HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 18 Dec 92 03:55:09 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec9.112559.367@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:

>> Ok, what about the elephants? As I understand (admittedly I have not read
>> any Keynes),
>
>Please take the time to read and understand what Keynes was saying before
>criticizing him (for your own misconceptions).

As I understand it, Keynes was saying that increasing public sector
employment is a good thing during a recession, no matter what the jobs
were. Please inform me of his intentions if I am incorrect.

>> Keynes satirizing the gold standard was further evidence of his economic
>> ignorance.
>
>Is Milton Friedman also ignorant due to his rejection of the gold standard?
>
>  "It is neither feasable nor desirable to restore a gold- or silver-coin
>  standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money.  The best arrangement
>  currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage
>  rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range."
>	- Milton Firedman, "Free to Choose", p296.
>

Yes he is. By leaving the control of the money supply in the hands of 
the all-knowing government, you merely allow it to resort to inflation 
again. The best method for keeping the money supply relatively stable
is the gold standard. It worked very well in the 18th and 19th centuries,
when not sabotaged by the government. Here the minting and mining of gold
are open to everyone, but no matter how much people scramble to find
gold, they can only increase the supply by a small percentage each year.

This method has worked very well in the past, and there is no reason why
it could not be reinstalled. (c.f. Paul,R.,"The Case for Gold")

What I said before was that Keynes remarked favorably on the value of 
the dollar during the 18th and 19th centuries, but wasn't able to grasp
that the reason for this was the gold standard.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Dumping
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:44:03 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BzEr6J.Dy6@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com I (Peter Nelson) wrote:

>   They COULD rise simply because if more US industries go under
>   we will not be exporting enough to create sufficient demand for
>   US dollars.   Moreover, massive unemployment and a huge national
>   debt could create social instabilities that could further lower
>   the US dollar.    Given this, I could easily see a scenario where
>   if the US car industry went under foreign car prices would rise
>   dramatically.  

   In today's Wall Street Journal some major US manufacturer's
   association (whose name escapes me at the moment) characterized
   the outlook for US exports as "very bleak".    They expect the
   current US trade deficit to widen by about another $15 billion
   and see no hope for relief in 1993 due to the troubled European
   and Japanese economies.   
                         

---peter


Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pkk36438@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Polygon)
Subject: Economy of Corruption
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 23:07:21 GMT


	Recently I read an artical about the economy of corruption.  It
argues like this:
(1) If the demand for a certain good or service is high but the supply
    is low, the buyers will be willing to pay more to get the good or
    service.
(2) In mainland China, the demand for better housing, the right to do
    business or to open a factory, or the ownership of stockholder
    warrent, or the right to buy land is very high.  Buyers are willing
    to pay bribe to get the product or service.
(3) There is nothing economically harmful at this stage.  However, the
    government officials learnt how to take advantage over this
    situation.  They simply keep the supply low ( by not improving
    working efficiency, etc. ) so that they can collect the bribe
    without working harder.  Note that politics involves here.
(4) As a result, the buyers and sellers will concentrate on how to
    build up an interpersonal network to ensure everyone gets what
    they want.  In this way, the productivity will not be improved due
    to the lack of incentive.

	A friend argued that the supply-and-demand law will still hold.
He listed electric fans, cars, and other daily-used goods for example.
I consider those example irrelevant.  I am convinced that corruption
is a result of monopoly or obligopoly and is a kind of economic
struggle.

	Who has the more convincing arguments?  Please send me e-mail
if you care to respond.  I rarely read sci.econ.  Thank you very much.

						Peter


Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Japanese Workers
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 18:48:55 GMT

In article <louis.724349346@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>I would also bet, but cannot prove, that the Sony employees in Japan are
>earning more assembling PowerBooks than the Apple workers in the US are
>assembling desktop machines.  Anybody know the answer?

