HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 17:51:55 GMT

In article <92279.092606DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.085151.11751@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, markr@mot.com (Mark)
>says:

>>In article <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com      l
>>(Danie
>>E. Platt) writes:

>>>If you go to a hospital, it becomes obvious why costs are so high.  There
>>>is no incentive to keep costs down.  People can go get health care at any
>>>institution regardless of the rates charged.  Most people never really
>>>have to look at their bills; that's all handled for them by the hospital,
>>>who bills the insurance companies directly.  Medical costs are hard to
>>>control because there is effectively no market.

>>This one could be tackled this way : Allow only 90% of medical costs to be
>>insured, while 10% MUST be paid by the patient.  Of course, with a cap
>>of, say 20%, of ones income, so as not to bankrupt the patient, but to make
>>it painful enough that the patient will be inclined to seek out less expensive
>>medical care.

>This describes quite well the system we already have, except for the income
>cap.  The typical American worker with a family paid $720 towards his/her
>health insurance premiums in 1988.  Twenty-three percent had a deductible
>of $200 or more; 76% had a deductible of $100 or more.  Only 5% had no
>deductible.  86% had coinsurance of 20%, 5% had 15 percent, 6% had
>coinsurance of 10%.  The only difference is that out-of-pcoket limits were
>not adjusted for income.  49% had a maximum OOP expenses of $4,000 ore more;
>81% had a maximum OOP expenses of 2,000 ore more.

Unfortunately, one of the problems with Health Care costs is that the
government share of the approx. $600 billion total is the more important
part of the puzzle.  If you divide the amount paid by federal funds by
the number of people this covers, the factors are in the $4,000 per person
range (the average for $600 billion/200 million covered persons is $3,000
per person).  Unfortunately also, the people who are covered by federal
funds care even less about what the charges are.  This group also covers
people who are older or generally less healthy, but the fact that they aren't
paying the bill, even indiretly, is a seriouos cause of this part of the
federal deficit.
From: garry@monarch.eng.ufl.edu (Garry Peterson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Problems with Neo-Classical Economics
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:13:54 GMT
Reply-To: garry@monarch.zoo.ufl.edu (Garry Peterson)
Organization: ARTHUR MARSHALL LAB


A topic for discussion
**********************

The problems with neo-classical economics

(1)  Perfect Rationality.  People are not perfectly rational.  Perhaps in 
simple situations, but definitely not in complex ones.

(2)  Perfect Information.  All people do not have access to all 
information.  Again, in simple situations this approximation may be 
valid, but most situations are not simple.

(3)  Externalities.  Environmental good and services are either not 
valued or are undervalued.  In general, the problem of the commons.

* * *

Attempts by economics to deal with these problems:

(1) & (2) are being dealt with by people applying ideas from chaos, 
game, and adaptation theory to conventional economics.  (For 
example 'The Economy as an Evolving Complex System, ed. by 
Kenneth Arrow).

(3) Ecological economics and to a lesser degree environmental and 
resource economics. (Eg. Ecological Economics ed. by Robert Costanza).

*********

Here is one topic relating to these points which I think is interesting.
-To me this looks like three reasons why free trade is not necessarily 
a good thing.

Comments anyone?

Garry Peterson
Arthur Marshall Lab, University of Florida
From: jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: no political promotions on this bboard
Date: 4 Oct 92 19:13:45 GMT
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Please.

If you dislike Bush, fine.  

If you want to promote/slam political candidates please do it elsewhere.

Thank you.

-jason 
    :)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Re: Surviving the great depression
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:07:08 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA17181; Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:16:37 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09313; Thu, 1 Oct 92 16:13:45 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1767; Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:12:38 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1856; Thu, 01 Oct 92 17:12:38 MST
X-To: sci.econ.usenet

From: full_gl@pts.mot.com ( GLEN FULLMER X3296 SP227-8601)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.individualism,talk.politics
Subject: Re: Surviving the Great Depression
Date: 1 Oct 92 13:29:13 GMT


>I remember him predicting in the book that it would hit in the Summer of 1990.

>Sometimes popular "fortune tellers" and their fans only remember their
>successes at prediction and not their failures.

      Batra does predict that 1990 would be the year.

      What you don't remember from the book, is that he also said that
      if no market crash occurred 1990, the depression could still hit
      in 1992 or 1994.  Apparently he has an "even" year fetish.

