HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: willson@seas.gwu.edu (Stephen R. Willson)
Subject: Software Recommendation
Organization: George Washington University
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:53:25 GMT


Could someone recommend a software or database package (preferably on the
macintosh) that can be used in making capital budgeting decisions?  For
instance if I was to pick six or seven proposals, I would like to see what
effect those choices would have on my budget.  Keeping in mind that
investments can be mutually independent, mutually dependent, or mutually
exclusive.  I know this is a vague description of my problem, partly
because I'm not sure exactly what I am looking for, but if you think you
might have an idea, I'd like to hear what you have to say.
-- 
  +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  | A fitting end to a screwy campaign year...                               |
  |   ...here to swear in the new president of the United States, talk show  |
  |   host Larry King!                                      The Miami Herald |
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ciar04@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
Subject: Re: SUMMARY: good econ texts
Organization: Strathclyde University VAX Cluster
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:00:18 GMT

dbailey@ICSI.Berkeley.EDU (David R. Bailey) writes:
> Thanks to the many responders who suggested good introductory
> economics books, preferably aimed at the mathematically prepared.
> Here are the responses:
> 
[ List of Economic Text deleted ]

I would like to Sargent's "Macroeconomic Theory" to the list.  It contains
some very vigorous mathematical materials on macroeconomics.

#----------------------------------#-------------------------------------------#
|  W.H.Watt                        #  JANET:                                   |
|  Dept. of Accounting & Finance   #           w.h.watt@uk.ac.strath.vaxa      |
|  University of Strathclyde       #  Rest of the World:                       |
|  Glasgow                         #           w.h.watt@vaxa.strath.ac.uk      |
|  United Kingdom                  #                                           |
#----------------------------------#-------------------------------------------#
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8694 alt.activism:18862 soc.culture.usa:8549 alt.amateur-comp:216 misc.misc:3802
From: adams@spss.com (Steve Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa,alt.amateur-comp,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Last Minute Write-in Candidate for US President
Date: 16 Nov 92 17:39:54 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

bm665@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jay Robert Hauben) writes:


>In a previous article, tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) says:
>
>>ag173@yfn.ysu.edu (Jay Hauben) writes:
>>
>>	All over the country, people write-in "Ronda Hauben".
>>
>>	"Ronda Hauben" wins!
>>
>>	And then hundreds of people named Ronda Hauben claim that
>>	they have been elected!
>>
>     Thank you for pointing out this possible bug in our 
>experiment to improve the political process in the US.
> 
>     The write-in, on the surface, might seem more appropriate 
>for more local an election. But Usenet News and internetworking 
>may make the write-in a viable and especially democratic 
>political form even for national elections. Therefore it is 
>necessary that we get the bugs out of the process.
> 
>     Can anyone out there suggest a fix that will allow the 
>genuine write-in candidate to be identified either on the write- 
>in ballot or after the election or both?
>
>     The American people have given the world the personal computer and
>Usenet News. We surely are capable of creating a better political
>process than the one we have just gone through.

Illinois has a solution for this already....if you write someone in, you
are supposed to list their address on the ballot with the vote....

 -Steve
--
  The opinions expressed above are those of the author and not SPSS, Inc.
                         -------------------
   adams@spss.com                                  Phone: (312) 329-3522
   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:25:10 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <23978@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>They will sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers as long
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Is this market large enough to be profitable?

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.anthropology
From: lfiddick@nyx.cs.du.edu (larry fiddick)
Subject: Re: Questions about the Economics of the Family
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 06:01:05 GMT


i recall a talk on the subject presented at the 1990 human behavior and
evolution society meeting, by hill, kaplan or one of that group that
studies the ache in paraguay. hill and kaplan did find a positive
correlation between hunting returns and offspring in the ache i believe.
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 15 Nov 92 23:25:55 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>I guess I'm in favor of progressive tax systems:
>
>- people who use progressively more services pay progressively more taxes!!!

It seems to me that the poor use the most services (Welfare, Medicare, 
Medicaid), not the rich...the rich usually pay their own way...

