HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 14 Apr 92 20:42:44 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr07.193916.11693@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>
>Actually, the word 'values' implies a standard by which actions are
>measured.  

Not to me.  I was using the word 'value' in the sense of "I value having free
time to do what I please", or "I value freedom of speech."  It just implies
that the named item has some "importance" to me.  I might value standards of
various kinds, but the notion of "valuing" something is more primitive than
anything about standards.

>The concept of 'rights' is just a standard by which values
>are defined.  Like 'values,' 'rights' seem to vary from society to
>society.  

The idea of defining "rights" as standard values is very interesting.  In
fact, I think that is a very good way to think about it.  How do we set
standards (well, we call in IEEE, or ANSI, or ISO :-).

But how "standard" values get established -- that is a very interesting
question, involving psychology, sociology, philosophy, and all sorts of
other things.

>Dan

Kent


--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones)
Subject: icipants in index fut
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 11:00:50 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-10-92 08:08
Replying to: met@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
ME>Subject: participants in index futures trading

ME>Hi! I would appreciate it very much if someone could enlighten the following
ME>question:
ME>"What do we know about the identity of major market participants trading
ME>index futures, i.e. whether they are mutual funds or pension funds or.....,
ME>based on academic/professional research?"
ME>Thanks very much!

My impression, purely on scuttlebutt, is that THE major participant in
US Index Fund trading is Japanese institutions: they sell everything
they own just before each dividend, and hedge the ex-div drop through
the indexes.  This way they never have any income (which would have been
taxed) but make roughly the same amount on the roundabouts, untaxed
capital transactions. The brokerages handle this huge volume essentially
free of charge as a service to get Japanese clients.

Take it with a grain of salt: I'd love to have more details myself.

                                              -dlj.
---
   SLMR 2.0   Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
   RM 1.60: Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: economic skeptics
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:34:08 GMT
Article-I.D.: xuucp.9204071653.AA25991



From: Adam R. Grossman


>   [...Peter Nelson insists that  a more laissez-faire economic policy must
>   first be tested on a local level first...]
>   
>For macroeconomic policy, this is impossible.   The smallest division which
>would  constitute   a fair test is  the   national level.  The  separate(!)
>economies of the individual states  or metropolitan  areas are too  tightly
>coupled in this country.

   But this doesn't mean that plenty of things, school vouchers, private
   roads, private fire and police services, and so forth couldn't be
   tried locally.  To libertarians all thises things spring from the 
   same set of philosophical concepts.   If such simple things as these 
   can't be demonstrated there is nothing to give us optimism about
   the larger changes they propose.

---peter
Organization: Arizona State University
Date: Thursday, 16 Apr 1992 20:50:21 MST
From: C. K. Ng <ASCKN@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Nobel Prize Laureates in Economics

   Could someone be kind enough to post the latest 30 Nobel
prize laureates in economics?  Or could you please tell me
the source to find it?  I guess a good text in economics history
should have the info, but I don't know which text contain it.

   Thanks.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:3729 misc.invest:6787
From: jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
Subject: Re: Black Scholes pricing
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:07:59 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <c4phbjjt@csv.warwick.ac.uk> mausb@warwick.ac.uk (The Jazz Fiend) writes:
>Can anyone explain to me how the Black Scholes derivative securities
>pricing formula is derived, I think it uses Ito's lemma/formula but I don't
>know what this is.
>
>Thanks,
>
>Martin Hopkins
>mausb@uk.ac.warwick.csv

The Black-Scholes formula is derived by assuming a riskless bond
and flat term structure and constructing a continuous hedge
portfolio against the option or derivative security using the
bond and stock(s) on which the option or derivative is priced.
Ito's Lemma is indeed used in deriving the Black-Scholes partial
differential equation; since the underlying stock price is
assumed to follow a geometric Brownian motion, the sample path
of the stochastic process is nondifferentiable and ordinary
calculus rules do not apply. Since Brownian noise is of order
dt^{1/2} the second term in the Taylor series expansion is still
significant as dt goes to zero.

The formula works fairly well for stocks but usually is modified
in practice to take into account thick tails or to allow for the
possibility of Poisson jumps. It works less well for stocks with
low prices (since the variance is assumed proportional to the square
of the stock price and low priced stocks sometimes are close to
bankruptcy, etc..) and especially options based on exchange rates
and stock indices.

