HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 08:29:13 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: na
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <184620@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|> > 
|> > I personally don't care if the U.S. has a flat-screen industry or
|> > not.  I want the cheapest, highest quality product available, regardless
|> > of where it is made.  Flat screens have decreased, not increased
|> > in price so the detrimental effects of 'dumping' aren't evident.  In
|> > addition. the low cost of flat screens helps U.S. firms such as
|> > Apple and IBM who use these screens in their own products.
|> > 
|> > 
|> 
|> Jim's making a really nice point here.  I would like to elaborate on it.
|> 
|> [...]
|> 
|> The point that I wish to make, which is the point Jim made, is that
|> "dumping" in a relative parity market would seem to set up a kind of 
|> competitive arbitrage.  If you were really selling below cost, then why 
|> wouldn't your competitor just buy up your supply and resell at market, 
|> making the profit?
|> 
|> Its a silly example, maybe, but Jim is pointing to a more complex interaction
|> where the arbitrage is hidden, but still passed along. 
|> 
|> Flat screen dumping in the U.S. market could make U.S competitors stronger, 
|> since they could reduce their cost structures.  Maybe IBM
|> could use the flat-screen technology to become more competitive by
|> *finally* offering a cheaper terminal.  Now suppose that Hitachi or NEC is 
|> an IBM 3278 terminal competitor who previously enjoyed a price advantage 
|> over the IBM 3278 terminal.  Now there's parity.  IBM can offer the dumped
|> flat-screen at the same low price.  NEC takes it on the chops.
|> 

Until the government steps in and screws things up.  Take the flat screen
case for example.  Because of supposed 'dumping', new tarrifs were
slapped on flat screens entering this country.  It should be noted that
there was never a flat screen industry in the U.S., so these tarrifs
are hardly protecting any jobs.  It should also be noted that prior
to the tarrifs, companies like Apple and IBM were making their laptop
and notebook computers in the U.S.   However, thanks to the new tarrifs,
production of these computers has been moved offshore.  Why?  Flat
screens carry no tarrif when they are a component of a finished product.
Here we have a perfect example of how the U.S. government cost real
jobs in an effort to 'protect' jobs which never existed.


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: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:32:37 GMT

louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>I don't consider the interchange between James Douglas Del-Vecchio) and
>cogsdell@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (tony c) to be particularly fruitful, but
>there is a point to consider.  Japan has long protected its home market
>from foreign competition to enable it's strategic industries (and many
>that are not strategic) to get up to speed in technology and market
>share.

So has the US. We just consider different industries to be "strategic".
There's a perception here that there is a huge difference between
Japanese trade policy and US trade policy, with Japan having big barriers
and the US having none. This is false. As one example, the US routinely
"dumps" agricultural products on the rest of the world, at a loss, in
order to increase exports.

>An example cited in Lester Thurow's book, "Head to Head," is
>of the television satellite industry.  

>``If Japanese firms are not yet prepared to compete, foreign firms are
>head at bay.  Satellite television is such an industry at the moment.
>To give the domestic industry time to get organized, the Ministry of
>Post and Telecommunications *prohibits its citizens* [emphasis added]
>from having the dishes necessary to receive satellit signals from
>foreign broadcasts.''

The US does the exact same thing.

The US *prohibits its citizens* from purchasing canadian ice cream. In fact,
  only Jamaica, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium and New Zealand may sell
  any ice cream to America. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
  "Handbook on Section 22 Dairy Quotas and Import Licensing System, April
  1988, p. 10.
The US *prohibits its citizens* from purchasing foreign butter.
The US *prohibits its citizens* from purchasing more than a set quantity
of thousands of items from every country in the world. Textiles,
machine-tools, agricultural products, steel...

>Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 08:22:08 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: na
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <d29t03zNc2hg00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
|> In article <LSR=JzB@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
|> >In article <louis.724011004@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>, louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
|> >
|> >Concerning your allusion to 'MacJobs', I give you information from
|> >the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics concerning job creation in the
|> >U.S. during the 80's:
|> >
|> >  Jobs Created
|> >  Jan. 1982-1989 {Expansion Only}
|> >
|> >              Number          Percentage	  1989 Median
|> >Job Category  Number (mils.)  Increase	     Earnings.
|> >
|> >Managerial/
|> >Professional   7.600          33.1%         $32,873
|> >Production     2.194          19.0%         $25,831
|> >Technical      6.630          21.8%         $20,905
|> >Operators      1.374           8.2%         $19,886
|> >Services       2.210          16.8%         $14,858
|> >Farming       -0.116          -3.7%         $13,539
|> >
|> >Total         19.892          20.3%         $23,333
|> >
|> >
|> >James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
|> >University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
|> >Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
|> 
|> 
|>   So does this include the jobs lost during the '80s as well?  I wonder
|> what the "Expansion Only" alludes to.
|> 

I believe the "Expansion Only" refers to the trough of the last recession
to the peak of the economic recovery.  Also, considering the fact that
farming is a negative number, I also assume that these figures represent
*net* job creation.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9423 alt.amateur-comp:355 talk.politics.misc:64496 misc.misc:4065
From: fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: University of Rochester
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:05:41 GMT

In article <yhS=4f#@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
...
>It should be noted that
>there was never a flat screen industry in the U.S., so these tarrifs
>are hardly protecting any jobs.

This is false.

There were, indeed, companies in the flat screen business in the US; in
fact, IBM had a plasma display for sale for a number of years.  Most of
the original LCD and other flat-screen patents were filed here.  There
were a number of small companies producing LCD and electro-luminescent
displays here.  Most of the small companies are now out of business;
plasma displays, of course, are too much of a power hog for portable
computers.  It would take about a day's work to dig up the names of the
involved companies.

>It should also be noted that prior
>to the tarrifs, companies like Apple and IBM were making their laptop
>and notebook computers in the U.S.   However, thanks to the new tarrifs,
>production of these computers has been moved offshore.  Why?  Flat
>screens carry no tarrif when they are a component of a finished product.
>Here we have a perfect example of how the U.S. government cost real
>jobs in an effort to 'protect' jobs which never existed.

Prior to the tariffs, Apple and IBM had not started making laptops
_or_ notebook computers.  Apple only came out with the Mac portable
(which was a joke) about three years ago; IBM has only just entered
this market.  The exception for finished products is stupid; and it
doesn't make sense to tariff if you don't have a domestic industry.
Unfortunately, the domestic industry was dead before the tariffs went
into effect.

Mark
-- 
Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:09:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec11.171508.25279@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

>>>You're making money on every seat sold.  You're just not covering
>>>fixed costs.  
>>
>>  Look, you don't get to make up your own definition of "profit".  If
>>  you can find some line with "profit" on it in the latest AMR quarterly
>>  that doesn't have parenthesis around it, I'd like to see it.   
>
>It costs American Airlines about $30-$50 to serve an additional passenger,
>and they're selling tickets for $90-$200.  That looks like a $40-$170
>profit on each ticket sold to me.

  It may look like it to *you*, but it doesn't look like it to
  investors, accountants, and tax-collectors!  

  I mean, we all understand what you're saying about marginal costs
  and all that, it's just from a balance sheet standpoint this is 
  not a "profit".    You keep talking about the fixed costs as though
  they're all gone, but it doesn't work that way -- they're being paid 
  on a regular basis, interest on debt, airframe leases, pilots'
  salaries, gate rentals, maintainance and spare parts, etc, etc.  
  They're part of the operating costs and from an accounting standpoint
  they still have to be paid by your revenue stream, *if you can manage 
  it* which most US airlines today cannot.     


>Just because they were already $1 billion down when they started selling
>tickets doesn't mean they're not profiting by selling tickets.

  They are generating much needed revenue and reducing their losses
  but they are not "profiting", in the above scenario until they've
  made up that $billion.   You're using a private definition of the
  word "profit" here!   As I said before, I'm an AMR stockholder;
  when there's a profit I notice it!   Last quarter AMR *lost* $85
  million dollars on revenues of $3.725 billion.      


---peter






Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Foreign investment and domestic jobs
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:59:00 GMT

In article <louis.724383020@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>||5.  Put some rules on all foreign investment.  Welcome it, but not at
>||    the expense of US jobs.
>
>|How do you think foreign investment hurts US jobs.
>
>Thurow says that so far the Japanese investment in the US has caused a 
>net loss of 49,000 jobs.  When the Toyota plant was built in Kentucky
>the general contractor was the construction firm in the Toyota keiretsu,
>suppliers were brought in from Japan. 

