HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 23 Dec 92 15:59:40 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <BzCFHw.3At@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:

>I'm sorry.  I based my labor/inflation statement on reality, not some
>fairy tale notion of "constant money supply and no deficit spending".

Fairy tale my butt. This was the policy of the 18th and 19th century.
Notice that the value of the dollar rose slightly between these times.
How awful.

>Oh, and I don't mean that maliciously.  Ideally, it might be great to have
>a constant money supply and no deficit spending... but that just doesn't seem
>to be a reality at this point in time.

So why bother, eh? Great attitude.

>Also, why in God's name would you want 0% inflation?  I could understand 
>supporting a Federal Reserve policy of *constant* inflation, say a predictable
>-- 
>
>					-- Mike

But the effects of inflation are unpredictable. You are under the
impression that inflation affects everyone equally. WRONG. Inflation is
a ripple effect--those at the beginning of the ripple (the govt) get a 
great deal--they get to buy goods or services at the current price. But
then the prices begin to rise. Those at the end of the ripple now effect-
ively have less money, as their currency in now worth less. 0% inflation
would great assist business in speculating on the future--no need to try
and predict an unpredictable rise in the prices of goods and services.
0% inflation does not lead to the capital consumption caused by inlfation
or deficit spending (see $4+ trillion debt).

Why in God's name do you want prices to constantly rise? You are not
operating under the assumption that this is good for business profits 
are you? I hope not.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com
Subject: Announce: US Mfrs request end to flat-screen tariffs
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 22:26:36 GMT


From Dow-Jones:  

  If Commerce revokes its July 1991 ruling that U.S. industry faced unfair
competition from Japanese screen manufacturers, the decision would effectively
bring an end to the ITC's deliberations and any further action.   

  U.S. manufacturers supporting an end to the duties include International
Business Machines Corp., Apple Computer Inc., Compaq Computer Corp, and
OIS Optical Imaging Systems Inc.

  The companies argue that tariffs will drive up the price of U.S. computers
and force them to move some of their production abroad where duties wouldn't
be applied.   

    3:44 PM
From: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca (John McKay)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Asymptotic economics
Date: 27 Dec 92 22:10:17 GMT
Organization: Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec
Originator: mckay@alcor.concordia.ca


Is anyone working on asymptotic economics? May be it is called 
steady-state economics. What is being aimed for? What percentage
of land do we intend to develop? How much longer should we measure
success by an increase in the GNP?
Why are we more concerned with jobs and the jobless rather than what
these jobs contribute to a more general well-being? Why should I be
more concerned that a lumberjack loses his job (effect less than 80 years)
than that a tree has been saved (effective longevity likely
more than 100 years)?
If this is not the correct forum for raising these issues, where may
they be better discussed?

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jdnicoll@prism.ccs.uwo.ca (James Davis Nicoll)
Subject: Rates charged for Canal Use
Organization: University of Western Ontario, London
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 20:09:14 GMT

	A side-issue came up wrt to something I'm writing, and
while the answer to the following probably will have no great
effect on the story, I am curious how fees charged to users
of projects like the Panama Canal are arrived at. Is it calculated
by size of ship, or a flat rate, or some combination?

						James Nicoll
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Declining Intro Enrolments
Date: 21 Dec 92 13:51:28 GMT
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota

canright@convex.com (Robert Canright) writes:

>Having an interest in economics, now that I see how money is one of the
>most important factors in engineering projects, I asked a professional
>economist about a good intro textbook.  He told me not to waste my time &
>to go directly into micro & macro-economics textbooks.

>If the intro texts truly are a waste of time, maybe the classes are too.

Around here the "micro" and "macro" texts _are_ the introductory texts
for economics majors.  Most general economics books are written at a
level most appropriate for high school students, and I could only
recommend the courses that use them to the most math-illiterate
students.  If you know how to read an X-Y graph and have even a vague
intuitive idea of the relationship between the slope of a curve and
the area underneath it then you should definitely start with
"intermediate" level courses.  Of course you will then have to be
willing to commit two terms if you want to learn something about both
macro and micro.

