HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: need details on devaluating U.S. currency
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 12:21:36 GMT

In article <5esJ03Tu76p100@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:

>  Can someone help me out with some specifics on devaluation of the
>U.S. dollar.  It is my impression that only the U.S. can devaluate
>U.S. currency. 

>  1) How exactly does the government devaluate the dollar?  Do they make
>     some sort of announcement that $1 is now worh $0.80 or do they 
>     "print" (buy debt) or circulate more dollars into the economy?
>     If the Treasury just puts more dollars into circulation, do they
>     announce a target percentage devaluation or is it decided then by
>     the world market?

>  2) When was the last time the dollar was officially devaluated? Was it
>     in the early '70s (under Nixon)?

Actually what Nixon did was take the U.S. off of the even pseudo gold 
standard it established in 1944.  All monetary units are strictly market
determined.  As long as people (or governments) will exchange dollars for
marks, francs, pounds, yen, whatever, they have a value.  If people holding
marks or yen want a better exchange and stop buying U.S. Treasury bills, then
the dollar goes down.

>     2b) Do you think the U.S. might do it again in the near future (after
>         the November election)?

The more important question is whether the Japanese and Germans will stop
buying U.S. debt.  Or if the Arabs would want their oil paid for with gold
(or yen or marks) and not with dollars.

It's to the advantage of most industrial nations to have a stable currency
which is large enough to handle the international market.  If Europe ever
establishes their EMU as an actual currency, it would probably become the
world currency.

Charlie
>     I'm not sure what issuing new bills would accomplish since the dollar
>     is a truly fiat form of currency with no real worth without the backing
>     of the government (and confidence of consumers).

That's the true issue--trust.

>  It seems to me that devaluation of the dollar doesn't affect people much
>if they are not buying anything outside of this country- i.e. their salary,
>car loan, mortgage, etc. won't appear to change much, but if they want to
>buy that Mercedes or French wine or round-trip ticket to Tokyo the cost
>will be much more than before the devaluation took place.  

But what about that gasoline in your car and the oil that heats your house?
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Aug 1992 19:02:38 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 27058@panix.com, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes: 
>What's wrong with such a process?  Why couldn't it lead to a libertarian
>society?  Is there something wrong with making arguments of principle as
>part of the discussion?  Might not some such arguments actually be valid?
>

By definition the outcome of any negotation between socialists, anarchists, and libertarianisms will not result in wholesale adoption of any one belief
system, there will be a mix, just as there is now. A negotiation is not taking
place if "making arguments of principle" means no compromise occurs. Then then
only way your views will win is either by force or the religious conversion of
enough people to your side. My bet is neither will happen. The next best
strategy is to make a compromise informed by all participants. I believe this
can be done in such away to make everyone equally unhappy, yet with a 
satisfactory system. If you aren't willing to negotiate that you aren't playing
the game. Most libertarians have stated with religious ferver that they
won't compromise there principles, so they aren't playing. If you want to 
win I would sharpen your bayonets...

>No.  In the end the Salvation Army as the last resort should help them. 
>That's why I give the Salvation Army lots of money every year.  Do *you*
>think the Salvation Army should just let them starve?
>

I don't see the Salvation Army making any kind of significant dent
on florida right now. They can't help everybody.

>Why is the government a more appropriate agent for me to try
>to bring into action than the Salvation Army, the United Nations, you
>personally, IBM, the family's relatives and neighbors, or the Emir of
>Kuwait?  If someone wants to say "In the end, X should in the last
>resort help starving families", why does the statement make more sense
>if X is the government than if X is one of the other possibilities?  It
>seems to me you don't recognize that these are questions that require
>discussion.
>

There are needs for people in the country that are not beeing met by
private organizations. I and majority of others, apparently, believe people
should be helped in and organized manor and not be left to the winds of
fate. The court of last resort is the government. In then end
you believe this as well by investing all legitimate use force in the state.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: too much junk
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:28:37 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <12071@cis.rand.org>, cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave) writes:
> 
> I second the original poster's comments.  I thought this was sci.econ, not
> alt.econ.  There is precious little economics in here, and what there is,
> is macro.  Bummer.

	Well?  Micro us!

