HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman )
Subject: Re: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Organization: Acuson; Mountain View, California
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:28:40 GMT

an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:


>In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:

>>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.)


>    The predicted Budget Deficit for 1993 is $381 billion, assuming
>    a $30 billion fiscal stimulus, which I believe is around $20 billion
>    less than Clinton's proposal.

	The Economist published the Debt/GDP of industrialized countries
	a few weeks ago.  The US was about average.  Germany's is rapidly
	growing as well.  We used to be much better.  In 1960 Debt/GDP was
	0.36, 1970 = 0.33, 1980 = 0.33, 1990 = 0.56, 1992 = 0.7 so the
	trend lines are the worrisome thing.  (Data from the 1992 World
	Almanac).

>    One thing missing in your analysis.  It assumes that the GDP will
>    continue to grow.  

	If GDP doesn't grow, the debt will not be the major concern of
	anyone - unemployment and crime will be.

>>2) The deficit/debt problems, while large, are not insolvable.

	I agree.

	- Michael Goldman

-- 
"History teaches us that men and nations behave wisely once they have
exhausted all other alternatives." - Abba Eban
	Disclaimer:  All views are solely my own & not the views of Acuson.
	<sun!sono!miklg>  or  [miklg@acuson.com]
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Date: 9 Nov 1992 07:30:21 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: thor.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:

>
>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?). 
>> 
>
>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.)


    The predicted Budget Deficit for 1993 is $381 billion, assuming
    a $30 billion fiscal stimulus, which I believe is around $20 billion
    less than Clinton's proposal.

    One thing missing in your analysis.  It assumes that the GDP will
    continue to grow.  If you were watching CSPAN, Joint Economic
    Committee hearings on the Oct. Unemployment numbers, you might
    not be so blaise.
>
>2) The deficit/debt problems, while large, are not insolvable.


    Again, if you had watched CSPAN on Friday, you might have a different
    opinion.  In the words of Allen Sinai, who appears to have changed 
    his tune from last year:

       This economy is "unlike any I have eve seen" and can only be
    characterized as a "1930s type" economy.                

    I got the distinct impression that the economist consultants that
    were testifying DO consider it insolvable, at least in a way that
    is palatable to the American public.

>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!)
>
From: sasdrf@daedalus.unx.sas.com (Dave Frederick)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re:      Do you remember 1970 to 1980?
Date: 12 Nov 92 13:39:52 GMT
Organization: SAS Institute Inc.
Originator: sasdrf@daedalus.unx.sas.com


In article <9211112206.AA06289@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
|>
|>       As part of an impromptu research project, I'd like to know the
|>   what YOU think the single most important ( dramatic, traumatic )
|>   event was.
|>
|>
|>            ????

For those of us born in the late '50's, I'm sure you'll find getting
laid for the first time ranks right up there... :-)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:40:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BxIqDE.A4r@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton) writes:
>In <BxI5t4.A2x@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  In fairness to the US it should be noted that GATT *did* find
>>  that France was in violation and under GATT, signatory states *do*
>>  have the right to impose punitive tariffs.  What I was questioning
>>  was whether this was wise and moral, not whether it was legal.
>
>Is there an argument to be made that it was *not* wise, given that
>France has no intention of changing its policy?  Do we have a recourse
>other than punitive tariffs?
 

   Depends on your goals.   Given the state of the world economy
   I would suggest that minimizing any risk of a trade war should
   be the highest priority, certainly far higher than proving that
   our national phallus is bigger than theirs, or whatever macho
   psychology is motivating those guys in Commerce and State.
   So yes, in a worldwide recession like this is is *not* wise to
   risk a trade war.

   Thus our recourses:

   1.  Take no action except to use our bully pulpit to point out
       to the world that France cannot be trusted to uphold their
       agreements (i.e., GATT).
       
    . . . or if action must be taken . . . 

   2.  Limit the tariffs strictly to oilseeds, since that is the 
       main issue.  Extending the tariffs to other products as the
       US seems intent on doing is the way to start this spiraling
       out of control.


---peter

  

  
   
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8580 sci.anthropology:1360
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.anthropology
Subject: Questions about the Economics of the Family
Date: 11 Nov 92 18:50:08 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA

One of the results of modern economic inquiry has been the evidence
that family size tends to decrease as family income increases(at least
up to some income point which is fairly high).


Something that has troubled me a bit about this analysis: the studies I
seen do not take into account the growing tendency for wealthier men in 
America to get married multiple times. My current sense is that wealth
tends to have a positive effect on men's fertility and a negative effect
on women's fertility. 

Does anyone have any references to some good studies that they could share
on this area?