My first economics course was taught by an inspired high school
teacher who rarely had us open the book and instead taught the
important concepts through game playing.  We set up simple economies
in the classroom and found the equilibrium by actually letting the
economy run.  Then we would analyze what happened and why.  This meant
that we learned _general equilibrium_ concepts right from the start.
We only learned the usual supply and demand partial equilibrium
analysis later.  This is a very effective teaching method.
Unfortunately, it does not help the textbook publishers, and requires
extensive teacher preparation, which is inadequately rewarded at many
colleges and universities.  So we don't see too much teaching of this
sort.

I would be very interested in seeing articles on the net about
innovative teaching methodology in economics courses.  Most new
Ph.D.'s in economics have virtually no training in how to teach,
having been left to their own devices in graduate school.  (I am
speaking about U.S. training.  Perhaps things are better elsewhere.)



--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 27 Dec 92 18:18:54 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <58026@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.160846.8549@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>>In article <58004@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>[asks for a period and industrial economy with stable prices]
>>[U.S.: 1828-1860 & 1880-1913]
>
>Weren't there several gigantic panics and depressions during these periods?
>If average wages drop significantly, prices are essentially higher even if 
>they are nominally stable. 

There were panics and depressions during both periods.  The 1880s were
a decade long depression in rural areas because of low farm prices.
This was the major reason for the Populist call for free coinage of
silver - they definitely believed a little inflation was good, presaging
the platforms of both major parties today.

Good data on aggregate wages isn't really available for either of these
periods, so arguments as to "prices vs. prevailing wages" are going to
be hard to support.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 23 Dec 92 16:11:31 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <JACKSON.92Dec17154850@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@stsci.edu writes:
>A naive question.
>
>If INFLATION is defined at the overall price level rising
>Then how can that occur without an increase in the money supply?

The general rise in prices of all goods and services is indeed the
result of increasing the money supply. The increase in the money
supply was the original definiton of inflation, and the current definition
is misleading. A rise in prices in one area means that either supply
has dwindled or demand increased, i.e., that good has become more dear
to more people.  A general rise in prices of all goods does not signify
this at all, it signifies that the unit of currency is LOSING VALUE.

>For prices to go up, then incomes must go up in order to pay
>for the higher prices.
>
>In these scenarios, how does everyone's income increase in real term?

It does not. Money is merely a medium of exchange for goods and services.
If the money supply were doubled tomorrow, there would still be the
same amount of goods and services in the economy. The idea that printing
money adds wealth is crap. In fact, this lead to consumption of capital,
and capital accumulation is the *true* source of wealth, i.e., as the
supply of goods and services rises, the prices fall. (Simple S&D stuff)

If only our politicians would realize this. HA!

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 17:16:59 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.224955.7981@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale) writes:
%
%Today I mourn the economic death of America.
%
%We're on a collision course with the national debt.  In a few years, on the
%current course, 100% of tax payments would be required to pay the interest
%on the debt alone.  When investors in US government bonds finally start
%to panick (read: come to their senses about our political reality), we'll
%finally face reality.  There really is no room to maneauver: whatever
%parameter we change in order to get out of this, there will be some kind of
%disaster.  Unlike the 1950's, the world market has fundamentally changed and
%we can no longer grow our economy out of the debt.
%

 Says who. You?

 You think the national debt is bad? Look at the CONSUMER debt! It was
 something like 12 trillion in 1990.

 Sure, the gov't is following a liberal spending policy. But I can guarantee
 that they won't arrive at the gates of  hell alone :-).

 Increasing tax receipts and decreasing spending was Perot's big picture. 
 Clinton tends to favor increasing receipts from a growing economy. 

 The National debt is simply the difference between receipts and expenditures,
 and NOTHING else. ANY method can be used to reduce (or eventually elimiinate)
 it.