There are a lot of good books, technical and non-technical on
Black-Scholes. It has been very successful but since it is
a non-equilibrium model (no information on preferences is
used) it does have limitations.

Mike Orszag
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:47:49 GMT
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <46586@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   But, I don't think that, for the middle class, this moral collapse
   is due to some mysterious "cultural" problem, rather it is a result
   of the increasingly precarious position of the middle class in an
   economy which is being guided to classic third world palace/hovel
   structuring.

The economy is being guided by a government structure which was never
designed to guide economies.  Those of you who would like the
government to guide the economy should vote for a king.  Those of you
who would like the economy to be guided by markets should vote for a
Libertarian.  Those of you who are not sure should move to Canada.
From: kudzu@tfs.com (Michael Sierchio)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: So what's your alternative to Social Security?
Date: 16 Apr 92 01:22:59 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: TRW Financial Systems

The alternatives?

First, do away with it.  It's a ridiculous system in which you're taxed, over
the course of your productive life, hundreds of thousands of dollars in
exchange for a promise that they'll do the same to your children.

Second, do away with welfare.

Third, provide direct payments to those who qualify (poor, disabled, aged)
directly from the IRS as a negative income tax.  This will be a flat tax
of 15% of all income above (X + Y * Z), where X is some amount ($10,000)
and Z is the dependent exemption ($2,500) and Y is the number of dependents
you claim.  A single person making $15,000 and a family of four making
$25,000 pay the same tax - $750.00.  A family of four making $15,000
will receive assistance in the amount of $5,000/year.

Since the 15.3% SS/Medicare tax is eliminated, and a VAT is substituted,
capital will be taxed at a higher rate than labor for the same net tax.
The VAT is a disincentive to consume and an incentive to export.

Combine this with zero tax time-deposit savings accounts, and we might
actually save this country!
-- 
Michael Sierchio                               TRW Financial Systems
kudzu@tfs.com                                     1947 Center Street
                                             Berkeley, CA 94704-1105
(MKS2)                                                  510.704.3380
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:13:09 GMT


From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)

>Still, this only tells part of the story; other factors seem to indicate we
>are significantly worse off than post WWII.  While  total federal debt as a
>percentage of GNP is not as onerous as 1950, the interest payments--or debt
>service--as a percentage of   GNP  is at  an  all  time high: about  7% now
>compared to about 3-4% peak debt service of the  1950s, or nearly  twice as
>high.  I believe this is a more significant measurement.
>
>Also, in the 1950s we had capital to burn (compared to now): interest rates
>were low and we were a net creditor nation.   Now, interest rates  are high
>and we have to borrow from abroad. 


 I agree.  And there's another debt issue here that nobody has
 mentioned (See the front page of yesterday's WSJ for an article
 on this):  *Consumer and corporate debt*.  Consumer debt is at 
 70% of GDP!   It has hardly declined at all during the recession
 (although it might just be starting to)  Corporate debt is at nearly
 60% of GDP, down a bit from the start of the recession.

 The whole country is in hock up to its eyeballs with the government
 being the least of the offenders.

 And what's scary is that everybody is hoping for a "consumer
 led" recovery where consumers will take advantage of low 
 interest rates to borrow even more.  Consider Bush's  "buy
 a house, buy a car" speech last fall: these are the two
 biggest things people go into debt to buy! 

 On a personal note it pisses me off because I manage my money in
 a conservative and responsible manner -- Except for my mortgage
 I have no debt and haven't had any in years.  I save up and pay
 cash for everything I buy.   But companies and property values
 are expiring all around me.  If my property value drops by
 $30K then I'm that much poorer just as surely as if the IRS
 took it or I was held up at gunpoint.   But in this case it's
 the stupidity, mismanagement, heavy debts and recklessness
 of computer companies and banks in my area who are to blame,
 coupled with debt-laden consumers who had insufficient savings
 to ride out a layoff or recession.  (in my neighborhood there
 are couples who make >$100K who don't have enough net savings
 to make a month's mortgage payment!)  What I don't like is
 that in this environment fiscally responsible people can
 get dragged down by all the others.
 


>   Both Germany and Japan have high government deficits...
>
>So what?   Their  high government deficits do  not  make our  situation any
>better.  Maybe we are all making the same disastrous mistakes.

 Yup.  I agree.  And with Japan (which has been underwriting much US
 public debt) going into tough times, we may see the feces impact
 the spinning blades real soon now . . . 