Thanks!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 15:24:57 GMT

>The title says it all. Perot got 14 million, Lullani F???ani got
>19,000, the Peace and Freedom people got some 10,000. Clearly
>Libertarians are a lunatic fringe....

Where do you get your figures.  (I'm not, at present, disputing them...
it is just that I would like to see them.)

Note well that truth is not a majoritarian issue.  Indeed, the
inference 'Many people believe X is false --> X is false' is
clearly invalid.  It is the truth (or falsity) of libertarian ideas which must
be debated, not the popularity.

--Jimbo




Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Ben Fulton)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:00:49 GMT

In <BxI5t4.A2x@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  In fairness to the US it should be noted that GATT *did* find
>  that France was in violation and under GATT, signatory states *do*
>  have the right to impose punitive tariffs.  What I was questioning
>  was whether this was wise and moral, not whether it was legal.

Is there an argument to be made that it was *not* wise, given that
France has no intention of changing its policy?  Do we have a recourse
other than punitive tariffs?

-- 
ben
fulton@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.
Government is sanctioned violence.
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Date: 7 Nov 92 23:22:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <BxAw5M.Dnv@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
|>The title says it all. Perot got 14 million, Lullani F???ani got
|>19,000, the Peace and Freedom people got some 10,000. Clearly
|>Libertarians are a lunatic fringe....
|
|Where do you get your figures.  (I'm not, at present, disputing them...
|it is just that I would like to see them.)

The San Fransisco Chronicle! However, many have alreayd pointed out
that the number was around 250,000, or .25% of the vote. This is still
pretty bad: much worse than 1988 or the high of 1980 (?) when I think
you got to a million, although this could be just Marreau fantasy. 

|Note well that truth is not a majoritarian issue.  Indeed, the
|inference 'Many people believe X is false --> X is false' is
|clearly invalid.  It is the truth (or falsity) of libertarian ideas which must
|be debated, not the popularity.

No, since the objection that libertarians have to other ideologies is
that they may work in theory, but in reality it "leads to" socialism
and so on. If people don't believe in a politcal theory then it denies
that theory is a practical alternative, and hence Libertarianism is
neither practical or theoretically sound.




-- 
"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that     
    distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            
                      Kenneth Boulding                             

					All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
						david@cats.ucsc.edu.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:08:12 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

[gloomy stuff deleted]

>  I have repeatedly asked various people who think I'm
>  being too pessimistic to name the areas or industries 
>  where they anticipate growth in good-quality jobs.
>  What would you advise a college freshman to major in
>  today?   What would you advise a laid-off autoworker 
>  to seek training in?   

>  Invariably, answer came there none.
>                         

I do not think that our inability to forecast where growth will occur
implies that growth will not occur anywhere.  Why do you read so much
into people's unwillingness to commit to a specific forecast?
--
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: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 21:16:27 GMT

In article <BxB4ME.9BC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  2.  France, et al, are democracies.  Their voters have made it
>      clear that they WANT some of their tax money to be used for
>      agricultural subsidies.   What the US is, in effect, saying
>      to the EC officials is that they should ignore the wishes of
>      their own voters and instead follow OUR dictates.  This
>      sounds "imperialistic" to me.  I don't see how we can 
>      morally justify this while at the same time allegedly trying
>      to promote democracy around the world.

You might like to consider a vaguely analagous situation in the US.
Suppose that Iowans want subsidies, but Vermonters don't ? The federal
government gets to impose the will of other states on the dissenters,
in many cases, expecially those involving export.

The real question here is whether or not the EC itself is a democracy:
i.e. to what extent are the economic policies and negotiating
positions of the EC a reflection of its constituents (individuals, not
nations) ?

Of course, one could ask the same of the US :-)

-- 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: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1992 02:30:21 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>  Sometimes yes, sometimes, no.   In the case of industrialization
>  of agriculture or replacing horse&buggy's with cars, the very
>  factors that were destroying one were creating the others so that
>  was a no-brainer.

I agree that from the perspective of the 1990's this is a no-brainer.
I am not so sure that the same can be said about the perspective of
the late 19'th century.  It is often to see changes occuring around us
that seem obvious from a few years later.

In any event, your examples fail to address my main point -- that most
of the long term forecasts that people make are wrong.  Simply talking
about the ones that were right does not provide any evidence one way
or the other.

>  You're poting from an economics department (brave man!) -- what do
>  you think is going to happen in US employment for the rest of 
>  the decade, and why?