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:02:03 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep3.113009.3887@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <BtyC8K.JBt@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>> Libertarians frequently claim that reducing governmental interference
>> in markets makes them freer and more efficient, so that they will
>> expand faster than otherwise.  They claim that public sector spending
>> is always less effective than private sector spending.  I trust I
>> need not give references for these claims?  Yet, they are undemonstrated,
>> and so prejudice rather than science.
>
>	That's not the kind of prejudice that Victor is implying.  Rather the
>racist kind.

No. Chris Holt understood my point, and you did not.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 92 16:51:12 GMT

In article <BtyC8K.JBt@newcastle.ac.uk>, Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
|> 
|> Libertarians frequently claim that reducing governmental interference
|> in markets makes them freer and more efficient, so that they will
|> expand faster than otherwise.  They claim that public sector spending
|> is always less effective than private sector spending.  I trust I
|> need not give references for these claims?  Yet, they are undemonstrated,
|> and so prejudice rather than science.
|> 
	[talk.politics.misc removed from Newsgroups]

Since this is sci.econ (I'm not interested in the other newsgroup),  let's confine this
to libertarian-leaning economists (I think most economists shun the labels we would like
pin on them).

This short answer is that,  by and large,  such economists claim no such thing.  In
_The Calculus of Consent_,  Buchanan and Tullock attempt to demonstrate how utility
maximizing individuals will indeed combine to place some expenditure in the public
sector;  and they investigate the conditions under which it is "more efficient" than
the alternatives.  Even theoretically,  this set of conditions is non-empty.

What I have characterized as "libertarian-leaning" economists are not entirely the
simple-minded lot you would make them out to be.  Nor is there unanimity amongst
them on public vs. private sector resource allocation.  At least in the economic
sphere,  "libertarians" don't ALWAYS claim what you say they claim.
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Subject: Clintonomics (Was: Re: American underclass)
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:57:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug27.075953.29811@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In eric@Turing.ORG (Eric Prestemon) writes:
>
 [---]
>
>Now say that the rate is changed so that they loose only $.50 for every
>new dollar of benefit.  If the person gets a $1200 raise, welfare is reduced
>by $600, giving a total income of $4800.  If they get a second $1200 raise,
>the benefits are reduced another $600 (to $0), giving a total income of
>$5400.
>
>Does this mean that the amount of income that can be earned while still
>"qualifying" for welfare has been increased from $4200 to $5400?  If
>so how many people earning $4200-$5400 are now eligible for some
>welfare benefits (and how much will that cost)?
>
>The other way of making the new rate "balance" is to reduce the 
>welfare payment.  For example, the person making $3000($250/mo) 
>would get their welfare cut from $100/mo to $50/mo. 
>

 This is exactly why welfare is such a slippery slope. Once people are
 on it, they can't (sic: "don't want to") get off it. The only real way
 economically (hey, this is an economics newsroup, right? :-) to get people
 off the "dole" is to raise the opportunity cost of staying on welfare. This
 is what Clinton is trying to push for (according to THe L.A. Times).

 Basically, He wants to raise opportunity cost for welfare by making recipients
 contracted to serve some units of time in public service for some unit of $$'s
 received in welfare.

 It seems workable. It worked in the past (circ. 1930's WPA, National Recovery 
 Assoc, et. al). Although "successful" is open to interpretation :-). Given 
 many parallel's with the current economy with the 1930's, maybe the time has 
 now come for such a move. At least a drastically revision in employment policy.  
 At least that is the view from T. A. Kochan, in his MIT report (MIT Sloan School 
 of mgmt report: 7-60-92, WP#: 3425-92-BPS).

--

Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 02:34:43 GMT

th: TODD Hoff (sorry)
ps: Paul Sand

th: The implementation of libertarian ideals will lead to policies the
    majority of americans view as cold-hearted. Game theory research has
    shown without a doubt people have a sense of "fairness" flatly
    rejecting traditional economic assumptions concerning rational
    behavior.

ps: The first sentence is--at best--an assertion of the current mood of
    the electorate.

th: It is this "mood" that elects politicians. I don't see the mood
    changing--at least in my crystal ball--enough to swing the mood in
    favor of libertarians. If you do, when and why? The societal changes
    would have to be profound.

Maybe. But more or less profound social changes do happen every so
often; you claimed that libertarianism could *never* have significant
impact on politics. Do you want to stick with that claim, or not?