---peter
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Free Trade
Date: 9 Apr 92 03:07:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32420
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <1992Apr9.023512.25927@leland.Stanford.EDU> whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd) writes:

|My understanding of the current economic view of free trade is that free
|trade between two regions allows for a net increase in the economic
|welfare of the two regions

That depends on your theory of trade and production. There are two conventional
models, Ricardian and Hecksher-Ohlin. In the Ricardian model, there is only one
factor and the difference in pre trade prices are due to differences in
technology. Opening up trade allows the cheapest good to be available for all,
and so everyone gains. The model can be extended in a multi-good, multi-country
world. In the Hecksher-Ohlin model this does not have to be the case. Here, we
have two factors, say labor and Capital. Now, the opening of trade may 
improve overall income, but each scarce factor may loose. Thus, a capital rich
country will take over capital intensive goods, and returns to capital rise.
But labor, in the capital abundant nation, may loose out.

There is another theory of trade that has to do with cummulative advantages.
The idea is that the productive capacity of the country is dependent mainly on
time, and that the intial productivity differences or factor intensities are
arbitary or unimportant. In this view, an opening up of trade and destroying of
trade may destroy the productive capacity of a country, thus lowering wages and
incomes for that country. I think everyone thinks that this is a short run
result in any case. The Cummulative advantages people would say that the effect
would be permanent, since trade patterns are highly persistent.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright)
From: sriram@almaak.usc.edu (K. Sriram)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: open economies (was Re: Those Wicked Japs)
Date: 16 Apr 1992 18:12:14 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

In defense: After a long time I am reading this group.  And I did not read 
all the materials posted on this subject.  So, pardon me if what I say here
has already been said by someone else.

In article <studier.703462378@ninja> studier@ninja.life.uiuc.edu (Jim Studier) writes:

>>NOT TRUE, COMPETITION LIKE THIS MOVES JOBS TO JAPAN UNFAIRLY BECAUSE THE
>>COMPETITION WAS NOT FREE. AMERICANS USUALLY CANNOT WORK IN JAPAN, SO
>>THE CONSEQUENCE IS THAT PEOPLE LOSE JOBS...THEY CANNOT SIMPLY CHANGE JOBS
>>AS YOU STATE ABOVE BECAUSE THEIR JOB IS NOW IN JAPAN AND THEY CANNOT GO THERE

>>>Physical capital such as buildings can often be reallocated to new uses.
>>>It is not destroyed as in a bombing. Those who purchase "dumped" products

I am going to take-off on a tangent here.  And that is the reason I
have changed the subject header too.

What I find interesting in the two extracted pieces is the idea that
some factors of production are globally mobile, and some simple are
not.  While capital moves around the world very fast thanks to the
fantastic electronic technology in operation, labor does not.  While
buildings can quickly be modified for newer uses, labor takes time to
be retrained and allocated for a different use. (Our university
recently converted a godown that it bought from May Co., and made a
parking structure out of it!)

Now, this substitution game of modern economic structures has serious
implications for developing countries.  

There are millions in developing countries who will be
immensely glad to go over to the developed world in search of work and
better pay.  And thanks to the immigration barriers we do not see such
movement of labor.  So, even if there are jobs available in the
developed economies, labor does not move to fill in that gap in the
labor market.  So, you see very few cardiologists and plumbers and
computer technicians coming over to the US.  The result is that we
crib about the high medical and plumbing bills.

Now, just as you argue that there are jobs in Japan that Americans
cannot go for, there are plenty of jobs all over the developed world
that labor from developing countries is unable to move to.  What does
your typical open economy argument say about this?  Just suck your
thumb and bite your bum, until one day the real world resembles the
assumed open economy models.

well, just a thought!

sriram
-- 
*****************************
sriram@almaak.usc.edu
                             (213)743-4539
                      **********************
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 9 Apr 92 11:18:21 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr8.152145.425@spacm1.spac.spc.com> iccsap020@spacm1.spac.spc.com (David Cohen) writes:
>I'm getting the idea, from references in various threads, 
>that people are taking libertarianism to be based on anarchism.

Try to be a little more clear with terms here. "Anarchism", like
"libertarianism" is an word with several referents. The 
Anarchism of Kropotkin and Bookchin, for example, is  a political
philosophy which seeks to replace private-property/centralized-state
systems with those based on communalism and personal liberty. 
 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 14:02:22 GMT


From: jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)

>One comment that I would make is that in the interests of
>promoting competition, all frequent flyer programs should be
>outlawed. This sort of re-regulation is justifiable in that
>frequent flyer programs represent a large barrier to entry.

