HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: 10 Nov 92 23:10:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.1992Nov10.231040.8808
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

In article <BxBJAD.5oF@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.222402.14999@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>>In article <BxB3t5.8Ar@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>#                                              On the other hand 
>>#   Both Germany and Japan have longer average lifespans and
>>#   lower % of GDP spent on health care than the US, and both
>>#   have lower crime rates.     So the situation is complex.
>>
>>I wonder how much the average lifespans and health care costs would move
>>when you factor out gang violence, drug abuse, crack babies, and so forth,
>>which are pretty much endemic to inner cities in America.
>
>  People always raise this issue.  But I'm not clear what the 
>  relevance is.   I mean, for comparative statistical purposes
>  if we get to subtract our lowest scores, then so should they.
>   
>  In any case, what is the point?  Human societies are complex
>  systems -- massive urban poverty and alienation are part of
>  our system it's not at all clear that it could be excised
>  without some fundamental changes in our culture so it's academic.
>
>
>---peter


The relevance is that you want to cure the right disease.

If the reason our health stats look bad is poverty, rather than a pathology in
our health care system, i would not want to "fix" it with a socialized medicine
system, any more than i would want to treat a septic patient with a fever by a
cool shower, even though that's an appropriate treatment for a heatstroke
patient sharing a few superficial symptoms [feeling of weakness and high body
temperature]

-dk
From: megana@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Megan Adams)
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:34:05 GMT
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: sci.econ

I agree we have a serious problem. I rarely see a thoughtful evaluation
of the effect of low 3rd world wages on the world economy, and I
continue to wonder if this isn't a significant factor.

It appears we are in the situation of production capacity outstripping
consumption capacity. Many centers of production have been moved to low
wage areas where the consumers aren't. Furthermore, the wages stay low
so this consumer base does not grow (much). Meanwhile the consumers in high
wage areas have experienced falling wages in part because of the loss
of high wage jobs.

In order to 'grow' in this environment, many companies (like my employer) are 
cutting prices and staff, thus contributing to deflationary pressures.

There are some economists (not wild eyed ones) who liken our current situation
to the 30's. Not as bad, of course. It strikes me that one of the
characteristics of the 30's (at least in the usa) was intense labor strife.
This we have no longer. There seems to be no strong force in the world
economy which provides real upward pressure on wages. Labor movements
are powerless in face of international capital flows. 

It seems to me the pressures of this situation are building and there is
no mechanism in the world economy to address it, thus it can only get
worse. 

This analysis makes sense to me, but I've not seen any figures to support it.
This does not in itself discredit my analysis (at least in my eyes ;-) 
because labor is so unpopular in the economic circles that it's hardly
likely that I'd find statistics supporting the above view in the WSJ,
for example.

megana.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: stcuster@beach.csulb.edu (Stephen Custer)
Subject: Request for information relevant to a Consumption Tax.
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:21:25 GMT

Does anybody out there have any thoughtful ideas on the pros and cons of a
national consumption tax?  Also, are their any books or articles that offer a
fair appraisal of this topic?

Thanks,

-Steve



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 18:10:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
   


 jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery) writes:
> I think it's really worthwhile investigating what makes Germany and
> Japan unique among nations.

  I didn't see the original posting so I'm curious what the 
  unique features of Germany and Japan are that Mr. Bowery
  would like to investigate.

  The US has higher productivity than either nation, and 
  a higher standard of living (on a purchasing-power-parity
  basis) than either.  Japan's unemployment rate is rising
  while ours is (very slightly) falling -- albeit Japan's
  is still well below ours.   Germany's unemployment rate
  has been higher than ours for at least a decade and is
  currently climbing.  Moreover, after two decades of gains
  in the *rate* of productivity growth, in the last 10 years
  US productivity growth has actually increased faster than 
  Germany's (according to The Economist).   On the other hand 
  Both Germany and Japan have longer average lifespans and
  lower % of GDP spent on health care than the US, and both
  have lower crime rates.     So the situation is complex.

  Moreover, I suspect if you did do a good study you would find
  that the chief explanation for the differences you observe
  are CULTURAL.  People in other nations have different values, 
  choices, priorities, preferences, attitudes, and so forth.
  Organizational, political, and other institutional methods
  are predicated on an underlying culture.  Mapping Japanese
  corporate or other practices onto an American workforce or
  body politic would be very difficult.