 Unless you show evidence that economic growth can't work to reduce the debt, 
 I can't give much creedence in what you say.

--

Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: 21 Dec 92 16:52:59 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.

In article <louis.724349346@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
%
 [---]
%
%It isn't high wages that causes the American companies to be
%non-competitive, it is the low productivity.  Lester Throw reports and
%documents that Germany is the leading exporter of textiles with wages
%running about $4 an hour higher than US textile workers.  They work
%smarter with better machines, better management, and a different view of
%human resources.  Helmut Kohl and crew cannot be put down as leftists.
%

 Yeah, but the number of people EMPLOYED in the mills is very highly 
 regulated by government. It is REALLY hard to find a job in the EC.
 This can be booth good or bad. We tend to value jobs more than 
 products here in the US (hence the 90's term "jobilism").

 U.S. Manufacturing productivity was up over 22% last year, according to 
 Forbes and U.S. Gov't data. There are actually many cases of US manufactured
 goods penetrating Asian markets. Motorola communications products come to mind.

 I think the root problem lies in strength of the U.S. dollar on world 
 F/X markets and non-competitiveness (due to high import tarriffs, and 
 resulting retaliatory tarriffs) of U.S. manufactured goods. 

 Let's face it: 9/10 times "dumping" is basically the selling  of products
 on the world market when the "world" equilibrium price is higher that the
 domestic equilibrium price. All countries have a "natural advantage" in some
 area or another, this is simple Ricarian economics.

 Japan does it with cars to the US, and we (the US) do it to the world with our
 agriculture products. The US is becoming so incredibly protectionist that 
 soon we're going to become a "centrist" government.

 BTW-
 This might just be paranoia (I don't want to get on a "those #$%&%$ Japanese"
 speeches a 'la Iacocca), but I firmly believe that the current Industrial 
 Policy of  Japan is rooted in a deep hatred of the U.S.  over the WW II 
 nuclear bombing. Has this been kicked around in this newsgroup before? 
 Any "proof" of this?

--

Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
From: canright@convex.com (Robert Canright)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 15:54:59 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1h5kf0INNlov@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) says:

>> Unless you show evidence that economic growth can't work to reduce the debt, 
>> I can't give much creedence in what you say.
>>

>           Patience, Grin Grin Tharl, patience. 
>           The proof will be with you in a short time.
>           And for a short time only.
>>
>>Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
>>
!! Great reply!!
Our economy is undergoing historic changes in its growth patterns.  Changes
like this are usually only understood by a minority of people: those that
can see the slip into an unexpected future.

There's no point in trying to persuade the "blind."


Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 1992 17:04:09 GMT

In article <BzGt3v.AIu@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.010103.16762@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>In article <BzCx38.pr@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>  The simple, empirical refutation to your argument is even
>>>  easier:  In the computer industry there hasn't been inflation,
>>>  there's been DISinflation:  the prices for computer products
>>>  have been *plummetting* for decades!
>>
>>that is not relevant, because that disinflation is due to technological
>>progress, and is particular to an industry. inflation or disinflation is
>>normally considered from a larger-scope perspective.
>
>  But overall, US workers are far more productive than they were
>  a few decades ago.  So technological progress is not a unique 
>  circumstance to one industry but a major driving force of 
>  modern economies.  It was responsible for the Industrial 
>  Revolution.   No economic model that assumes steady-state
>  productivity or technology can possibly succeed in the 
>  modern world.

i won't argue that technology is bad. the simple fact of the matter
is that the disinflation you mention happens in only a few, isolated
industries, not overall.

--
charles
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Subject: asymptotic economics
Reply-To: "ronald hands" <ronald.hands@canrem.com>
Organization: Canada Remote Systems
Distribution: sci
Date: 2 Jan 93 10:29:45 EST


  In Message-ID: <5598@daily-planet.concordia.ca> John McKay asked:

JM>Is anyone working on asymptotic economics? May be it is called
JM>steady-state economics. What is being aimed for? What percentage
JM>of land do we intend to develop? How much longer should we measure
JM>success by an increase in the GNP?
  
