HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Incarceration and the macro-economy (was: I want a GERMAN standard of living)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:56:59 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.222402.14999@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>In article <BxB3t5.8Ar@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>#                                              On the other hand 
>#   Both Germany and Japan have longer average lifespans and
>#   lower % of GDP spent on health care than the US, and both
>#   have lower crime rates.     So the situation is complex.
>
>I wonder how much the average lifespans and health care costs would move
>when you factor out gang violence, drug abuse, crack babies, and so forth,
>which are pretty much endemic to inner cities in America.
			.
			.
			.
Well, let's get analytic about this.  Those calculations
are possible, many of them are in the literature, and it
thrills me each (rare) time someone is industrious enough
to report to us in sci.econ on the fruits of disciplined
research.

One point that I've been mulling over lately is the extent
to which US penologic practices depress productivity.  The
crudest back-of-a-small-envelope scratchings suggest to me
the secular trend which has given the US world leadership
in imprisoning its own population has lowered economic
productivity growth by about %0.1 / year.  My crude model
assigns a null output to those in jail, and uses rough,
rough estimates for the costs to maintain them there.  I
take no account of demographics.

I write "has lowered" in the sense of statistical regres-
sion, rather than public policy.  At this point, I'm not
arguing that we can gauge alternative trajectories re-
alistically, only that estimating magnitudes might be
instructive.

Anyone in a position to report on what's already been
published or otherwise circulated on this topic?
-- 

Cameron Laird
claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546
From: rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Alternatives to Import Taxes
Date: 10 Nov 92 02:09:59 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Advanced Systems, Fremont CA


Are there any countries that require labling on the degree to which value
added is domestic vs value which is added abroad? My own sense is that
most American consumers often aren't aware when they are purchasing 
foreign products embedded within the shell of a larger American product.
For example, the Saturn has been hailed as the savior of GM, but I've
heard that most of the hi-tech parts are really made in Japan.

Now the whole free-trade vs. protectionism issue is a big one. I have
some sincere doubts around import restrictions and tariffs. Still,
some improvements in labling laws a might go a long ways in reducing 
reliance on imports without requiring extensive GATT negotiations or
even involvement on the part of congress(i.e. a state might pass a labling
law).
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Clinton Advisors
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 18:01:21 GMT

Does anyone know if Robert B. Reich at Harvard has an Internet address?
This guy's book, "The Work of Nations", is at odds with what Clinton has said
about what he'll do about the export of American jobs, yet Reich pops up
frequently as a talking head for Clinton's economic team.
 
Jerry
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8627 clari.net.talk:46
From: matthew@remus.rutgers.edu (matthew bernardini)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,clari.net.talk
Subject: I need information on how to obtain stock quotations through internet.
Keywords: stocks, information
Date: 12 Nov 92 21:35:48 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I am looking for a way to find out current stock prices over internet.
The reason is the following:
    I joined the AT&T Collegic Investment Challenge.  They limit every
participant to 50 transactions and a current price quote counts as half
a transaction (with a buy or sell counting as a whole transaction).
Obviously, it would be a great competitive advantage to get current
prices without calling the "broker".  
Please e-mail any responses to:

       matthew@gandalf.rutgers.edu

Thanks in advance.

Matthew Bernardini
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 12 Nov 92 20:28:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <10416@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) 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.

   I think this is a distinction without a difference.
 
   Presumably the idea is to keep the farmers *in business*.   And
   again, they don't *have* to do it to supply domestic needs; I 
   merely mentioned that as an example.   Many countries, e.g., 
   Japan, have important cultural values wrapped up a bucolic
   self-image.   I don't really care why they feel the need to do
   it; I'm just saying it's their tax money and they can do what
   they want with it.  

   Suppose they used their tax money to turn their nation into
   a giant theme-park which became the biggest tourist attraction
   on earth, sucking up billions of dollars that world tourists
   would have otherwise spent coming to see attractions in the US?


   The bottom line, for the reasons I mentioned in another post
   is that a "level playing field" is a complete fantasy; it has
   never existed and never will exist, nor is it clear it even
   offers any lasting benefits.   


---peter
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Von Misses Correct? USSR not centrally planned?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 23:37:34 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu



We have a lecturer comming who claims the above: that Misses' thesis
is correct, socialism cannot exist (due to information problems) and
that the USSR was and Russia is not now a centrally planned economy.
Instead, he describes it as mercantile.

Is this true?
-- 
"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: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:08:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov10.194335.25971@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>In article <BxIDKt.Isy@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>  I was looking over the jobs stats in yesterday's Wall Street
>>  Journal.  It had earlier been announced that unemployment
>>  had dropped to 7.4%.     But the Journal reported that this
>>  was due strictly to an decrease in people showing up at
>>  unemployment offices.   The actual number of jobs in the
>>  US economy was *DOWN*.   
>
>>  I just don't see any source for significant job growth
>>  in any sector of the US economy. 