Define "more."  Odds are an American earning $30K a year has a much
higher quality of life than a Japanese worker earning the Japanese
equivalent of $33K a year.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9478 alt.amateur-comp:383 talk.politics.misc:64792 misc.misc:4127
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 18 Dec 1992 17:04:15 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Charles M Kozierok) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
|> also -- have prices really gone down? or has computing power just
|> gone up? i paid about the same for the computer i bought this year
|> as i did for the one i bought in '86. it is a much better machine,
|> but it cost about the same.
|> 
You're kidding, right?  What you always bought was computer power, not
1 cubic foot of computer components.  The cost of application power has
dropped by more than 3 orders of magnitude in the last 20 years.
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:06:19 GMT

In article <37945@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.050929.29917@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>>Keynes satirizing the gold standard was further evidence of his economic
>>>ignorance. 
>>
>>I believe quite the contrary, unless you can explain why we should
>>let miners and random exogenous shocks determine the level of the 
>>money supply.
>
>Any jolts that occured during nineteenth century for these reasons 
>pale greatly in comparison to the jolt of the Great Depression, which
>was caused by an increase in the quantity of money by the Federal Reserve,

False.

>and this is EXACTLY what Keynes offered as a solution to unemployment.

False.

>>"Complete" failure?  We're not in a Depression any more, are we?  Huey Long
>>and Charles Coughlin and the Stalinists had their thunder stolen, didn't they?
>>(The economy grew at a 8-13% clip throughout FDR's presidency, so don't give 
>>me the "only because of WW2" argument.)
>
>The New Deal made things worse. 

False.  Ask anyone who actually lived then.

>>>Thanks to Keynesianism, we, with our monolithic debt, may be on the verge
>>>of a Depresion which will make the Great Depression of the 30's look like
>>>a cakewalk.
>>
>>One might attribute the recent doubling of the debt/GNP in the 1980's to
>>Reagan, rather than Keynes, but that would no doubt create a new thread.
>
>Keynes advocated deficit spending, did he not?

No.  He advocated deficit spending in poor economic times and surplus
spending in good economic times.  Note the difference between this
philosophy and Reagan's, which advocated deficit spending in poor
economic times, and record deficit spending in good economic times.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 16:45:05 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec11.152259.14531@cs.rochester.edu>, fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
|> In article <cSR=Y9B@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >In article <1992Dec10.210803.17652@xsoft.xerox.com>, gorelik@xsoft.xerox.com (Mike Gorelik) writes:
|> >|> In article <W0Q==S_@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> >|> 
|> >|> |> Who makes the CPU?  Also, who cares? 
|> >|> People who have jobs at semiconductor plants? Their families, suppliers,
|> >|> suppliers employees, etc. One or two profs at UM  who might have research
|> >|> grants from semiconductor companies.  Oh, never mind. Those irrelevant
|> >|> little things. Back to the big picture.
|> >|> 
|> >
|> >So your solution would be to keep every business that ever existed in
|> >business, by artificial means if necessary, so that employees would
|> >never lose their jobs?  It is unfortunate that people lose their
|> >job, particularly when it isn't their fault.  Unfortunately this
|> >is the price we pay for economic progress.  What we need is for
|> >the government to get out of the way of businesses so that it is
|> >easier and cheaper to create new businesses.  We do ourselves far
|> >more harm by trying to artificially keep businesses alive (via quotas,
|> >protectionist tarrifs, subsidies, etc.) than if we let businesses
|> >die and help new ones take their place.
|> 
|> What a classic fallacy of argumentation!  Howe, to defend his rather
|> extreme position, mischaracterizes all other positions as occupying
|> the opposite extreme.  It appeals well to those poor souls who can
|> only see things as binary choices.  [...]
|> other settings:
|> 

Were I using my initial statement as an arguing position you might
be correct.  However, if you'll notice, the remainder of the post is
simply my opinion.  It doesn't rely on the initial sentence at all
for its meaning.  Also notice the question mark at the end of the first
sentence.  This is an implicit request for clarification on your
part.  I simply posted what seemed to be the implication of your post.
You moan about workers losing their jobs at semiconductor plants.
What is your alternative?