  On the topic of steady-state economics, John McKay (and perhaps
others) might want to check a just-published collection of essays:
Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics, edited by Herman E. Daly
and Kenneth N. Townsend.  (MIT Press, 1993 - ISBN 0-262-54068-1).
  Daly, who is now senior economist at the World Bank, has been arguing
for a steady-state economy since the mid-70s or earlier.  Valuing the
Earth is actually an update of two earlier collections: Toward a
Steady-state Economy, published about 1977, and Economics, Ecology,
Ethics, published early in the 80s.  
  Many of the classic essays from the earlier volumes have been
retained for the latest one, but there are also a number of additions. 
Additional material is included on the often-ignored question of the
link between economics and entropy and the laws of thermodynamics.
  There's also a significant essay ("Exponential Growth as a Transient
Phenomenon in Human History") by the late geologist M. King Hubbert.

-- Ron
ronald.hands@canrem.com

 * DeLuxe2 1.21 #10218 * 
--
Canada Remote Systems  - Toronto, Ontario
World's Largest PCBOARD System - 416-629-7000/629-7044
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 29 Dec 92 07:40:24 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <38019@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <JACKSON.92Dec17154850@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@stsci.edu writes:
>>A naive question.
>>
>>If INFLATION is defined at the overall price level rising
>>Then how can that occur without an increase in the money supply?
>
>The general rise in prices of all goods and services is indeed the
>result of increasing the money supply. 

  I think a better explanation of inflation would be when the ratio of
dollars to goods (and services) increases.  I can think of a few scenarios
where prices would rise even if the money supply remained constant.

  Doug

-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: 1992 Statistical Abstract finally available
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 23:30:26 GMT

Just a quick note for those who care: it's many months overdue,
but the 1992 Statistical Abstract of the United States is
finally available.  After the local GPO bookstore repeatedly said
"any day now," mine showed up in the mail just in time for
Christmas.  Fun weekend reading for all you number junkies :-)
$34 cloth, $29 paper.

They're "working toward" a CD-ROM edition, priced at just $50.
Call 301-763-5299 for information on availability.  There's no
mention of an electronic version of _Historical Statistics_, 
unfortunately, but think what an electronic _Abstract_ could do
for the level of debate in some of the flamewars here!  Is steel
production up or down?  Just how much did "the rich" pay in taxes
last year compared to the Carter years?  What's the mean income
of households on public assistance, and how does it compare to 
self employed farmers?  Just how much did Federal corporate income
tax revenue grow in the '80s?  Sure the statistics are full of
flawed assumptions and miscellaneous errors, but I still trust
them more than the idle speculation usually found here.

No, I'm not volunteering to type it all in for now! :-)

-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation (was Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:16:52 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec30.015836.12988@samba.oit.unc.edu> Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:

>The purpose of pointing out the above is to show that the experts
>disagree on practically everything about inflation. So we have lots of
>theories to choose from. I personally prefer Post-Keynesianism.
>
>                                      Robert Vienneau

I refer readers again to the CPI for the past two centuries. The general
rise in prices of all goods and services is attributed to an increase in
the money supply (the original meaning of inflation.) Notice that
prices jump during the war of 1812, when the BUS printed money to help 
finance the war. Notice that prices jump after 1860, when the U.S. govt
issued $400 million in fiat moeny (greenbacks). Notice that the price
level takes off after 1913, when the inflationary Federal Reserve system
was installed, and with the exception of the Great depression, prices have
risen steadily since, really taking off after 1971, when the U.S. abandoned
the international gold standard (this was the cause of the inflation of the
70's--not oil shocks, etc.)

I don't know much about Post-Keynesianism, but if it resembles Keynesiansm
at all I would tend to discard it. 

I personally prefer the Austrian school of Economics as espoused by
von Mises, von Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, George Reisman,
etc.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)