HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 1992 14:19:04 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <92276.131416DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> In article <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com
|> (Daniel E. Platt) says:
|> >
|> >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.
|> 
|> It's quite a leap to say this implies there is no market.  The insurer has
|> to pay the bill.  That bill has to be covered by the premiums.  Those
|> premiums are charged to employers and employees who certainly have an
|> incentive to keep those down.  The market is certainly there.  It just
|> doesn't work in this case, just as it doesn't work for national defense
|> (although for different reasons).

It isn't a market in the sense that there's no market forces, no incentives
to control costs, and the agents actually doing the shopping and making
the contracts often don't know what the costs will be and have no incentive
either way anyway.  You can call it a broken market rather than saying it's
no market at all (after all, resources are exchanged).  While there's market
forces involved in buying equipment (such as NMR), and there's forces involved
in determining the costs of using this as a diagnostic tool (how much do you
need to charge clients if you have such and such coming through the door in
order to pay the debt and make a profit on top), the actual end-user of the
product (the patient) doesn't see the effects of cost.  Otherwise, I don't
see any real disagreement except for quibling over terms...

Dan
From: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Racism in America
Date: 27 Sep 92 21:46:26 GMT
Reply-To: scc@rlgvax.Reston.ICL.COM (Stephen Carlson)
Organization: International Computers Limited, Reston, Virginia, USA

In article <1992Sep26.170822.28032@samba.oit.unc.edu> Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott) writes:
>ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>Native Americans, for instance, have had billions spent in their name by
>>their very own U.S. goverment department for the past 100 years. Yet they
>>come in dead last in just about every measure of economic or social
>>status. Could lead the unsophisticated to spot a dangerously suggestive
>>correlation.
>
>The implications of this statement are pure BS. In fact, much money
>spent on the BIA was simply raked off by the people in the BIA, and very
>little in the way of money, goods, self-help, or education actually got
>to the people for whom it was intended.

The failure is more fundamental than "crooks" at the BIA.  Your argument
seems to suggest that if only we had good, moral, sensitive, and caring
people in the BIA, everything would turn out much better.  Why didn't we put
such people in the BIA in the first place?  And how can our other welfare
programs avoid the same the pitfalls?  If a certain government program is
dependent on altruists to work, how can it be guaranteed that such people
can be found and kept?  We should design our programs not around our highest
emotions, but our strongest ones.  Otherwise, our programs are too fragile
to work in the real world.

>Too bad, they say, there just
>weren't a lot of powerful folks in any constituency which could defend
>the rights and interests of Native Americans (this is a great test case
>which shows the failure of Libertarianism in a racist country).

I find it either ironic or unfair to blame Libertarianism for a failed
goverment program.

>But maybe it is not so incorrect to suggest
>that Government Aid helped bring them down (as the aid sent to corrupt
>rulers in Africa also works).
-- 
Stephen Carlson           | ICL OFFICEPOWER Center    | In theory, theory and
scc@rlgvax.reston.icl.com | 11490 Commerce Park Drive | practice are the same.
..!uunet!rlgvax!scc       | Reston, VA  22091         |    (703) 648-3300
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 13:14:16 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
 <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com>

In article <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com
(Daniel E. Platt) says:
>
>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.

It's quite a leap to say this implies there is no market.  The insurer has
to pay the bill.  That bill has to be covered by the premiums.  Those
premiums are charged to employers and employees who certainly have an
incentive to keep those down.  The market is certainly there.  It just
doesn't work in this case, just as it doesn't work for national defense
(although for different reasons).


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
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:02:02 GMT

>In article <8210@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen) writes:
> 
> 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 !
>

Sure.  However, this is counterproductive if you do not reduce future
borrowing needs.  Otherwise you are faced with a higher _real_ rate
of interest (to compensate for the new uncertainty with respect to
future inflation).

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Mon,  5 Oct 1992 01:17:08 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: no political promotions on this bboard

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 4-Oct-92 no political promotions on ..
Jason Webb@andrew.cmu.ed (142)

> Please.

> If you dislike Bush, fine.  

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

> Thank you.

> -jason 
>     :)


I agree unless you are promoting/slamming their economic plans.  This of
course precludes all discussion of H Ross Perot.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7959 talk.politics.theory:4448
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Philosophy 101
Date: 6 Oct 92 02:55:10 GMT
Organization: mydog in exile

gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
| >Instead of a Phil. 101 number on "Does Free Will Exist?", I'd
| >like to see some discussion on to what extent one is free to
| >make moral judgments in what we usually think of as human
| >society.  

brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| Are you saying that you think that making free judgements is dependent on 
| whether one is in a society or not?  