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Japanese Workers
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:52:44 GMT
Distribution: na

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:

|In article <louis.724349346@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca| louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
||I would also bet, but cannot prove, that the Sony employees in Japan are
||earning more assembling PowerBooks than the Apple workers in the US are
||assembling desktop machines.  Anybody know the answer?

|Define "more."  Odds are an American earning $30K a year has a much
|higher quality of life than a Japanese worker earning the Japanese
|equivalent of $33K a year.

During the great constitutional debate in Canada and the 1992
referendum the YES side (govts, industry) ran ads quoting a UN survey
as to the highest average "quality of life" whatever *that* means.
Canada was rated as No. 1, ichiban, but guess who was rated as No. 2:
Nippon.  I can't remember where the US was.  Of course if I let you
define the weightings to be applied, any one of several countries could
come in first.  Based on leisure time I think the Germans do.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson)
Subject: Re: Dumping
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:40:18 GMT

In article <184632@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>
>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,

Actually, my understanding is that this should be reversed.  As in:

      build capacity, thus dominate the market by price,

From what I can gather the Japanese government's role in the success of
Japan has been to encourage companies to increase capacity and with it
productivity.
>
>     once having established capacity, use this position to springboard
>     to higher margin products in the same industry.
>

Paul.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent)
Subject: "Trade Policy and Market Structure"
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 16:27:45 GMT



  I am currently in the process of reading Helpman and Krugman's
"Trade Policy and Market Structure".  I was just curious if anyone
had any opinions on this book or any points that they feel are
of particular note. 

  Equally important, I was wondering what important points this book
fails to note or any fundamental disagreements others might have with the 
ideas presented in this book.  A simple source reference for alternative
viewpoints would suit my purposes well in this regard.

  Thanks.

Pat

-- 
Patrick Sugent                       

pat@chinet.chi.il.us		     
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 04:43:18 GMT

thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
>>>See "The Fair Trade Fraud" for some good examples of Japanese companies
>>>prosecuted for "dumping", because they didn't waste as much money in
>>>middle management as US firms did.

>For the record, there are multiple, quite distinct, definitions of
>dumping floating around.  The one implicitly being discussed here is
>"predatory dumping" where a firm temporarily sells below costs.  It is
>inconvenient because it is hard to measure production costs for
>foreign firms.

>But dumping is often interpreted to mean any situation where a company
>sells a good at lower prices abroad than in it's home market.  (The
>historical rationale for this is that the price in the home market was
>thought to be indicative of production costs.)  This definition makes
>no references to costs but depends only on relative prices (easy to
>measure), and is therefore prefered by those responsible for writing
>the anti-dumping laws.

The actual law is even worse than that. The "dumper" can be charging *more*
in the US than it charges at home and still get convicted of dumping. From
_The Fair Trade Fraud_ by James Bouvard, p. 115:

	"Congress convicted a Brazillian company for selling its frozen
	orange juice for 1.96% less than fair price[32].  The U.S. has a
	40% tariff on orange juice, so Commerce subtracted 40% from the
	Brazillian company's U.S. sale price before comparing it to the
	Brazillian price.  The Brazillian government imposes a 3.5%
	export tax on orange juice, and shipping and freight insurance
	costs probably added at least another 2 or 3%.  Thus, Brazil was
	selling orange juice for at least 45% more in the U.S. than in
	Brazil. But the Commerce Department still considered Brazil's
	prices unfairly low."

( note [32]: Federal Register, March 17, 1987, p. 8326.)

Bouvard also documents many other factors, such as exchange-rate 
variability, and implicit (high) profit margins, that make a free trade 
appear "unfair".