And how many American suppliers would have been hired if Toyota *didn't*
build the plant?  How many workers in the plant would've lost their jobs?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
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: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:01:03 GMT

In article <BzCx38.pr@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <BzBpB7.6x7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>>  nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>  
>>  [stuff about unions deleted]
>>
>>  >The correct solution to having good working conditions and good
>>  >worker treatment is to have an economy that's strong enough
>>  >so it generates so many jobs that workers are always in demand.  
>>  >
>>  > ---peter
>>
>>  Isn't that what causes increased labor prices which leads to run-away
>>inflation?
>
>  I don't know why it would lead to "run away" inflation.
>  Inflation is an increase in the money supply above and beyond
>  the increase in productivity, i.e., "too much money chasing 
>  after too few goods and services".  Assuming workers remain
>  productive why should you get this outcome?   I means sure,
>  their wages might go up, but happy, contented, motivated
>  workers are productive workers.  

it is a fact that an economy which is growing quickly *does* lead
to inflation. this was a big concern in the late '80s, when everyone
was worried about the economy "overheating". in order for an economy
to expand, so must the money supply. expansion of the money supply
leads to inflation. this is exacerbated by workers who can demand
raises due to low unemployment, and companies who can demand higher
prices due to large amounts of disposable income. however,
the inflation that results is rarely "run away" -- it just increases
gradually as the economy "heats up".

the reason that inflation did not happen in the late 80's was because
the Fed anticipated it and slammed the brakes on the money supply. this
kept inflation at bay, but also, IMO, led in part to the current
recession.

>  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.

also -- have prices really gone down? or has computing power just
gone up? i paid about the same for the computer i bought this year
as i did for the one i bought in '86. it is a much better machine,
but it cost about the same.

--
charles
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Market Power and Monopolies
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:07:05 GMT

In article <LbR=7r=@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>50% is certainly not a monopoly.  'Mono' means 1.  The fact that GM
>had 50% of the market meant that some other companies had the other
>50%.  

But it makes a big difference in the pricing model if they have
(as they actually did) only two competitors, or if they have thirty
others making up that 50%.

>Dumping (or predatory pricing) would stipulate that a company
>would undercut prices of its competitors so as to drive them out of
>business and assure themselves a monopoly position where they could
>raise prices substantially to recoup the initial losses.  If GM
>had engaged in predatory pricing, it certainly didn't get them
>a monopoly position, and it certainly didn't let them charge whatever
>they wanted for a car.  Also notice how well GM has stood to
>competition.  GM is now suffering for past mistakes.  Competition,
>particularly from foreign markets has forced GM to work to become
>a more efficient competitor, and build a better, higher quality car.

One might argue that rather than realize monopoly profits on a balance
sheet, GM realized "profits" in other ways, in terms of raising costs
of white-collar management to non-competitive levels.  Unions shared 
in these "profits" to some extent and are suffering now because the
monopoly/oligopoly profit isn't there any more.

In ways, GM's policy was similar to US Steel's -- realize huge profits
when you gain market power and let that power and share slowly dissipate.

>|> when GM was undercutting small manufacturers and dealers in the 30's,
>|> it was dandy for consumers.  GM made up for with 30 years of 
>|> killer profits.  perhaps that was dumb--NOT.  perhaps consumers made
>|> out in the long run--??
>
>Who cares if GM made 'killer' profits.  If you check the price of
>a car, you will find that they never became outrageosly high.

Of course, the technology was improving at the time -- the price of
cars could very well still have been going down, but still remain
supracompetitive.  

Was GM really undercutting small dealers by dumping in the 30's?  Or
was it more efficient?  (Auto-making had remarkable economies of scale
back then.  Less so today.)  There might have just been room for three
big firms in the market, and whoever got big first would have won, and
it just happened to be GM, Ford, and Chrysler.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Canadian Poinsettias & Free Trade
Date: 17 Dec 1992 08:05:54 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

Due to the scheduled signing of the NAFTA today, local (St. Louis, Ch. 2)
TV news had an item in the morning "business news" segment about a local
grower of poinsettias. His business is just about destroyed by much-lower-
priced poinsettias coming in from Canada. I was astounded by the price
differences for equivalent-sized plants: He has to charge $13 wholesale
but a Canadian one, including all the shipping to get here, *retails*
for $10.