In any case, my problem is not with you looking into your crystal ball;
we all know how seriously to take things like that. It's the bogus
scientism invoked regarding what `game theory research has shown
without a doubt.'

ps: The second sentence looks to be nothing more than a restatement of
    the first, pretentiously inflated to look like immutable and
    universal scientific fact.

th: Wow, I am pretentious and I stated an immutable and universal
    scientific fact--both without even trying![...]

No, let's be clear: you stated something that you were trying to make
*look* like scientific fact.

th: Now how about a real response? The game theory bit has been widely
    published. The implications of said research are, as always, IMHO.

The thing of it is, it doesn't look like game theory at all to me, 
it looks like glorified opinion polling. (Or is that considered
to be the same thing nowadays?) How about posting a pointer
to this allegedly `widely published' research?
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | God has to have a bang path.
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | A *big bang* path.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | 	(Craig Dowell, in rec.arts.books)
Organization: Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Wed,  2 Sep 1992 17:36:15 -0400 
From: Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: RBC Modelling

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 2-Sep-92 Re: RBC Modelling by T. Scott
Thompson@atlas. 
> For those of you who haven't seen these models, the basic idea behind
"technol
> ogy shocks" is something like this:
>  
> Y = real output per worker
> K = real capital per worker
>  
> Assumed production function:
>  
>          Y = T * f(K)
>  
> where T is an unobserved variable (discussed below), and f( ) is some
> function fixed up to a possible unknown parameter.  Typically it is
> assumed that
>  
>           f(K) = alpha * (K ** beta)      (Fortran notation here)
>  
> where alpha and beta are unknown but fixed coefficients satisfying
> alpha > 0 and 0 < beta < 1.  This is the Cobb-Douglass form.  It is
> chosen for convenience, not because it is "based on macroeconomic
> data".
>  
> Substituing and taking logs we get
>  
>         log Y = log alpha + beta*log(K) + log T
>  
> We may assume without losing any generality that log(T) has zero mean
> (or any other convenient normalization) since it appears linearly with
> log(alpha) and both are unobserved.  The parameters alpha and beta are
> fit to data by some means (the "calibration" refered to by Mr. Orszag,
> although other methods, statistical estimation for example, are
> conceivable).  log(T) is the "technology shock" of the model.
>  
> Interpretation: log T represents the difference between log Y and log
> f(K).  If we think of f(K) as representing a "long run" or "average"
> production function, then this difference is essentially the deviation
> (in logs) between actual output and the output predicted by the long
> run production function.  This difference may represent temporary
> changes in productivity.  Hence the name "technology shock".  

But this begs the question.  What is it that is generating the temporary
change in productivity.  Surely it is not a process of "technological
forgetting".  If the argument is that this reflects technological
breakthroughs, then one must point out that as a practical matter, any
given breakthrough (new technology) diffuses very slowly across the
economy.  As a result, the effect on productivity (economy wide) is
going to be very small.  Basically, as Bob Hall once remarked, (and I am
not sure he was the first to make the observation) the RBC model appears
more appropriate to an agricultural economy where annual changes in
rainfall can do the job of the "technology shock".

> It may
> also represent many other things, however, including the inability of
> the _assumed_ form for f(K) to capture the actual relationship between
> inputs and outputs.  It may also be capturing the errors that are
> introduced by working with aggregate data rather than modelling the
> complex underlying market structures directly.

[]
cheers
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 25 Aug 92 21:33:54 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 11244@newshost.unh.edu, pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
>th: Ted Hoff
>

It's Todd Hoff actually. Although a lot of junk mail comes to me addressed
Ted Hoss. I guess junk email can be misattributed as well :-)

>th: The implementation of libertarian ideals will lead to policies the
>    majority of americans view as cold-hearted. Game theory research has
>    shown without a doubt people have a sense of "fairness" flatly
>    rejecting traditional economic assumptions concerning rational
>    behavior.
>
>>The first sentence is--at best--an assertion of the current mood of the
>>electorate. 

It is this "mood" that elects politicians. I don't see the mood changing--
at least in my crystal ball--enough to swing the mood in favor of
libertarians. If you do, when and why? The societal changes would have to be 
profound.