>President-elect Clinton was selected as the only candidate who could solve these problems.  I expect that the money that Democrats have traditionally depended
>on to solve these problems just doesn't exist (the electorate refuses to be taxed to a level necessary to raise the funds).  
>
>If you have some suggestions regarding what will work, I'm sure Bill Clinton
>could use your help.



   I don't have any suggestions.   I've looked at the numbers every way
   I could think of and I have repeatedly asked on Usenet for advice
   about some other way to view things, and have gotten no help.   As
   far as I can tell the prognosis, especially for employment, is very
   poor.   I agreed with the retiring chairman of the Merril Lynch
   Capital Group, who offered this advice to the candidates before elec-
   tion day:  "Arrange to lose."

   One of the big disconnects that has occured is that profits and
   size-of-business is no longer tied to employment.  Modern
   companies can produce tremendous growth in revenues, profits,
   and unit output, while at the same time slashing jobs.  My employer,
   HP, has seen huge increases in revenues and even bigger increases
   in unit output and about a 15% cut in staff in the last 4 or 5
   years.   Ford, likewise has grown dramatically while cutting workers.
   Improving technology and improving process efficiencies make this
   possible.   So "growth", where growth is defined strictly in terms
   of GDP is no longer sufficient.    30 or 40 years ago this would
   have been rare indeed.  It would have been almost impossible for
   a company to see a 50% boost in sales and doubling of unit 
   output without having to do massive hiring.   

   The other issues, such as capacity oversupply, huge deficits, 
   job, capital, and technology mobility, have all been addressed
   elsewhere.
             
   My comments were directed at those on the Net who think my views
   are too dire, but who refuse to publically state where they 
   think the new jobs will be found.


---peter
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Date: 9 Nov 1992 20:41:30 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <BxEnMs.33v@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
|||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. 
|
|This is hardly the libertarian objection to other political theories.
|Who told you this?

Consider my ideal state, a particular welfare state that has never been tried,
just like libertarianism.  The only objection you might make is that 
practically it cannot work, since it will "lead to" socialism. My
point is that since Libertarianism is unpopular, it is indefensible as
a political strategy and theory.
-- 
"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: mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu (Matt Kennel)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Protectionism as investment
Date: 11 Nov 1992 00:21:24 GMT
Organization: Institute For Nonlinear Science, UCSD
NNTP-Posting-Host: lyapunov.ucsd.edu
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

Re:  the articles that talk about how protectionism costs us 2x for
each job saved.


Could not one view this cost as an "investment"---in that if you save
this job now from foreign competition, then perhaps the industry will
survive long enough that sometime in the future it has the capability
to compete in some new product area not yet invented?

By this measure, government protectionism and industrial policy is forced
investment by citizens in these industries.

What is more valuable?  Cheap cameras, or a camera industry?  Its probably
a tossup on that level---but what if 5 years down the line, you find that
the camera manufacturers have unique facilities and abilities to manufacture
nonlinear optics?

Notice that the Japanese trade practice appears desgined to completely
and qualitatively *wipe out* foreign competition, often at great initial
cost, in order to have a lock on entire segements of a future economy.
If the competition isn't fully killed off, then it can jump back later
on.

Would we be better off now if we didn't bail out Chrysler?  It's doing
much better than GM is now.

---------------------
The implementation of government investment might be very inefficient and
corrupt due to political influence.

Suppose we had a market in goverment investments, i.e. for every dollar
from private investors, comes a U.S. "dollar" in some measure.  There
would also need to be something to make sure the investments go towards
long-term, rather than short-term performance.

Another idea,
Suppose the social security administration invested in the stock market,
with a buy-and-hold strategy?

What if it invested in those companies with the maximal median wages
paid to workers, in order to support "high-wage high-growth jobs", and
the growth of business in those industries?

--
-Matt Kennel  		mbk@inls1.ucsd.edu
-Institute for Nonlinear Science, University of California, San Diego
-*** AD: Archive for nonlinear dynamics papers & programs: FTP to
-***     lyapunov.ucsd.edu, username "anonymous".
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 7 Nov 1992 23:32:18 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <BxB4ME.9BC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|
|
|  I think US policy is stupid and indefensible on 3 counts:

I agree, even though I don't, as a rule, defend free trade. Policies
such as this need to react to problems in a particular way. Was france
dumping white wine? No, american farmers are just hurting a bit from
the recession. You should not try to solve recession problems with a
trade war. Now, if the French has *suddenly* increased a tarriff on
one of our goods, and it threatend our industry, then you might have a
case. But this was not the situation at all.