My existence is dependent on being in a society.  Human beings
are extremely social animals.  Very few of us could survive in
isolation from human society.  And without language, a tool
or mental organ that does not exist apart from society, I
could certainly not conceive of political or philosophical
ideas, much less post them on Usenet.  I could make free
judgments, perhaps, about which banana to pluck....

|                                    Why not first ask the question of 
| whether people are generally capable of making choices based on evidence
| and then on that basis, try to determine whether social interactions 
| somehow short-circuit that ability.

Social interactions are an integral part of that ability.  
Most of the things we make choices about are social
relations or depend on them.

| By the way, how do you claim to be able to make such a determination of
| fact if your thinking is determined by socialization rather than by 
| observation and reason?  If your marxist associates have prevented you from
| seeing the truth, I suppose that is the best that can be expected, eh?
| ...

The rest of your article seems based on a misconception
of my position; I'll let it rest.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (Mark T. Schmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Keywords: NO BUSH, NO CLINTON
Date: 5 Oct 92 00:01:41 GMT



   Clinton? I saw three speaches by Bill in the last 4 days. I think his
   strategy is promise the world to everyone. --> Health care for 
   everyone, sponsored by business; BUT, he wants to 'help the small
   business man achieve success through less red tape and lower
   business taxes.'
   Also --> 'Reduce the tax burden on the middle class by taxing the
   rich and *international businesses*'; BUT, he wants the US to regain 
   its competitive edge in the global market. (That is an interesting
   way to support American companies trying to trade abroad.)

   Bush? He comes from a different, yet still wicked angle.  He thinks 
   that the FED is the solution to every problem, including international
   problems. He thinks he can attain the New World Order by funding the
   World Bank and getting all countries under one currency (and eventually
   one government.) And guess who would run that government? Oh, US of
   course. We think we know best, so we must, right George? Well, wrong!
   Currency is not the lacking factor in global harmony, and a one
   world government certainly is NOT. Education could solve a lot of 
   problems in the rest of the world, and here at home. (Just do not
   let the federal government run it!)
   By the way, the FED is unconstitutional. ( I do not recall FOUR 
   federal decision making entities laid out in the document by
   our founding fathers. )

   So vote for your favorite third party, or no-party candidate. It's 
   time we started voting FOR people again, and stopped choosing the lessor of
   two evils.

   mark.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
markts@mcl.ucsb.edu

  I [may] not agree with a word you say, 
  but I will defend to the death your    
  right to say it.                       
                     - Voltaire         

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pwg1@Ra.MsState.Edu (Paul W. Grimes)
Subject: Who is the customer?
Keywords: education
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 00:05:59 GMT

In the discussion concerning the MIT anti-trust case, several posters
refered to students as the "customers" of a university.  This is the
traditional view that most of us hold.  However, the commercialization
of higher education is leading to a dangerous shift from this
perspective.  Case in point -- the most recent report on the status of
business schools released by the AACSB (the accrediting agency for
colleges of business) explicitly states that the customers of
business schools are the _firms_ which hire graduates.  This view
relagates the student to an input, not a consumer.  The AACSB says
that business schools should be more responsive to the needs and
desires of the private sector.  Fine, but that means universities
run a danger of becoming vocational training centers - not true
centers of higher learning and culture.  Should colleges and
universities be held accountable under anti-trust law just as if
they are any other profit maximizing institution?  If they are
merely producing workers to be consumed by business, maybe so.
However, I sure hope that I'm working more for my students and
not only for their future employers.

Comments?

Paul


--
Paul W. Grimes, Ph.D.			Voice:    (601)325-1987
Associate Professor of Economics	FAX:      (601)325-2410
College of Business & Industry		Internet: pwg1@Ra.MsState.Edu
Mississippi State University 		Bitnet:   pwg1@MsState.Bitnet		
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7926 talk.politics.misc:49234
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Unemploment
Date: 2 Oct 1992 20:12:18 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Michael Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

Russ Anderson) writes:
|> 
|> Alex Goykhman) writes:
|> > 
|> >     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'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 problem is what you are measuring.  During the summer, the number of
persons seeking employment expands, thus increasing the unemployment rate.
In fall, many go back to school.  The real number of interest is how many
people who want to work, can't find jobs.  The unemployment numbers try to
do this, but they do not properly count those that have been out of work
so long that they are no longer elegible for unemployment benefits, so
they no longer register themselves to be counted.

|> The country has 200,000 fewer jobs than 2 months ago while the unemployment
|> rate has dropped 0.2%.  
|> 
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Date: 30 Sep 92 18:01:24 GMT
Article-I.D.: ole.1992Sep30.180124.28457
Organization: CDAC, WA

In article <30380002@hpspkla.spk.hp.com> richards@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Darrell H. Richardson) writes:
>Sounds wonderful! Why don't you go live in Brazil - An excellent example
>of your suggestion.

Or Argentina in 1989, or Germany after World War I.