I'm not willing to bite on this one.  My replies to you are largely
derived from a strong distrust of long term macroeconomic forecasts.
I personally believe that macroeconomics is in a state of intellectual
disarray.  We understand the failings of older theories but have not
come up with much in the way of consensus about appropriate
replacements.  (My own research focuses on the econometric analysis of
microeconomic behavior.)  I do not consider myself either an optimist
or a pessimist about the jobs situation a decade from now.  I would
prefer to characterize myself as a skeptic about the theoretical and
empirical basis of any such forecasts.
--
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: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 16:38:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1689D8423.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>In article <BxIDKt.Isy@apollo.hp.com>

>>  Now, I've been accused by some net.optimists of being
>>  unreasonably gloomy on economic prospects.   It makes no
>>  difference to them that an increasing number of very
>>  mainstream economists and businessmen are beginning to
>>  echo my sentiments that the problems in the US and world
>>  economy are structural, not cyclical, and very severe.

>I would agree 100%. I recommend re-reading E. F. Schumacher's 1973 classic,
>"Small is Beautiful" to see how thoroughly ignored he has been and how our
>failure to see the error of our economic policy has brought us to the state
>we now are witnessing. In my opinion, unless we reverse course our people are
>doomed to downward mobility (rapid) as corporations seek the cheapest labor
>on the globe for all tasks they can't figure out how to automate.

  But what's the alternative?   If you forced the US to use high-cost
  domestic labor then this raises the price of US goods, not only
  raising the prices you and I pay, but also reducing our ability
  to compete internationally with companies in other nations who
  don't impose these restrictions.   My employer, HP, for instance
  does nearly half our business overseas so my job depends very 
  much on HP's ability to compete internationally.   My wife works
  for a US company that does MOST of its business overseas.

  During the 1980's US export business boomed and this contributed
  to a lot of domestic prosperity.    Also a world economy *brings
  in* jobs, too.  Look at the Japanese car makers in Kentucky, 
  Tennessee and Ohio, or the BMW plant being built in North Carolina.
  My mother-in-law is a vice-president at a German company in New
  Jersey.  

  Also it's technology that makes this possible and you can't turn
  back the technological clock.  You can put a satellite dish on the
  roof of a building in any LDC in the world and with modern work-
  group software make them part of the software development team
  in a US company.   When you call some US airlines to book a 
  flight, the person on the other phone is on an island in the
  Caribbean earning a fraction of what a US worker would (source:
  Boston Globe).   
        

---peter
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: 6 Nov 92 22:24:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov6.222402.14999
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

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.
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: flat taxes - yes!!!
Summary: flat taxes are a good idea
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 9 Nov 92 23:33:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: mcl.markts.721352037


 flat taxes for everyone. people and corporations.
 the 13% idea from jerry brown was the only
 good idea out of the democratic primaries.

 you think this lets the rich off the hook?
 check out how much the really rich actually
 pay in taxes now.

 flat taxes will benefit the middle class.

 of course we could elect libertarians and not
 worry about income taxes.

 mark.
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Consumption taxes need not be a sales tax (or a VAT)
Date: 12 Nov 92 23:31:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

I would just like to point out, in reference to a previous posting, that
a consumption based tax does not have to be a sales tax; i.e. a tax levied
at the point of sales at the same rate for everybody.  In general, a 
sales-type tax is regressive.  A consumption tax can, however, be based on
an individuals level of consumption for the given taxable period.  The way
to compute the level of consumption is just subtract end of the years savings
from the sum of beginning of the years savings plus all income earned 
during the year.  This is the amount of consumption and this can be taxed
at progressive rates if you want.  The government can, of course also exempt
certain types of consumption if they want (e.g. medical, school, etc.).
I'm not advocating this as a solution to anything, it's just FYI.  A nice
treatment of a proposed cash-flow type tax, which is essentially a consump-
tion tax, is given in a book by Henry Aaron and Galper (first name unknown and so is the title, sorry), published after the tax reform of 1986.

Now, if we could discuss the redundancy of a corporate income tax...;-)

-David Oliver
doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu
Departmant of Economics
University of Rochester
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Date: 6 Nov 92 23:59:01 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1dcrs9INN5fg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
> 
> The title says it all. Perot got 14 million, Lullani F???ani got
> 19,000, the Peace and Freedom people got some 10,000. Clearly
> Libertarians are a lunatic fringe....

	Marrou got 270,000.

	Why so paranoid? :)

	However, they did gain a seat in the NH house, and their Senate
candidates ranged from 2-5%.  Which translates to 200,000 in CA for Genis and
Broddie.

	I think a lot of lib voters split the ticket and went for Perot at the
top.

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:45:58 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <10416@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM writes:
> 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.

As is the US when it subsidizes tobacco.    The point here
is that both sides ought to be negotiating to reduce their
subsidies.   For the US to "punish" France for its subsidies,
while maintaining its own, can only lead to resentment.

"I'll hit you till you stop doing that" is not the same as
"Let's both stop doing that".

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.econ