>I think the rich should pay more taxes in some areas: it costs more in 
>policing to keep the rich at a comparative level of safety. After all,
>they are more of a target. Rich people should probably pay more for
>fire fighting: all those big houses take more firemen to put out
>big fires when big houses catch on fire. (OK, perhaps I'm assuming
>alot about crime patterns. But it does seem like there is more incentive
>to rob and kidnap well off people)

Most of the crime is in poor inner cities.

>Perhaps the rich and middle class should pay a certain amount to 
>subsidize the health , education and welfare of the poor. You could
>call it compassion, or you could call it self interest, since I think
>it is cheaper to subsidize the poor, than have the poor turn into
>violent, rioting, gang joining criminals who will  car-jack your
>BMW or sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers.
>(funny, sounds just like the USA)

How do you "force" compassion?---it may be compassion on your part, but 
not necessarily theirs. It seems the number of "poor" keeps growing
*because* of these wonderful programs. Why work or pay your way
when you don't have to?

Drugs are so expensive and profitable because of the WOD. Get rid of it.

>Of course, off hand I don't know of any studies that prove this.
>But it seems intuitive that there is a point where paying for more
>police to suppress the poor, is not as cost effective as giving
>the money to the poor for basic health and shelter, and so the children
>of the poor get out of the poverty cycle. (spending more to hire that
>1 more policeman, might not buy as much safety as spending the same 
>amount worker training, you get the gist)

I don't think its very cost effective if more and more people
figure out they don't have to work in order to survive.

>I think some attitudes towards the poor are more out of spite , than
>out of economically rational arguments. (ie let the bums rot!, vs
>give them a break, help them to get out of poverty)
>>
>>
>> mark.

Nothing wrong with helping people, but do you really want them to get
so comfortable in their poverty?--don't you want to keep some incentive
to go out and get a job?

If people *want* to give to the poor, they are certainly within their
rights to do so; but when the government steps in and forces someone to 
give to the poor regardless of their wishes, it isn't right--basic
property rights stuff, which I will hash out *again* if necessary.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The global recession will last until 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 19:31:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA





  Boy this is certainly a good day for people posting things 
  without even paying lip-service to the idea that one should 
  make some modest effort to support their claims.  I already
  castigated Mr. Hranicky on that, and now this . . . 


In article <92Nov18.133847est.47887@neat.cs.toronto.edu> tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai) writes:

>The EC will have free trade in 1993, with or without the Maastricht Treaty.
                       
  That's all he wrote.

  Does Tony Wen Hsun Lai own a crystal ball, a time machine, a 
  particular reliable set of tea leaves or chicken entrails,
  a new Ouija Board or is he simply doing some really primo
  acid?


---peter
Organization: University of Maine System
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 10:42:47 EST
From: Jim Faulkner <CSJIM@MAINE.MAINE.EDU>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject:    Electric Utility - Efficiency and Equity

I am currently researching lifeline rates, low-income
electrical energy assistance, offered by utilities in
Maine.  I am looking to do some empirical analysis of
the redistribution of income effects under different
rate structures.  In essence, I am looking at the life-
line rates as indirect taxes and conducting a positive
analysis of the effects under each structure.

I was wondering if anyone has come across any current
literature dealing with utility pricing, lifeline rates,
and, more importantly, income redistribution effects
under various utility rate structures.  I could also
use suggestions for software that would work well for
such simulations.  I understand that two packages are
very good; (At) Risk and STELLA.

Thank you in advance to anyone who could offer their
opinion or suggestions on this research.

Sincerely,

James M. Faulkner
Department of Economics/
Margaret Chase Smith Center for Public Policy
University of Maine
Orono, Me
(207) 581-1866
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jamie@vax.ftp.com  (Jamie O'Keefe)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Nntp-Software: PC/TCP NNTP
Keywords: GATT, US, France
Organization: FTP Software, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:15:56

In article <BxI6oC.As5@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

     The only thing that's (ever) insane is for someone to not act
     consistently with their goalls and objectives.  In terms of their
     goals it may be perfectly rational for nations to have agriculture
     subsidies.
  
     What's insane is for France to be a member of GATT which clearly
     calls for elimination of agriculture subsidies.   Since they
     clearly prefer subsidies why did they sign an agreement which
     calls for ending them?  That would be as if I, a member of the
     NRA, contributed to HCI.  

If I recall correctly, agriculture was not part of the formation of
the GATT.  Certainly, subsidies were not covered until now.  Also the
Uruguay round isn't finished yet, so I am not sure that France has
signed anything. 

