HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: 26 Jan 1993 14:36:52 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) says:

>It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
>are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
>debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
>the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.
>
>Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
>out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
>which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
>somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.
>
>I feel silly pointing this out be to listen to the discussions on the net,
>you would think that this was news to certain people.


        
         I can't believe what I'm seeing.

         I just can't believe it.

>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform
From: emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff)
Subject: Re: Perot's plan and the debt
Organization: Kubota Pacific Computer Corporation, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1993 22:14:35 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.181315.9972@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:
>Inflation is an option.  This is the usual escape for Third World countries.
>The US is in a good position, because its debt is all in dollars.  (If it
>were, say, in yen and marks, inflation wouldn't help.)  The US would need
>to inflate at least 2:1 over 3-4 years to get the debt down.  Too slowly,
>remember, and the old T-bills mature and have to be refinanced at higher
>rates.  This is probably what will happen.  30% inflation per year is big
>by US historical standards, but countries have survived it.  But it will hurt,
>and the dollar won't be the world's currency when it's over.
>

	Keep in mind that most entitlement programs have cost-of-living
allowances tied to inflation. So are interest rates. This would mean 
that the deficit will go up as inflation goes up, and may never solve 
the debt problem.


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform
From: quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: 26 Jan 1993 12:18:58 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>>Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
>>out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
>>which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
>>somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.

>But the problem is that all the debt floated by the government
>increases interest rates, so that there is less money available
>for investment (i.e. purchase of corporate bonds, stocks).

This supposed effect of government-debt on interest rate just isn't
so.  The Fed pretty much has absolute control to set interest rates
however it likes, and private rates follow pretty mechanically (except
credit-cards, which remain sky-high no matter how other rates
fluctuate... but that's a different thread).  What has a lot more
effect on the money available in the US for private investment that US
government debt is the decision of the Bundesbank to push its
interest-rates to the ceiling.  The Fed is forced to follow suit, or
else lose all foriegn investment.

-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux)
Subject: Re: Minor Technical Question
Organization: Castle WetWare Philosopher and Sniper
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:43:38 GMT

lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:

] In article <1993Jan21.062627.24905@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
] : lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
] : ] 
] : ] Sure, there's a sucker born every minute--and the stupid ones turn into cynics.
] : 
] : Are you suggesting that one NOT
] : take everything said in a 
] : Political Campaign at Strick Biblical Literal Face Value?????
] 
] Sarcasm and cynicism should not be confused with each other.  The
] sarcastic person, while getting trampled on the way out of the burning
] theatre, says "Maybe we were better off inside."  The cynic stays inside
] and shoots everybody he can, on the assumption he's saving people from
] trampling...
 
Larry,

Thank you for the distinction.

Now before we do a movie date, can
I ask which group you are? And whether
or not we should be sitting in the smoking section?

ciao
drieux

ps: or is that why americans longer have a 
smokong section? For fear that they would
also have to have one for cynics?





-- 
MajorModernDayProblems: 

"If you will not talk with Yourself, 
Why should anyone else?"
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 05:27:02 GMT

dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
>In article <1k5cvt$43g@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>>
>>Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are 
>>so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
>>attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?
>>
>
>We do, it's right there in the platform.

So far, so good. Libertarians believe in freedom of contract.
Employers should neither be coerced by the government into requiring a
closed shop, nor be coerced by the government into requiring an open
shop. Either way, the government is dictating to people.

>OTOH, there is also a libertarian belief (not, to the best of my knowlege,
>in the platform), that unions should be subject to the same anti-trust laws
>as any other business.  UAW and Teamsters would be just as subject to Justice
>Dept. action as ATT and IBM.  (Whether there should be anti-trust laws at
>all is another question, about which libertarians are split.)

Here you are wrong. 

Quoting straight from our platform:

   "Anti-trust" laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting
   competition.  We therefore call for the repeal of all "anti-trust"
   laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which restricts price
   discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.
   We further call for the abolition of the Federal Trade Commission and
   the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice.

Libertarians completely oppose anti-trust laws. They are an odd and
useless restriction on the capacity of companies to compete.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 13:52:29 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.170622.17366@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@beam.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In<1993Jan12.214358.18942@netcom.com> lachman@netcom.com (Hans Lachman) writes:
>>In <1993Jan12.184256.23219@news.acns.nwu.edu> (Edward Ouellette) writes:
>
>>>... How can our system be SO corrupt and still fixable by one certain Texan?
>>>The reality is that Perot tried to capitalize on the public's (temporary)
>>>malaise; once people notice the economy is in good shape they won't really
>>>care about Perot and his 'agenda'.
>
>>The econonmy may be OK today, but if you project current trends, the
>>US Govt will eventually go bankrupt.  If you were a financial advisor
>>and you saw a family doing this, wouldn't you tell them to get control
>>of their budget?  OK, maybe you won't believe it if "one certain Texan" 
>>tells you this, but since you are in love with the two "established" parties, 
>>then maybe you'll believe it if THEY tell you the same story.
>
>Well, when that one certain Texan doesn't seem to understand the concept
>of borrowing money, that doesn't leave too much confidence in his
>macroeconomic vision.