Also, you have to weigh the situation depending on bargaining power.
That is, can we win the trade war or do we loose since we cannot wait
as long as france? Or are we hopeing that europe will not join in
solidarity with france or retaliate? I don't know the answers to these
questions, but I also doubt that "Free-Trade" George Bush does
either!
-- 
"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: howp@skyfox.usask.ca
Subject: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Organization: University of Saskatchewan
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 03:42:45 GMT

Hi, 

     I saw last Sunday an episode of _Adam Smith's Money World_ on PBS. It was
just before the U.S. election and they talked about a book titled 'BANKRUPTCY
1995' by authours Figgie and Swanson (sp?).  I have yet to read this book and I
was wondering if anybody has read this book and what their impressions were
(was it too alarmist? was it flawed? was it well/poorly written?). 

     The main idea of the book that I gathered from the PBS show was that the
U.S. is headed for major financial hardship due to the U.S. national debt. The
year of this calamity is predicted to be (guessing from the title) 1995. 

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

Peter How (gradual student),
University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon, SK
S7N 0W0
(306) 966-6452
Internet: how@skisas.usask.ca
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Date: 11 Nov 1992 19:48:16 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, miklg@acuson.com (Michael Goldman) says:

>	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.


      I fail to see the difference.  It's all the same system.

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

      I guess you missed the election results.

  " Insight ", Nov 23, 1992 -



    " If Clinton cannot bully lawmakers, what clout will he have with
      them? ...  The first is intimidation, but that's not Clinton's
      style, and he's not in a position to do it.  The second is to 
       offer inducements [pork] "


    
    " According to a Democratic Senate staff aide, Clinton and Mitchell
      coordinated their campaign and legislation strategies and have
      been sharing ideas about what will be a new legislative 
      environment "


      Good luck.

>	- 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]
>

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:08:02 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <thompson.721598892@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>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.

  But it doesn't imply that it WILL -- and that it WILL is
  the thesis of many net.optimists, so it would certainly
  give them more credibility to be more specific.
 
  Certainly in the past whole industries have died out
  displacing huge numbers of workers.   But this usually 
  occurred under circumstances where it was fairly obvious 
  that new industries were emerging.   Agriculture was
  the primary occupation in the US until this century, 
  but even as mechanization reduced the need for human 
  labor in the fields, huge new employers arose in the 
  cities and there were mass migrations in Europe and the US.
  Hores&buggy's were replaced by autos.  The engineers
  around Boston's Route 128-belt who lost their jobs near
  the end of the Vietnam War were soon at work at the new
  computer companies that sprung up in the same region.
  And so on.

  I have no doubt there will be growth in certain fields --
  the demand for molecular biologists will probably grow with
  biotech, for instance.  But this is a tiny, narrow technical
  specialty which will not provide significant employment
  to those currently losing their jobs.   Biotech in general
  is not very labor-intensive.

  There has seldom been a recession where there was not a
  spurt of job growth following the end of it (yes, I know
  jobs are a lagging indicator).  But theoretically we've
  been out of this recession for a year and jobs are still
  declining -- October saw another drop. 

  But the GDP is growing (sluggishly, but growing).  As I
  pointed out, there is something *new* going on here:  As
  a result of process and technology improvements companies
  are discovering that they can grow their revenues and their
  unit output, often dramatically, and continue to improve
  quality, introduce new products, etc, with FEWER employees. 

  This is a new disconnect -- people are still talking about
  "growth" but GDP growth does not necessarily add up to 
  jobs growth anymore and this is only just starting to
  dawn on people.


---peter
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 10 Nov 92 16:00:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: magnus.1992Nov10.160010.21690
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <JACKSON.92Nov10090438@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:

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

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

Subsidies from either side have this same effect.  Both American and
French taxpayers pay for the respective agricultural subsidies.  Both
French and American consumers pay higher costs as the expense of protecting
a political powerful group.

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

Charlie
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Question: how long do memeber of the Fed Serve ? 
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:32:25 GMT

Can anyone tell me how long members of the Fed serve ?  When will
Greenspans appointment as chairman expire ?  How long do other
members serve, and how many appointments will Clinton have in
his first two years of office ?

Thanks,
Guido
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Protectionism as investment
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:43:51 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov12.001025.22299@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

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

You are making the assumption that the mines will ever be reopened.
Given the amount of oil and gas that have been discovered in the last few
years, plus the known amount of coal in deposits that are cheaper to mine,
it is very questionable whether the mines will be reopened.

If coal were truely running out at some future date then the cost of coal
will go up.  When the cost of the coal still in the ground reaches the point
that it is greater than the costs of somebody reopening the mines, then
somebody will do it.

It makes no sense to subsidize the extraction of hard to reach coal when
cheaper stuff is readily available.

BTW, it will probably be closer to 100-150 years before the British coal
becomes cost competitive again.  The US alone has more than 100 years worth
of coal, most of that in near surface deposits that can be strip mined
quite cheaply.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