>>The second sentence looks to be nothing more than a
>>restatement of the first, pretentiously inflated to look like
>>immutable and universal scientific fact. 

Wow, I am pretentious and I stated an immutable and universal scientific
fact--both without even trying! Now how about a real response? The game
theory bit has been widely published. The implications of said research
are, as always, IMHO.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: Republican Controlled Congress
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 22:00:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.113852.18938@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <1992Sep2.034908.25616@midway.uchicago.edu>, sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>> 
>>   I was asked to clarify an earlier point I made regarding the top
>> 100 spenders in congress.  The following is the source of my
>> information.  Please let me know if you find any typos so that
>> I may correct my copy.
>
>I think a more accurate total would be just the votes for legislation
>that become law.  That's a more "where the shoe hits the pavement"
>sort of total.  Of course even then some will wait until there are enough
>votes to pass and then vote against, so that they can claim to be against
>the spending while not alienate their consituents that support the spending...

  Certainly there are different ways to go about measuring this.
However, there is certainly a strong correlation between this list and
the conclusions one arrives at simply by studying individual congresspeople
and their voting records.  (Since many on the list are from IL, I am
privy to slightly better information concerning them.)

  You may want to send your suggestions to the NTLC.  
However, even my Senator, the normally T&SL, Simon, agreed with the overall
conclusion.  In fact, he won quite some respect from me for it.

  In my view, to ignore the correlation is to put on some partisan blinders.
But, my opinions are my own and there is little point in arguing 
the matter.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Business Cycles
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 02:54:27 GMT


Does standard economic theory uphold the "business cycle" theory? In other
words, is there any evidence that we ** must ** have a recession 10 or 15 years
from now?

In Canada, and to a lower extent in the U.S, inflation has stabilized at levels
not seen since the late 1960's. Do economists predict that these levels will
stay put for a period of a few years? If so, can we expect interest rates
to remain fairly low ( Even though the ** real Interest rate ** is not lower
than it was before)?

I read a very good book on investing, Wall Street, etc.. called " A Random Walk
Down Wall Street" by a Princeton finance prof. The book is well documented.
Has anybody heard of major objections to the book? DO people share my opinion
about it?

IShay 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Thomas Jefferson
Date: 27 Aug 92 11:49:08 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna




  Thomas Jefferson was a libertarian! Yes he advocated an 'agrarian
ideal`, however the burgeoning manufacturing sector had not yet
begun to explode during his presidency. It is entirely possible
that he did not forsee the explosion of technology and the resulting
benefits to mankind. 
   Jefferson was not anti-business though (although some would
consider eradicating protective business tariffs as anti-business,
I see it as pro-freedom). During his presidency he considerably
downsized government. He shrunk the military and got rid of the
National Bank that Hamilton had instituted.
   Jefferson was totally against the power of federal government
and wanted government taken to the states and local offices where
the legislators were more accountable to the people. He faught the
Federalists (namely Hamilton) consistently throughout his career.
How can anyone say that this man did not believe in personal
freedom and small government?

>From Jefferson's 2nd inaugural address:

" At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or
ill. The suppression of unnnecessary offices, of useless
establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal
taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to
their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary
vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from
reaching successively every article of produce and property."

other quotes:
   "That government is best which governs least."


Jeff



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt)
Subject: Re: How Long it will Take to Pay back the Debt (Life in the 24th century)
Organization: Advocates for Self-Government - Davy Crockett Chapter
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:08:32 GMT

idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman) writes:
: 
:  Then how do intend to pay for a neglect of infrastructure and education?
: 
:  California can't even pay its civil servents now.
: 
I want everyone to be able to get quality, affordable education.
Education, as most government services can give better quality at half
the cost if it is privatized.  By privatizing services now provided for
government, and getting rid of the unecessary ones, it would be
theoretically possible to pay off the national debt.
: 
: Ishay
-- 
Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report
From: wich1820@maynard.ww.tu-berlin.de (Thorsten Wichmann)
Subject: too much junk
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 12:38:03 GMT

What about separating this group into something like "theory/stats" and  
"debate" so that I dont have to waste my employers money scanning junk when  
looking for serious announcements??

Thanks.
Thorsten
==============================
T. Wichmann, Dept. of Economics, Technical University of Berlin