The current economic trend seems to lack an understanding of borrowing.
At least the paying back part.

>
>>So, if you are willing to recognize that there is a problem, then the
>>question becomes, what will YOU do to help fix it?  You are right that
>>it is not fixable by "one certain Texan".  And if you don't want to
>>join his group, then you perhaps should join the "Concord Coalition",
>>a "me-too" group which has the same objectives, but is headed up by
>>establishment-types (Warren Rudman, Paul Tsongas), who might suit your
>>tastes better.
>
>I like these people, but it's irrelevant.
>We get what we vote for.  People vote for deficits.
>-- 
>David M. Nieporent   | "We don't need anymore [sic] wretched refuse.  It's 
>niepornt@phoenix.    |  time to send the Statue of Liberty somewhere else"
>   princeton.edu     |      -- Jack "Not a bigot" Schmidling, 1/7/93
>Baltimore Orioles 93 |


Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:07:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.004735.14256@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>Prove it.   We've had a debt for 200 years.  No problem, unless it gets
>*too* big.
>
I wish you were my banker.

banker: "you've been in debt all you life."
me:     "well in that case, I'd better borrow more"
banker: "but the last few years, you have just been making it worse"
me:     "yea, I think I'd better borrow more"
banker: "ok, but you really cannot afford it"
me:     "look at all this stuff I have, I'm a rich man"
banker: "ok, your so rich, you better borrow more"


Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:5956 talk.politics.misc:70437 alt.activism:21506 alt.politics.usa.misc:992 alt.politics.reform:276 alt.politics.economics:269
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 28 Jan 93 15:24:13 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1993Jan28.052702.2487@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:

|dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
|>In article <1k5cvt$43g@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
|>>
|>>Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are 
|>>so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
|>>attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?
|>>
|>
|>We do, it's right there in the platform.

|So far, so good. Libertarians believe in freedom of contract.
|Employers should neither be coerced by the government into requiring a
|closed shop, nor be coerced by the government into requiring an open
|shop. Either way, the government is dictating to people.

This is an interesting interpretation.  When government says nothing,
it is still dictating to the people.
-- 
Mob rule isn't any prettier merely because the mob calls itself a government
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Wilson's theory of relativity: If you go back far enough, we're all related.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:08:32 GMT

In article <C1Fy16.Bxs@newsserver.technet.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
>are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
>debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
>the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.
>
>Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
>out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
>which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
>somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.
>
>I feel silly pointing this out be to listen to the discussions on the net,
>you would think that this was news to certain people.

This brings up the question, how much of the budget should be spent on debt
service?  22% is the most in recent history in this country.  Even after
WW2 it was only 10%.  Would 50% be ok?  What if we limited the interest
payments (and thus loans) to US citizens only.  Then how much would be
ok?
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:5916 talk.politics.misc:69228 alt.activism:21196 alt.politics.usa.misc:916 alt.politics.reform:208 alt.politics.economics:210
From: josh@foglet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Minor Technical Question
Date: 22 Jan 93 15:59:20 GMT
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot
Distribution: usa
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:

>Are you suggesting that one NOT take everything said in a 
>Political Campaign at Strick Biblical Literal Face Value?????

Actually, campaign promises are the same stuff as money:
promissory notes written against   ...  a huge debt!

--JoSH
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: asoper@wyvern.twuug.com (Aubrey Soper)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Wyvern Technologies
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 21:04:43 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) says:

>>It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
>>are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
>>debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
>>the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.
>>
>>Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
>>out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
>>which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
>>somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.
>>

After all the dollars are sent to Japan and Germany, etc, then what?
-- 

aubrey
---                              ;
><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>'  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>  ><>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: bucknerb@bcars188.UUCP (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ottawa, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:29:10 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.160832.25065@tc.cornell.edu>, beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers) writes: 
|> This brings up the question, how much of the budget should be spent on debt
|> service?  22% is the most in recent history in this country.  Even after
|> WW2 it was only 10%.  Would 50% be ok?  What if we limited the interest
|> payments (and thus loans) to US citizens only.  Then how much would be
|> ok?
This is a political question, and is unlikely to have a majority
view as to an acceptable upper bound, let alone an optimal level.

I'm not sure that this is even the right political question to pose.
Most people in the debt discussion seem to be focused on the
long-term consequences of present U.S. federal financial activity;
they question its sustainability.
I suggest that the appropriate question is whether or not present liabilities
and expenditure patterns are affordable, given the present tax
structure and making a conservative projection of real growth (based upon 
historical patterns).