---peter
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: how does European Exchange Rate Mechanism work (UK vs. Germany)?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 23:25:24 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov11.153842.11930@vision.ummed.edu>, lml@vision.ummed.edu writes:
> 
> Question: why did the UK have to take the onus for the
> problem and not Germany?

It's not just Britain and Germany.   There were 12 currencies
in the ERM, and whether they were inside or outside their
allowed bands depends on looking at all of them.   The formula
is quite complex.    The UK, Spanish, and Italian currencies
all fell out of their bands.

This was, as usual, poorly explained in the US press.

jon.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:38:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

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

|>   I have no problem with a particular nation wanting to protect
|>   their farming industry/culture.   Maybe they just want to ensure 
|>   that they retain a domestic source of production and not have
|>   to depend on outside sources for something as basic as food.

If the French were only growing enough food or other crops to provide for
domestic consumption you might have a point.  Unfortunately, the French
are also subsidizing crops that are grown for export.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: dxxb@hardy.u.washington.edu (David Barts)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Public debt - reference sources wanted
Summary: N. America, W. Europe, Japan, Aus./NZ
Date: 10 Nov 92 17:42:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov10.174250.426
Organization: University of Washington

What would be a good reference source for the public debts and
ratio of debt (or surplus) to GNP or GDP of the "first world"
countries?  I'd prefer a source that has data for as many years as
possible (at least the past 40 years).  Also useful would be
information on balance of payments and whether a nation is a net
borrower or lender internationally.

Please E-mail responses to me as I do not normally read this newsgroup.

-- 
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: how does European Exchange Rate Mechanism work (UK vs. Germany)?
Date: 12 Nov 92 18:53:47 GMT
Organization: Edinburgh University

lml@vision.ummed.edu (Lawrence Mark Lifshitz) writes:

>I am trying to clear up a lack of understanding in how parts
>of the European Rate Mechanism (?) currency exchange rates
>work.  Last month there was this big hullabaloo about how
>the UK was outside of its exchange rate bounds with Germany.
>The UK ended up pulling out of the system because it's bank
>couldn't maintain the rate within the specified range.

>Question: why did the UK have to take the onus for the
>problem and not Germany? 

They both did. The German central bank bought Sterling for Deutschmarks
to help out as they were supposed to. It's now up to the UK to refund
the money spent.

>I don't mean from an economic
>stance, eg, the UK mismanaged their economy so the exchange
>rate couldn't be maintained.  I mean how do the powers
>that be (whoever they are) decide that the UK is the one
>which is in violation of the ERM rules?  After all, it
>takes two to define an exchange rate.  Why wasn't Germany
>worried about violating the ERM rules?

Technically the exchange rate of all the currencies is against the ECU
which is a weighted basket of the 12 euro currencies. Since the German
Mark is the strongest currency, the formula in effect means that this is
the one that comparisons are made against. The rules of the ERM specify
that currencies must be within a specific range as compared to the
currently strongest currency.

Unfortunately, when Major and Lamont blew it, much of the macroeconomic
policy depended on the ERM. UK policy was in effect to try to hold the
line with the Pound overvalued against the DM. The idea was that keeping
interest rates at the level necessary to do this would keep monetary
policy tight.

It worked quite well for two years in terms of the aim: to get inflation
down. It came down from almost 11% (mainly caused by an asset boom in
property prices feeding through) to just under 4%.

Other problems, like the puncturing of the property boom, required that
interest rates be lowered for political reasons. In the end, they
lowered them too far and currency traders correctly guessed that the
government wouldn't have the guts to defend Sterling with significantly
higher interest rates. A tactic which the Swedes proved was effective.

Our government caved in after about four hours. Which is admittedly,
something of a record holdout for them nevertheless. They now have
caving in to pressure down to such a fine art that by the time the
newspapers get out, the government has usually changed its mind about
something. 