      Personally, I buy a lot of what he said.  There's no question that
      the Japanese market has already sustained a crash.  The 1929
      market eventually devalued to 10% of its highest point.  Japan
      bottomed out ( so far ) at 30%.

      Batra does have an annoying habit of picking exact dates, I doubt
      seriously that ANYTHING of human nature could be predicted so
      closely.

      I'll pass judgement on him after 1992 ends.  I've seen some
      ominous banking figures lately.



--
Glen Fullmer,          glen_fullmer@pts.mot.com,                  (407)364-3464
*******************************************************************************
*  "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence                 *
*   over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard P. Feynman *
*******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 08:51:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
> . . . .
>If you go to a hospital, it becomes obvious why costs are so high.  There
>is no incentive to keep costs down.  People can go get health care at any
>institution regardless of the rates charged.  Most people never really
>have to look at their bills; that's all handled for them by the hospital,
>who bills the insurance companies directly.  Medical costs are hard to
>control because there is effectively no market.

This one could be tackled this way : Allow only 90% of medical costs to be
insured, while 10% MUST be paid by the patient.  Of course, with a cap
of, say 20%, of ones income, so as not to bankrupt the patient, but to make
it painful enough that the patient will be inclined to seek out less expensive
medical care.

Mark


Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman)
Subject: Re: Unemploment (Re: Presidential Debates)
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 19:56:06 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Oct2.124453.12327@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>In article <BvG9o0.4KG@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct1.013141.22432@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
>> >What is Bush doing?  If the main reason for avoiding the debates is
>> >his disputes with the format, why did he wait so long to do anything
>> >about it?  Is he trying to use time pressure to force Clinton to
>> >accept whatever terms he chooses, or make it look like Clinton is
>> >the one rejecting the debates?
>> 
>>     Most economists expected that the September's unemployment numbers
>>     due on Friday were not going to be good for Bush.  Hence, Mr.Bush's
>>     sudden change of heart may have stemmed from his handler's attempts
>>     to divert the public opinion from the issue, and that is why Bush
>>     steadfastly refuses to debate Clinton on 10/03.
>> 
>>     On the other hand, one shouldn't completely discount a possibility 
>>     that BLS just came up with a new, creative way to count unemployed
>>     (code-name the October Surprise).  As a result, the unemployment rate 
>>     went down in September making it easier for Bush to participate
>>     in the debates.
>
>Do you mean the way that there were 57,000 fewer jobs last month, new claims
>for unemployment has been up every week for the last 5 weeks, yet the
>unemploment rate went *down* to 7.5%?

    I was just guessing, a day ahead of the unemployment report, but
    now I am convinced that Bush's agreeing to participate in the debates
    was a direct result of the unemployment rate going down, because that
    is the number that most people watch.  Whether or not it was doctored 
    remains to be seen, and we'll not know that until after the elections.
>
>I'm still trying to figure out how fewer jobs and more unemploment claims
>can result in lower unemployment.  Maybe I'll find out after November 3rd...
>
>The country has 200,000 fewer jobs than 2 months ago while the unemployment
>rate has dropped 0.2%.  
>
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: all opinions are mine.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Date: 29 Sep 92 16:48:10 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: SEASnet, University of California, Los Angeles


Our national debt has reached $4 trillions and is raising with explosive 
speed. In average, a family of 4 has $ 80,000 of public debt. Is this normal?

I present here an innovative way out of this mess, and I think this is the
only way:

  To get rid of this debt, simply pay back less than we're supposed to !

But How ?

  We can do it legally by having an INTENTIONAL HIGH INFLATION RATE !

The benefits of this policy is:

* Most of our national debt has fixed interest rates. With a high inflation 
  rate, we will end up paying lower net interest rates.

* The principal of the debt itsefl will be devalued by inflation.

* To promote inflation, the goverment will create new money, which will help
  to finance the budget and reduce the deficit.

Of course, this policy has winners and losers.
The losers are the owners of the public debt: big banks, foreign investors,
"fat" corporations ...
The winners are the majority of American people. With a reduced burden of debt,
the goverment can spend more on education, development and social programs, and
can reduce tax at the same time.
But how about millions of Americans who own Govt. Bonds ?
Well, if their family owns less than $80,000 of govt. bonds, they are still
net debtors: They are still winners.

The only problem of this policy is that the FED, under the influence of big
banks and shark lenders, will never let it happen.

American is destined to bankrupcy !