  First of all, let me say, as a frequent flier, that I agree
  that there are genuine problems which have occurred since
  deregulation  (i.e., I disagree with those who claim that
  airline deregulation has been a great free-market success
  story, although I certainly don't advocate going back to
  the old system)

  Barriers to entry are a genuine problem.  As the Economist
  pointed out last October, some 150 new airlines have been 
  started since 1978;  of these only ONE is still in business
  and not in bankruptcy (some did get acquired).

  But I'd like to see some harder evidence that frequent-flier
  rules are a factor.   (Again my usual lament:  if we had a 
  science of economics this would be a lot easier!)  

  Presumably a successful frequent flier program also has
  *costs* associated with it, i.e., the cost of carting around 
  all those passengers for "free" who earned enough miles to 
  take advantage of it.   This has to be reflected in operating
  costs, and ultimately in ticket prices.

  I tend to agree somewhat with Robert Crandall (CEO of Amer-
  ican) who says that airlines go under so often these days 
  because nobody can make any money in the business, and he
  says one reason for this is that bankrupt carriers are allowed
  to remain under the protection (from their creditors) of 
  Chapter 11 for too long, all the while undercutting prices
  in the industry.  He proposes, and I support, a *limit*
  on how long an airline can operate while in Chapter 11,
  of about 3 months.     


>One additional point worth emphasizing is that the hub
>system gives carriers virtual monopoly powers on direct flights
>around their hubs, so that some degree of limited re-regulation
>on a local level on flights originating from hubs might be
>justified to make sure the market works properly; alternatively,
>landing slot rights could be made temporary or limited to a
>maximum per carrier under the antitrust laws.

  Yes, I agree some limitation here is reasonable, at least
  in extreme cases.   The British government swiped some of
  BA's slots a few years go to make way for (Cathay Pacific?)
  and most industry analysts in retrospect seem to think that
  this was a correct decision.    I think allowing a certain
  percentage of slots to "evaporate" every year, i.e. put
  them up for grabs, might not be unreasonable although
  it's not clear to me why this couldn't be done by the 
  local airport authorities.   But beyond ensuring that 
  hub monopolies (i.e., Delta in Atlanta, TWA in St. Louis)
  do not result in barriers to entry, I don't see any need
  for additional regulation in this area.

---peter
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:23:47 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JACKSON.92Apr13063402@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:
>And let us not forget some of the other utopian movements,
>
>	Stalin @ ~40 million dead
>	Mao    @ ~60 million dead
>	Pol Pol @ ~20% dead

You have an odd choice of utopias. Why did you leave Hitler out of your
list?

>Being unpopular or utopian does not confer correctness.

Boy, the internet is just littered with insight these days.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: hgm@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:48:12 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <121943@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
> 
> I was trying to get away from the notion of "rights", and substitute a
> notion of "values".  I just find it harder to get a handle on "rights",
> whereas my values are available to my inspection, at least to some
> extent :-).  That is, I try to make values the more primitive concept,
> and define rights in terms of shared values (which may change, since
> values are inherently emotional and personal and can easily be
> contradictory).  I have never seen any satisfactory intellectual defense
> of the notion of "rights" as axioms.  "We hold these truths to be self-
> evident..." is nice prose, but a statement of faith, not logic.  I share
> the *values* expressed -- just don't buy the reasoning.
> 

Shared values may lead to contractual rights. Rights you and I agree to give
each other but what if our values are not shared. You value this native forest
for its unique flora and fauna and believe it should be protected from any
human disturbance. I value it as a tourist attraction and the bits the tourists
won't get to as a source of timber. I can extract some of my value and create
jobs and bribe the government. You may be able to gather some like minded
people and pool your resources to lobby the government in similar ways. There
may be many other people with intermediate views who may or may not know that a
decision is being made about whether to make the area a national park and what
restrictions to put on it's use. Does whoever represents the minority view have
no right to any recognition of their values?

The views of the majority are not the shared values of all the people and
governments are commonly not elected by a majority of the people and don't
really reflect the views of a majority of those who did vote for them so laws
do not reflect shared values. The people need to know that they have some
rights which are protected from the totalitarian power of the oligopoly which
both the government of the USA and that of New Zealand appear to be.

Helen Marsh