This is pretty amazing to me -- if the plants were coming in from Mexico
or some tropical location, I could understand it based on the vast
disparity in labor costs. But I thought Canadian labor costs were
practically the same as US costs. Am I totally wrong in this? Can anyone
provide any figures that would explain this disparity?

Both are hothouse-grown, and I would think the fixed costs (pots, 
decorative wrapping paper, etc.) would be about the same. The fact that
thousand-plus-mile shipping of something fragile like a live plant does
not boost the cost well above the local source is also pretty strange.

[Note to non-USA readers who may be mystified by this - poinsettias are
red-bloomed decorative plants traditionally displayed in the US at
Christmas-time. They are grown in conditions that force them to bloom at
this time of year.]

I'd appreciate e-mail from anyone who can explain this situation.
Thanks!

Regards, Will
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 01:30:36 -0500 
From: Stephen Sorensen <ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Dumping Defined


  According to an article in yesterday's NYT biz section about D-RAM
chips, the Commerce Dept. defines dumping as selling goods below a price
that would recover costs PLUS a "reasonable" profit. At the request of
Micron, Commerce investigated "dumping" by the Korean company Samsung
and determined that Samsung needed to raise its prices 87.4%. Samsung
contends that it is making profits, which is technically true because
they have capitalized lots of the start-up and research costs.   

There was no explanation as to why Commerce chose to use the
avg.cost+normal profit definition or how they determined normal profits.
Commerce didn't even use Samsung data on production costs in their
ruling. It all seems very arbitrary and motivated strictly by Micron.

Tariffs on these chips are going to make PC's more expensive. They might
also send more US manufacturing jobs abroad. 

IMHO, the most reasonable and probably verifiable definition of dumping
is, as Ted suggested, selling at below marginal costs.

Steve Sorensen

ss9o@andrew.cmu.edu
From: mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Inflation (Was: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems)
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:53:30 GMT
Organization: Indiana University

In article <1gnkm6INN7op@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>mike) writes:
>|> Mike Polen) writes:
>|> >mike) writes:
>|> >|> 
>|> >|>   nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>|> >|>   
>|> >|>   [stuff about unions deleted]
>|> 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
>
>I give up.  What are the benefits of inflation?  Why is constant
>inflation better than any other kind?

Economists, who are notorious for being in disagreement, have shown a fairly
broad agreement of two things: The desire for 2-4 percent inflation, and 
perhaps 3-5 percent rate of unemployment.  Their *real* disagreement begins
when they start talking about *how* to achieve such a rate.

I have to run, so I can't give an elaborate answer to the benefits of
inflation, so I'll give you an example:

The US is able to discontinue deficit spending, therefore leaving itself
with $4 trillion in actual debt.  In real terms, without making a single
payment to reduce the $4 trillion debt, the debt is shrinking just becuase
of inflation.

In general, inflation helps all borrowers (the young) and hurts all savers
(the elderly) but the elderly *more* than make up for that with how they
are getting away with the COLA's out there, but that's another hornet's
nest.


-- 

					-- Mike
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 07:57:59 GMT

In article <37961@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.112559.367@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>>> Keynes satirizing the gold standard was further evidence of his economic
>>> ignorance.
>>
>>Is Milton Friedman also ignorant due to his rejection of the gold standard?
>>
>>  "It is neither feasable nor desirable to restore a gold- or silver-coin
>>  standard, but we do need a commitment to sound money.  The best arrangement
>>  currently would be to require the monetary authorities to keep the percentage
>>  rate of growth of the monetary base within a fixed range."
>>	- Milton Firedman, "Free to Choose", p296.
>>
>Yes he is. 
>
>This method has worked very well in the past, and there is no reason why
>it could not be reinstalled. (c.f. Paul,R.,"The Case for Gold")

Ohhhhhhhhh.  Keynes *and* Milton Friedman are ignorant.  But a Texas
dentist is all-knowing.  Okay.  As long as we know where economists stand.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637