     And it's also insane for the US to promote a trade war when 
     we're all desperately struggling to emerge from a recession.
     A lot more people in the US work at companies that depend on 
     foreign trade than work in oilseed farming.   My employer,
     HP, for instance, does nearly half their business overseas.
          
Yes, it would be nice if the US did not need to resort to a possible
trade war in order to help the GATT round to completion.  Still, it
is Europe (and Japan, TTBOMK) that are dragging their feet on the
agricultural issue.  If the agricultural talks are not settled then
it becomes less likely that the developing nations will sign on to
the other parts of the GATT that we need (intellectual property
rights, for instance).
  
I think that all of this wouldn't be a problem if the Developed
nations could get its act straight on what direction it thinks the
world should go.  

jamie
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 14:12:04 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1ee1hfINN9n3@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bo275@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Larry R Beam) writes:
|> 
|> 
|>     Discretionary  government   spending,  with   the  explicit
|> purpose of economic stimulation, can be exceedingly productive.
|> Swiftly  after  the  publication  of  Keynes'  General  Theory,
|> deficit    spending    engaged     in    by    the    Roosevelt
|> Administration--the    WPA,    especially--resulted    in   the
|> construction of parks,  dams, public buildings,  and roads from
|> which immense benefits continue to flow to the American people.
|> No rational person can call it waste.
|> 

The fundamental question concerning public works projects is not
whether they create things which are beneficial.  Clearly some
things are.  The question is what is the opportunity cost of
public works projects.  Could the money have been spent on
other things which *also* would have benefitted the American
people, and possibly benefitted them more.  Since the government
has no incentive to control costs many (most?) government projects
cost far more than they should.  Just look at how wisely the
Pentagon spends its money.  There are countless examples of
roads and bridges that have been built for which there is no
rational reason, and yet they were considered to be 'good' projects
because of all the people they employed.  Building a road that
isn't needed is just as stupid as hiring someone to dig a whole
and fill it up.  There is great cost and very little benefit.
The problem with government spending is that it is governed by
political incentives, not economic incentives.  Often, projects
are built simply because they are visible, not because they are
really needed.  Our government has spent money building sports
arenas and stadiums which are underused, spent money on transit
systems which can't support themselves, etc.  This is all money
that is wasted, all in the name of creating 'jobs'.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward " Montevideo " Horne")
Subject:      Re: Lawnmower Man and the Ides of March
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:42:01 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA26052; Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:51:31 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA14020; Mon, 23 Nov 92 14:51:25 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1669; Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:54:07 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id
 9253; Mon, 23 Nov 92 15:54:05 MST
X-To: sci.econ.usenet

From: ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Lawnmower Strategy
Date: 23 Nov 92 07:05:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Ef4ExNm00WBN43DcsD
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsb

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 22-Nov-92 The Lawnmower Strategy by
Broward C. Horne@idbsu.i
>>    i)    The Federal Lawnmower is being gassed up.
>>    ii)   New taxes are coming for dinner.
>>    iii)  Your Congress is out to lunch.
>>   iv)   Your standard of living is on the menu.

>Maybe this should be posted to netnews.mixed.metaphors. :-)

            No, I figure anyone reading sci.econ at least has
     the knowledge to understand.  BEHOLD!

   Year       Deficit    Interest Payments

   1975         53 Bil >     33 Bil
   1976         74  >        37
   1977         54  >        42
   1978         59  >        49
   1979         40        <  60    -   The
   1980         74        <  75    -       Bad
   1981         79        <  96    -           Years
   1982        128  >       117
   1983        208  >       129
   1984        185  >       153
   1985        212  >       179
   1986        221  >       190
   1987        150       <  195    -  A
   1988        155       <  214    -    Slowing
   1989        154       <  241    -          Economy &
   1990        221       <  264    -                 Recession
   1991        269           ?  didn't find it yet
   1992        290       <  300

   Several implications:

      i)   The Federal deficit cannot be cut to less than interest payments
           on the debt, or we get a recession

      ii)  Since nominal interest rates are invariably higher than real
           growth, we get a continuing escalation of the deficit, no
           matter what

      iii)  What I'm really amazed about, is why didn't the deficit GROW
            during recessionary years, due to loss of revenues?