FoFP

"No, I've changed my mind....." - Spitting Image caricature of John Major
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: I want a German standard of living!
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:30:25 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1di69bINN582@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:

>I read a newspaper article today in the S.F. Chronicle
>Examiner which alleges that when Clinton takes over, he is
>going to be given the 'other' set of books.   In this
>second set of accounts, the US economy is in worse shape
>than publicly admitted.  In particular, they give a much
>more pessimistic view of US unemployment. 
>
>The allegation, which I have no way of checking, is that as
>part of the Bush re-election campaign, fairly widespread
>fabrication and distortion of US economic data took
>place.   It may - or may not - be worth noting that the
>S.F. Chronicle Examiner is a Hearst paper, and so not
>exactly a fringe publication.

   None of this would surprise me.  A year or two ago to
   find "doom & gloom" scenarios you had to look to the 
   usual crop of _Depression in the Year xxxx_ authors
   trying to promote their books.  (Unless you count Lester
   Thurow who has always been a bit doom and gloomy)  What
   disturbs me is the increasing numbers of mainstream
   economists and business leaders taking this view
   nowadays.   Hardly a week goes by when the Wall Street
   Journal, also not exactly a fringe publication, fails
   to publish the musings of someone predicting financial 
   calamity.   Ross Perot ran on a platform predicated on
   such calamity unless we took dramatic steps to correct
   the deficit.   Then a host of major economists predicted
   that his dramatic steps would plunge us into just such
   a depression.   And two weeks ago the Boston Globe pub-
   lished the remarks of the retiring chairman of the Merril
   Lynch Capital Group, again not exactly a fringe source:
   He cited a variety of global economic forces that he said 
   added up to a gradually declining standard of living in
   the US, and rising unemployment over the next 8 years.
   He said there was really nothing anyone could do about it
   and his advice to the presidential candidates (this was
   before the election) was, "arrange to lose".


---peter

  

   
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:01:16 CST


In article <6NOV92.03424517@skyfox.usask.ca>, howp@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
> Hi, 
> 
>      I saw last Sunday an episode of _Adam Smith's Money World_ on PBS. It was
> just before the U.S. election and they talked about a book titled 'BANKRUPTCY
> 1995' by authours Figgie and Swanson (sp?).  I have yet to read this book and I
> was wondering if anybody has read this book and what their impressions were
> (was it too alarmist? was it flawed? was it well/poorly written?). 
> 
>      The main idea of the book that I gathered from the PBS show was that the
> U.S. is headed for major financial hardship due to the U.S. national debt. The
> year of this calamity is predicted to be (guessing from the title) 1995. 

Say the Gov ran a ~$300 Billion deficit for the next 3 years.  That would 
give a ~$5 Trillion debt in 1995.  It would still be a smaller % of GNP
than after WWII.  (Not good for the economy, but not a disaster either.)

>      Another thought that came to mind after seeing the U.S. election results
> was this:  Did President Bush allow himself to lose the election so that the
> next president and his/her party would face this financial calamity and the
> concomitant partisan political damage that would be wrought?  Any comments?

1) No politician is smart enought to purposly lose, even to avoid an impending
   disaster.
2) The deficit/debt problems, while large, are not insolvable.
3) Most of the public votes based on jobs/unemployment.  As long as Clinton
   gets the economy going enough to create more jobs & lower unemployment,
   the public will ignore the deficit/debt.

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
	<BxB4ME.9BC@apollo.hp.com> <1992Nov9.201244.10258@nntp.hut.fi>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:04:38 GMT

Does the term "collateral damage" ring a bell?

All the attention is focused on the reputed beneficiaries of
the trade war, American farmers.

No one seems to mention the impact of higher prices
on the Americans who only eat food and who don't grow it.

When the US completely subsidizes food given to foreign governments, 
it is called foreign aid.  

When they partially subsidize food sold to americans, it is called unfair
trade.

In view of the farm price support program here in the US, I find this rather
hypocritical.

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Protectionism as investment
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 00:10:25 GMT

In article <1ds4heINNg1j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
>Now it's 1992, and there are less that 50,000 men employed
>in British coal-mining, and some of these men were not even
>born when the effort tp protect "existing" jobs started.
>Taxpayer protection has created new unproductive jobs in an
>uncompetitive industry.     What's more, there is still a
>pressure group, headed by Arthur Scargill, the leader of
>the Miners' Union, who want to "invest" yet more taxpayer
>money in the industry, and the argument is still that we
>should keep "existing" jobs around.