Kan Nuel.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: info needed
From: richard@technology.com (Richard Murphy)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:45:51 GMT
Organization: Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

Much has been said about tax cuts resulting in new job creating
investments. Can anyone point me to articles or research that
studies this topic. In particular, I'm interested in estimates
how much of each dollar not taxed end up in productive investments
and some sort of measure of process efficiency. Please e-mail
me directly. Thanks.

R. Murphy
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:26:06 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
 <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com>
 <1992Oct5.085151.11751@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>

In article <1992Oct5.085151.11751@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, markr@mot.com (Mark)
says:
>
>In article <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com      l
>(Danie
>E. Platt) writes:
>> . . . .
>>If you go to a hospital, it becomes obvious why costs are so high.  There
>>is no incentive to keep costs down.  People can go get health care at any
>>institution regardless of the rates charged.  Most people never really
>>have to look at their bills; that's all handled for them by the hospital,
>>who bills the insurance companies directly.  Medical costs are hard to
>>control because there is effectively no market.
>
>This one could be tackled this way : Allow only 90% of medical costs to be
>insured, while 10% MUST be paid by the patient.  Of course, with a cap
>of, say 20%, of ones income, so as not to bankrupt the patient, but to make
>it painful enough that the patient will be inclined to seek out less expensive
>medical care.

This describes quite well the system we already have, except for the income
cap.  The typical American worker with a family paid $720 towards his/her
health insurance premiums in 1988.  Twenty-three percent had a deductible
of $200 or more; 76% had a deductible of $100 or more.  Only 5% had no
deductible.  86% had coinsurance of 20%, 5% had 15 percent, 6% had
coinsurance of 10%.  The only difference is that out-of-pcoket limits were
not adjusted for income.  49% had a maximum OOP expenses of $4,000 ore more;
81% had a maximum OOP expenses of 2,000 ore more.

The system of cost-sharing you describe has already been set up.  As
several economic studies show, most notably the Rand HIE, further cost
sharing beyond this level will have minimal impact of health expenditures.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 18:04:20 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <exukjb.269.717783543@exu.ericsson.se> exukjb@exu.ericsson.se (ken bell) writes:

>The refutation of this marxist version of determinism about belief is well 
>known to philosophers.  As J.R. Lucas put it, "it blows itself up with its
>own petard."  Consider:
>
>(a)	"If you had a different historical experience and development
>	 you would not believe p".
>
>(b)	 "Hence, that fact you believe p is a foregone conclusion for
>	  from your causal history"
>
>We then ask, Why does the determinist himself think that (a) is true? Can
>he show that he has freely chosen to evaluate the evidence for it, and 
>believes (a) *for those reasons*?  No, he cannot.  To be consistent he 
>must say that he believes (a) because of certain historical conditions 
>which have determined him to believe (a) and which are presumably beyond his 
>control. So why should anyone pay any attention to (a)? 
 
  But *why* a determinist believes something does not address the
  question of whether what he believes is true.  My computer
  deterministically adds numbers together, but it always finds
  "1+1" to produce "2".   The determinist may deterministically
  arrive at the correct answer.


>  On the determinists own view (a) itself is not something that could
>  have been arrived at by a rational consideration of evidence. So,
>  he has to say that his reasons for believing (a) having nothing
>  whatever to do with his evaluation of the evidence, and so are no
>  more worthy of belief than anyone elses, since his believing (a)
>  was just as predetermined by his causal history as anyone else's
>  beliefs.

  Nope, incorrect.  The determinist would not say that his *belief" is
  predetermined, but rather his *epistemology* is.  His "belief" or
  more correctly his conclusion, simply follows from his epistemology.
  He simply applies the tools, say logical empiricism, that he has been
  deterministically programmed with, to the universe around him and
  arrives at whatever conclusions those tools produce.  So if you
  believe logical empiricism produces correct results then you don't
  need free will anywhere in this process.

  Personally I'm not taking the position that everything is deterministic,
  since the Uncertainty Principle says that the universe has nondeterminsitic
  events.

  The bottom line is this: Mr. Yoder has made a positive assertion
  that free will exists.   In logic the onus is on the one making 
  positive assertion to support it.  I'm under no logical obligation
  to try to "disprove" free will; my role in this is merely to point
  out that there is no apparent mechanism to account for it in the
  universe as I am aware of it, and to demand that Mr. Yoder either
  produce (or at least suggest) one, or stop talking nonsesne.


---peter

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7848 talk.politics.theory:4379
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:05:02 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <BvCJAK.8JB@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:

> This IS the substance of the discussion.