>Maybe someone on the net has up-to-date information on the current
>legal definition of dumping in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In the US, the definition of dumping is selling below the home-market
cost *or* selling below production cost, and we have an entire Department of
Commerce that gets paid to determine when such a thing has happened according
to its own complicated rules. Rules that made possible the above orange-juice
fiasco. "plausible threat to destroy the US industry and corner the market"
is not a factor in our current dumping laws. In fact, most of our dumping
rulings have been against third-world countries. As are most of our tariffs
and quotas. And most of the alleged dumping margins have been smaller than
the US tariff rates on the same products.

>T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:42:43 GMT
Distribution: na

miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman ) writes:

>	Clyde Preskowitz' book "Trading Places" is a good book
>	and is well read in the halls of power in the US.

>	- Michael Goldman

This is one of the most encouraging things I have read in this thread.
I am about finished with it, and plan to do a review -- not as an
economist for I am only a mathematician -- but out of concern for where
the hell we (the North American bunch) are going.

Where does the new Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers stand
on the issues of free American trade versus closed Japanese markets?  
What's her name -- Linda Tyson????

--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: An American strategy for world trade
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:51:03 GMT
Distribution: na

mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:

>In <louis.724383020@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:


>The best thing that the government can do to help business is to set up
>an environment in which business can proseper and then get out of the way.
>Such as investment and R&D credits.

>|Well, I see there is some hope in the semiconductor field, and wonder
>|how much of the present turnaround is due to Sematech?

>None.  Sematech is a project that has absorbed a few billion in revenue
>to create a few million in results.  All of the major participants have
>either pulled out or are seriously considering pulling out.

Mark Wilson and I debated the efficacy of some form of national strategy
for improving the world trade position of American firms.  I thought
Sematech might be such an initiative, but he seems to have "proof" that
it is a failure.  So I did the best I could here in the bush and did a
search of the Readers Guide to Per Literature.  The most promising
reference was to a Business Week, Je 8 '92, but I was unable to get
that.  I did find an article in Science Mr 20 '92, and Physics Today
F '92.  Both articles give Sematech a positive, but not rave review.  I
saw no evidence that is is about to cease, or that "All of the major
participants have either pulled out or are seriously considering
pulling out."

In fact Sematech has modified its goals and strategies to provide what
they call infrastructure support to the American industry, not real
products, such as memory chips.  There is also no evidence that Sematech
is "getting in the way" of American semiconductor companies.

I would like to hear more recent detail on Sematech.  But it can't be
judged on a short term performance, no more that Europe judged the
Airbus "intervention" on a short term basis.

--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 08:27:31 GMT

In article <lissnbINNn7p@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>mike) writes:
>|> 
>|>   nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|>   
>|>   [stuff about unions deleted]
>|> 
>|>   >The correct solution to having good working conditions and good
>|>   >worker treatment is to have an economy that's strong enough
>|>   >so it generates so many jobs that workers are always in demand.  
>|>   >
>|>   > ---peter
>|> 
>|>   Isn't that what causes increased labor prices which leads to run-away
>|> inflation?
>
>No.  Given a constant money supply and no deficit spending, there is only
>so much to go around, and it all - eventually - is paid to someone. 

Well, that kind of neglects the velocity of money, but...

I'm sorry.  I based my labor/inflation statement on reality, not some
fairy tale notion of "constant money supply and no deficit spending".

Oh, and I don't mean that maliciously.  Ideally, it might be great to have
a constant money supply and no deficit spending... but that just doesn't seem
to be a reality at this point in time.

Also, why in God's name would you want 0% inflation?  I could understand 
supporting a Federal Reserve policy of *constant* inflation, say a predictable
-- 

					-- Mike
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Date: 14 Dec 92 22:20:09 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <louis.724124563@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>
>Where does the new Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers stand
>on the issues of free American trade versus closed Japanese markets?  
>What's her name -- Linda Tyson????

    Laura Tyson.  I know that because I had her for a professor :-)
Unfortunately, the class was not on international trade, so I don't know
where she stands on closed markets.

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~