The British coal industry is faced with two specific problems:

	- declining coal quality
	- more expensive extraction costs due to deeper	mines	

Both of these can be largely attributed to the age of the industry.
If you do the figures, you will find that in all likelihood, in
approximately 10-15 years time, neither of these factors alone will
impede the industry from being profitable, since most other nation's
industries will be facing similar issues.

The question is, therefore: how much does it cost to close down these
mines and layoff the employees now and then reopen the mine in N
years, versus simply keeping them open and taking a running loss ?

Most analyses of these figures that were done during the early-80's
miners strike suggested very clearly that it was cheaper to keep these
people working in a loss making industry than to lay them off and then
reopen the mines later. For some reason,  these studies did not
feature very prominently in the government's nor the media's
discussion of the strike.

This is just another example of saving a penny today to save a
(dollar|pound|mark|lira|franc|etc) tomorrow.  Not very complex
economics, but ignored all the same.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:43:45 GMT

In article <BxICzy.I5p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Nov10.160010.21690@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>>However, I expect we'll see a lot more protectionism in the years ahead.
>>With the large U.S. budget deficit, sending military aid to the rest of the
>>world and allowing them to send products to the U.S. in competition with
>>our producers will become politically undesirable in the years to come.

>   How does it follow that this will result in more protectionism?

Clinton ran on a ticket of increasing U.S. jobs.  One way to indicate that
he's serious about this would be to propose laws that would decrease losing
jobs to other countries.  Thus protectionism would increase (he also had
serious questions about approving NAFTA).

>   Isn't the logical conclusion from this that it would result 
>   in less military aid, especially reducing the large US forces
>   on foreign soil?

I would expect that the U.S. forces in Europe would decline substantially
(although the Europeans have already complained that we're not doing enough
about solving the Serbian-Crotia issue).

Unfortunately, reducing military expenditures will also increase unemployment
--both in military forces and in defense industries.

Clinton will also need substantial help in Congress for his many programs and
that will involve bribing the Congressional leaders (just as Reagan did)--
textile protectionism, general farm subsidies (including peanut subsidies).
With GM in trouble, there will also be claims for doing something about the
Japanese and Germans taking all those jobs from Detroit.

Charlie




Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:08:32 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02598; Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:06:50 -0800
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA06289; Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:06:43 -0800
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2069; Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:09:35 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4597; Wed, 11 Nov 92 15:09:34 MST
X-To: sci.econ.usenet


      As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know the
  what YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic )
  event was.


           ????
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:21:39 GMT

pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>In article <BxM7Ft.L4n@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1689D88F8.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>>Read "Small is Beautiful". We don't need to ship more stuff all over the globe
>>>to have a good US economy.

[stuff deleted]

>Schumacher doesn't address international trade explicitly. However, I
>suspect that if he were alive today, he'd argue something like this:
>there's nothing wrong with such trade, but having an the economy of a
>given political (and by your own claim, *cultural*) entity dependent
>on exporting things to other such entities that it does not control or
>even necessarily share much with is a mistake. If we can't build
>stable, healthy economies within the confines of a national boundary(*),
>what makes us think we can do it within the confines of the entire
>planet ?

This argument completely ignores the _mutual_ nature of gains from
trade.  Of course trade produces dependency.  So what?  So do all
other mutually beneficial human activities.  Why make artificial
distinctions between dependencies that cross lines on a map and ones
that don't?

Taking your argument to its logical extreme, California should stop
exporting food to the rest of the country.  And none of you would get
any of those heart pace-makers that are manufactured here in
Minneapolis.  Texas should keep whatever oil it has left for itself.
And I should stop teaching, go home, and work in my garden.  My wife
should quit her job at the local public hospital and concentrate on
keeping our family well instead.

I would be very surprised if Schumacher would oppose exports of
equipment enabling renewable energy sources, advances in health care,
sustainable agriculture, etc.  Nor would he oppose imports of
rain-forest products.

I have not read the book, but I do not see any conflicts between
sustainable economic systems and trade.  I doubt if the former will
every be achieved without the latter.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Newsgroups: sci.econ