it
wrong, and invited me to read the ruminations of a third rate
novelist and her followers to "put me right".  I'll claim
that Dickens got you weasels right the first time you raised your
cold hearted "philosophy", and (Mr. Wales ukases to the contrary) nothing
has been raised of late to change his dreary assessement.

Francis P. Ferguson
fpf@gasco.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: swami@tcs.com (Venkates Swaminathan)
Subject: Re: It's not a Depression because prices aren't falling?
Organization: Teknekron Communications Systems Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 16:30:33 GMT

In article <seX8v_600awBAeOEV1@andrew.cmu.edu>, Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
|> 
|> Well, I'll agree your grasp (of monetary policy) is weak.  But it does appear
|> to be a lack of education and not a lack of logic.  Let me try and enlighten
|> you a bit. 

|> It is of limited value in
|> reality, although it is a good theory.  

Tom Smith must be an economist. Only they would call a theory "good" even if it
has only "limited" (what does that word mean in this case, anyhow: either a
theory predicts reality or it doesn't) value in reality.

|> Of course, after studying economics, you may start from completely correct
|> assumptions, follow them to their logical conclusions, and still be
|> completely wrong.

There you go again! I have to say this for Tom: he is telling the truth about
economics.

Swami
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Empty Philosphies
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:42:42 GMT

I was going to respond to Frank Ferguson in this space, but
I decided that this newsgroup is inappropriate for a lengthy
discussion of the ethical foundations of libertarianism.

For the record: I am an advocate of the Objectivist ethics as
originally conceived by Ayn Rand.  I am not a materialist nor am
I 'cold-hearted'.  I am a warm and compassionate human being.

Frank has not spoken a single word of economic reasoning to me.
He has done nothing more than offer the unsubtantiated assertion
that I am a 'cold-hearted weasel'.  Those readers with any training
at all in the principles of rational argument will recognize that
the ad hominem attack is not a valid form of argumentation.

Let's move on to a new topic.  Let's talk about economics.  

But above all, let's rise above those who want to attempt to 'refute'
my arguments by smearing my name in mud.

--Jimbo Wales



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 17:58:13 GMT

From article <1992Aug18.143837.16804@cs.brown.edu>, by pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey):
> In article <1992Aug17.172013.10835@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
> |> From article <1992Aug16.204251.29075@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, by n8640664@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Richard Nixon):
> |> > ......   If you remember correctly, the libertarian view is that
> |> > the only legitimate purpose of government is to control/punish the very
> |> > fraud you speak of above, along with the control of violence/property
> |> > crimes, etc.
> |> 
> |> Well, does that include implicit misrepresentation of consumer
> It certainly includes deliberate misrepresentation. It doesn't
> include situations where the consumer could have figured out the
> truth with a modest application of brainpower.

Fascinating.  I think this is a Libertarian saying it should be lawful
to cheat people who don't know when they're being cheated.  Who else
thinks so?  I don't.  Shades of Phineas T. Barnum!  "There's a sucker
born every minute."

> |> .... takebacks of retirement benefits under
> |> cover of fine print, etc.?
> No. Libertarianism assumes that people are willing and able to read
> contracts upon which they depend.

I'm able, but I'm not willing to spend time reading fine print.  Some
people who are very good at their jobs are not even able to read and
understand the fine print.  Making me (or them) spend time reading the
fine print on the back of every sales slip is a tax on our time more 
onerous than the sales tax.

> |> Be assured that the present government safeguards against those
> |> fraudulent and effectively criminal practices are woefully
> |> inadequate.  If you want to prevent them, some agencies of the
> |> government will have to be made much larger, and will have be be much
> |> more intrusive into private business, than they are today.
> |> 
> |> What I am saying is that all this Libertarian fluff about minimizing
> |> government is totally incompatible with the basically liberal aim of
> |> preventing fraud against the public, and you Libertarians are going to
> |> have to decide to tell us which you really mean.
> 
> Most of the disputes that you are talking about are disagreements
> between 2 entities, which can be handled by private arbitration boards
> using traditional contract law principles. Competing judicial systems
> will make justice faster and less expensive, thereby making it easier
> for the average consumer to sue for fraud.

Fascinating again.  I wrote about "preventing fraud" (like the FDA,
you know), and a Libertarian responds by telling me he has a better
way to "sue for fraud."  Of course that's not what I meant.

This is the guy who wants me to trust the interpretation of a written
contract to an unregulated private arbitrator.  Excuse me if I don't
buy that.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 14 Aug 92 16:50:01 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

>Who am I supposed to believe is the serious Libertarian?  George
>Tucker, who believes that scams by business are as nothing compared to
>what government perpetrates?  Or Jimbo Wales, who wants government to
>watch business stringently to keep it honest?

>I get the feeling that arguing with Libertarians is like sailing in a
>shifting wind.  I can't tell where they're coming from.

Do you have trouble with reading comprehension or are your ideological
blinders just getting in the way.

The first poster gave a list of big business frauds and stated that
we needed government agencies to protect us from big business.

George Tucker responds that government has been guilty of bigger
frauds than any business man ever dreamed of.

An assertion which you have not refuted.  Ridicule != Refutation.

Jimbo Wales states that nothing in libertarianism rules out laws against
fraud.

There is nothing inconsistent with these positions.

I'll try for s short summary.

Yes business have and will be guilty of fraud and other dubious behaviors.
No, we do not need massive government regulation to take care of this
problem.  If someone defrauds you, sue the pants off them.

The only government needed in this case is a court, and maybe a jail to
put the little bugger in.

NOTE: Both of these functions can be privatized, but they will still need
to be backed up by the authority of the government in order to be effective.


>							Marty
>marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
>Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
-- 
--Mark