Two points:  First, sorry.  The subject title says "Economic Discrimination."

Second, you write:

>   We don't know any phenomenon in the 
>   universe that's not either deterministic or subject to quantum Uncer-
>   tainty.   Where does that leave room for free will?   

What you meant is that we have yet to work into our scientific framework
any phenomena that cannot currently be described in deterministic or
quantum terms.  And given that these two ideas on the surface seem to 
contradict each other, it is reasonable to assume that the implications
haven't been fully worked out.

Besides, a friend of mine once observed that there is great evolutionary
incentive not to act like a machine.  Independent of the free-will
issue, don't you find this in itself extremely interesting?

BTW have you read "Order Out of Chaos" or "Exploring Complexity" by
Prigogine (sp)?

thant

P.S.  (General observation not ment personally.)  I think this existential 
hangup on determinism is the ultimate expression of intellectual egotism.  
That there is no bottom doesn't necessarily have to invoke anxiety.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7951 talk.politics.theory:4441
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 5 Oct 92 17:56:11 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Oct3.180933.23666@panix.com>, gcf@panix.com (Gordon
Fitch) writes:
|> ...  I think that was the original idea of mentioning "conditioning"
|> which seems to have been an unfortunate choice of words.

Thank you for this observation.  I agree that the choice of the word
"conditioning" got us side-tracked on this "free will" thing. 

I think the original point that Brian responded to could have been
worded more neutrally.  I think the poster was attempting to point out that our
views on this matter have been "updated" to include new experiences we
have all had as a result of activities in the last 30 years or so.

Paul Collacchi
From: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Is This Offer A SCAM?
Date: 28 Sep 92 09:04:46 GMT
Reply-To: paj@uk.co.gec-mrc (Paul Johnson)
Organization: GEC-Marconi Research Centre, Great Baddow, UK

In article <1992Sep26.205938.8641@gn.ecn.purdue.edu> grasmeye@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Joel M. Grasmeyer) writes:

>I just received two promotional offers from American Clearinghouse
>and a company called Mastercare International, Inc.  They offer a
>"guarantee" of receiving one of four prizes--a car, a TV, a vacation
>package, or $5,000.  In turn, I am "asked" to try some cleaning
>products or a water filtration system.

By the sound of things they get to pick which prize you get.  And I
bet they were not very specific about the vacation package.  This
leads me to suspect a scheme such as the one I and my SO once
encountered.

We went to a timeshare presentation (we were told other kinds of
holiday would be on offer, but it was still just a timeshare
presentation).  The deal offered by the company was that we would get
a free holiday in return for listening to their spiel for 90 minutes.
We went just to find out what the scam was.

Basically the holiday was at their convenience.  After we had
registered (and paid a 15 pound "administration fee" each) then our
holiday "could be booked at any time in the next 18 months".  But THEY
booked the holiday, not us.  They would give us a couple of weeks
notice and tell us where we would be going, which we infer would not
be a very popular piece of space-time.  Somehow the west coast of
Brittany in the middle of January (for example) did not sound very
inviting, and my SO is a school teacher (wanna bet we would get a
booking in the school vacations?) so we decided that 30 pounds was too
much to pay for nothing at all.

Ob.econ: The international money markets SUCK.

Paul.

-- 
Paul Johnson (paj@gec-mrc.co.uk).	    | Tel: +44 245 73331 ext 3245
--------------------------------------------+----------------------------------
These ideas and others like them can be had | GEC-Marconi Research is not
for $0.02 each from any reputable idealist. | responsible for my opinions
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: julien@niblick.ecn.purdue.edu (Julien S Lee)
Subject: BEA macroeconomic Forecasting
Keywords: Macroeconomics, Burea of Economic Analysis
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date:  2 Oct 92 17:37:48 GMT

Does someone know where I might find the macro economic 
forecast of the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).  I wounder
they have results on internet or in some server.
By the way I am interested in any recomendation on good models
of Macro economic forecast, someone might had experienced.

Thanks in Advance, for any help.

Julien Lee
Indiana State Utility Forecasting Group.
Purdue University
 email: julien@ecn.purdue.edu
--
Julien Sze Lee                         julien@iies.ecn.purdue.edu
Industrial Engineering Dept.           Phone : (317) 494-7000
Institute of Interdisciplinary Enginnering Studies
Purdue University - West Lafayette - IN 47907
Newsgroups: sci.econ