      iv)   We get a big bust now, no matter what, because the Federal
            government has altered our economy to be dependent on
            deficit spending.

       v)   The 1990 Budget Agreement is obvious in retrospect.
            Interest payments were far outstripping Deficits, cutting
            into other expentitures, creating a negative stimulus.

       vi)  A 1994 Budget Agreement is almost certain.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest,misc.taxes,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: The global recession will last until 2000
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:31:53 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov16.084308.9139@edinboro.edu> c663712c@edinboro.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov7.093234.8988@edinboro.edu>, s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:
>
>        The fact is that we are not in a global recession.  The U.S.
>economy<contrary to popular belief> is growing around 3%. Japan, which
>hasn't experienced the kind of growth they did over the last ten years,
>is growing around 3% also.

  But why is it legitimate, except as a matter of convention, custom,
  and tradition, to equate "the economy" to GDP?   While the US experiences
  modest GDP growth, jobs are continuing to decline.  I submit that
  from a political point of view jobs carry more weight, and since modern
  economies are heavily dependent on the role of government in terms 
  of tax, spending, regulatory, and other issues and if you want any hope
  of reducing this role you need to have the right political climate.

  But note the political response to higher unemployment: the US elected
  a Democrat, not a party known for smaller government.  The Tories are 
  floundering in the UK only 6 months after winning a stunning election
  upset,  Japan has embarked on a big government spending program to 
  try to counter its economic stagnation.   And the European continent
  while moving to the "right", is adopting the usual European form of
  "rightist" politics which emphasizes government-industry cooperation,
  trade barriers, etc  -- not exactly free markets.  

  So I submit that GDP is no longer the best harbinger of economic 
  performance, but instead that "jobs" is the metric we need to use.
  And from a "jobs" perspective we are very much in a recession.


>   Europe overall will be moving toward growth due to the Treaty of Maastrich,
> which in case you didn't know plans to unify most of Europe with one common
>currency and free trade also.

  18 months ago Maastrich looked like a sure bet.  Look again: Maastrich
  is in deep doo-doo just now (note to readers: sorry to use a technical
  term, but this *is* sci.econ).
 

> I must not also leave out NAFTA, which is the North American Free Trade
> Agreement, which(in case you have been living in a cave for the last 6
> months) will promote free trade and no tariffs between Mexico, Canada,
> and the U.S. by 1996.  

   . . . Assuming there *is* a Canada by then.   But anyway, NAFTA is by
   no means a sure bet, either, and anyway economists are far from
   unanimous about what its actual effects will be.


---peter
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 22 Nov 92 18:32:04 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <By1DH2.B2A@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <dmeyers.722289433@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>>In <37673@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>>
>>>There seems to be some confusion about what "flat" and "progressive" taxes
>>>are. A flat tax is a tax where each individual pays the same percentage of his
>>>income. A progressive tax is where the rich pay increasing percentages of
>>>their income.
>>
>>>As I said before, I think the flat consumption tax is the fairest--each 
>>>individual pays the same base amount for a good the same price, yet the rich
>>>will end up paying a higher dollar amount than the poor, unless they consume
>>>the same amount or less of goods and services. This system also does not
>>>tax savings, which is already taxed by our government's inflationary policies.
>
>  If the government's policies are so inflationary then how come the 
>  M2 dropped at the end of this summer?
>


I was speaking, not with regards to recent trends, but with regards to the
overall trend of our benevolent all-knowing government to continuously debase
our unit of currency. Check the CPI from 1800 to present--you will see a
strange jump after 1913, the year that the Federal Reserve was installed.
Coincidence? Also, when Nixon took us off the international gold standard,
you will see an even larger jump, otherwise known as "the stagflation of
the 70's."

The overall policy of the Fed has been to continually increase the quantity
of money (the original meaning of "inflation"), and this is a tax on all
people's savings. I am quite sure that although the money supply has been
reduced recently, this trend will not last. Hopefully I am wrong.

A flat consumption tax is still, I think, the best system available, primarily
because it does not tax *savings*. (Keynesians would hate this, I'm sure, since
we all *know* that mass savings would send us straight into a *recession*!!--
fools.)

Newsgroups: sci.econ