Inflation in a country like USA will skyrocket to hyperinflation
in a matter of months if the Govt. started to print more money.
(Hyperinflation is the inflation in 3 digits per year.)
The result will be that the rest of the world will buy USA piece-meal
(by virtue of the inherent devaluation of the Dollar).
The other result would be "stagflation". A stagnant economy with
massive inflation.  Nothing would be more terrible.

I am not saying that the Govt. will not print more money. I
wouldn't put it past them to do just that.

-S
ssave@ole.cdac.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: alan@highlite.uucp (Alan McConnell)
Subject: Re: Problems with Neo-Classical Economics
Organization: Gotham Communications Research
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 01:18:37 GMT


In your response to Garry Peterson's query about free trade, you seem
to be saying(in your #4) that it has long been known that free trade
is often not the optimal policy.  And then in #5 you _seem_ to be saying
that the cases where it's not are not found in real life.  If I'm 
quoting you accurately, I'd appreciate further elucidation.  The
possibility that I've misread you is of course very real :-)
Thanks, Alan McConnell
-- 
Alan McConnell             "What wondrous life is this I lead!
Pixel Analysis              Ripe apples drop about my head . ."
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      GDP versus Debt growth
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:02:31 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18230; Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:05:59 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA26768; Tue, 29 Sep 92 18:05:07 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0595; Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:04:18 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4869; Tue, 29 Sep 92 19:04:18 MST
X-To: sci.econ.usenet

From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:17:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


  > One scenario I have seen few people mention is high, but not hyper,
  > inflation.  Plenty of nations have survived a decade or so of inflation
  > in the 7-11% range.   They pay off their national debts in cheaper
-->-peter

        After a little pre-U.S. collapse investigation, I find that
        the South American countries in general have been running
        30-50% inflation rates with success. :)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Summary: actually, an old (and discredited) way
Date: 30 Sep 92 19:11:35 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <8210@lee.SEAS.UCLA.EDU>, khanh@edison.seas.ucla.edu (Khanh V. Nguyen) writes:
> 
> 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 !

	Been there, done that.

	Bibliography: The 1970s

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: Problems with Neo-Classical Economics
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 15:35:43 GMT

thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:

[lots of stuff deleted]

>if certain other policies are unavailable.  For example, suppose
>consumption of handguns creates negative social externalities.  Then
>an import tariff on handguns may increase social welfare by
>discouraging handgun purchases.  It can be shown that if the tariff is
>not too large, then the gains from eliminating part of the externality
>more than makes up for the loss of profits in the domestic handgun
>industry plus the loss of utility to individuals who no longer choose
>to buy the more expensive guns.  However, an even larger gain in
>social welfare can be obtained by directly taxing handgun purchases,
>rather than handgun imports.

>In this example, free trade is the second best policy.  The first best
                  ^^^^ ^^^^^

That should have been:

In this example, an import tariff on handguns is the second best
policy.

(Thanks to Howard Gayle for pointing out my error.)
--
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
From: jks2j@faraday.clas.Virginia.EDU (John Kent Sizemore)
Subject: Basic election questions
Organization: University of Virginia
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 02:37:38 GMT

  I'm a newly-declared undergrad Econ major with a few questions 
for the experts about the presidential election. With the economy 
in its current state, and with the election looming near, there 
are probably a lot of new readers to this group, with little or no 
training in economics, who have questions similar to these. It's 
fairly obvious from what follows which way I lean, but my feelings 
on the issues are gut reactions based on two basic econ classes, 
not well-developed economic reasoning based on years of experience 
and research. I'd like to hear real economic arguments, made 
by credible economic authorities, instead of media pablum, campaign 
hype, and political legerdemain. I welcome E-mail from anyone who 
wants to answer that way; I'll post a summary later if I get any 
responses.

  People are fed-up with Bush because they dislike his handling 
of the economy. But aren't most of the mistakes Bush has made 
"liberal" mistakes? Aren't policies like tax-hikes, minimum wage 
hikes, and extensions of unemployment benefits usually Democrat 
techniques? Don't all these policies lead to higher unemploy-
ment? Isn't it probable that Bush's acquiescence (sp?) to these 
policies helped to cause, deepen, and prolong the recession? 

   Won't Clinton's corporate income tax hike and "pay or play" 
health care plan critically damage small businesses?  Won't these 
increased costs, especially the increased cost of labor caused by 
the health care plan, cause a jump in unemployment and a drop in 
real wages?
 
   Please, no flames- I'm not proselytizing or offering sophisticated 
arguments. It's just that everything I've been taught so far about 
economics seems to conflict with Clinton's plans. I know there are 
economists who like Clinton's ideas. I'm just curious to know 
whatever it is that I don't yet know that makes Clinton better than 
our last Democrat president.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Skip Sizemore, jks2j@faraday.clas.virginia.edu
US Mail: Box 58, Keene, VA  22946