[Aside:  the answer that I get is "No".
Reneging on unfunded liabilities might be sufficient to obtain
a federal financial regime that does not have a catastrophe
evident in projections, but perhaps not:  the second-order
effects would be considerable.]

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: liberte@cs.uiuc.edu (Daniel LaLiberte)
Subject: Re: Perot's plan and the debt
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:49:19 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.181315.9972@netcom.com> nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

   About half the national debt is owned by Americans, mostly banks, pension
   funds, insurance companies, and retirees.  That's what savings bonds and
   T-bills are used for.  The other half is owned by foreigners, mostly
   foreign banks, etc.

My guiding principal in "fixing the system" is to look for who
benefits, and then to change the incentives so that everyone benefits
in the long term rather than just the short term.

So who benefits from the national debt?  Is it the owners of the debt,
as listed above?  Whoever it is, don't trust them to say or do
anything that will reduce the debt because reducing it would mean they
would have to find some other more productive way to make a buck.

I know the issues are not as simple as this, but generally routing out
the monetary incentives is the key to understanding most of our
problems and potential solutions.  Other incentives to consider:
power, comfort (apathy), inspiration, what else?

Dan LaLiberte
liberte@cs.uiuc.edu
(Join the League for Programming Freedom: lpf@uunet.uu.net)



Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Minor Technical Question
Organization: NetLabs, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:39:06 GMT

In article <1993Jan21.062627.24905@wetware.com> drieux@wetware.com (drieux, just drieux) writes:
: lwall@netlabs.com (Larry Wall) writes:
: ] 
: ] Sure, there's a sucker born every minute--and the stupid ones turn into cynics.
: 
: Are you suggesting that one NOT
: take everything said in a 
: Political Campaign at Strick Biblical Literal Face Value?????

Sarcasm and cynicism should not be confused with each other.  The
sarcastic person, while getting trampled on the way out of the burning
theatre, says "Maybe we were better off inside."  The cynic stays inside
and shoots everybody he can, on the assumption he's saving people from
trampling...

Larry
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 19:42:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: (speaking only for myself from Austin, Texas)

In article <1993Jan26.162924.25658@tc.cornell.edu> beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers) writes:
>In article <C1GvEr.151w@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>
>>	6.  Anyone who cares about the GNP is a fool.  It is the NNP
>>	    (Net National Product) that counts.  Interest on the debt
>>	    is not counted in the NNP, is it?
>>
>Ok, I know I am not an economist, but I enjoy this news group to provide
>opinions, arguments, and information.  This is what "humble lovable" Ross
>would want.

Your prose drips with the sarcasm of youth.


>So what is NNP?  I know what GNP is, and I know that the US has switched 
>to GDP for its statistics and so forth.  IS NNP anything like GDP?

Net National Product.  GDP is Gross Domestic Product.
No, NNP is not the same as GDP.

>Also, can we use GDP to compare to GNP when looking at historical data?

No.
But, you don't need historical data here, junior.  You need only
try to answer the question, "what happens when the proportion of
the total expenditures of the US Government for interest exceeds
any other budget item?"


>Does anyone have budget info that does not include social security, but does 
>include "off budget items"  I would like to knwo how the debt compares to
>historical data, but they switched to including ss into it.  What was done
>with "off budget" items in the past?  


It doesn't matter.  But, in case you want to know, historically
nothing was "off-budget."  Starting in the 1970's this became more
and more of a practice.  Thus, you may NEVER be able to get an
accurate historical accounting.

-- 
   _  Alan R. Weiss   IBM AWS Austin-AIX Kernel   11501 Burnet Rd, Bld 905
 _| ~-. alan%auntbea.austin.ibm.com@ibmpa.awdpa.ibm.com | Austin, TX 78758
 \, *_} arweiss@netftp.austin.ibm.com  - NEW ADDRESS    | 512-838-8281
   \(   DISCLAIMER:  Working at, not speaking for, IBM  | alan@auntbea
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: goykhman@apollo.hp.com (Red Herring)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:15:50 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <C1GsJI.2rB@rice.edu> byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd) writes:
...
>You condescend by assuming those who backed Perot don't understand
>where that money goes.  Let's look a little deeper than you seemed
>to be willing to go:  Where does the interest on the national debt
>go?   For one, it goes unequally to those with more money. ...

    Hence a new political phenomenon: a wealthy bondholder running for 
    President on an austerity platform designed to bolster his/her bond
    portofolio.

    Wait till Bill Gates forecloses on the federal goverment and becomes President:)

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Follow the money" Deep Throat
Disclaimer: Other opinions are mine only
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics