Return-Path: <@VMD.CSO.UIUC.EDU:POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.Colorado.EDU>
X-Envelope-to: CSG-L@vmd.cso.uiuc.edu
X-VMS-To: @CSG
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.csg-l
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:43:27 -0700
From:         "William T. Powers" <POWERS_W%FLC@VAXF.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Economics; misc

[From Bill Powers (930127.2030)]

Bob Clark (930127) --

I have a lot of things to say about economics, Bob, but I'd
better postpone them a while. I'm going away for 10 days starting
Feb. 7, and Wolfgang Zocher is about to spring a very nice
version 4 of Simcon on the world which I want to help get
distributed, and I'm working on the 7-df arm model, and the
chatter on the net never ceases.

Just a brief word. My father has done a lot of research on the
factual record of economic phenomena, comparing it with basic
theories, and has found that the basic theories are almost total
nonsense. Examples: when money is made tight, the rate of
inflation goes UP, not down. The analogy of national savings to
savings of families is completely wrong. What economists use as
an indirect measure of national savings really represents a loss
of buying power out of the national economy. Industry has spent
20 +/- 2 percent of its total income on capital investment
percent every year for the last 100 years; you can't jazz up the
economy by increasing investment. And other goodies. His approach
has been the macroeconomic one, and I've become very interested
in it. Economists pay very little attention to the facts.

From the macroeconomic point of view, taxation has essentially no
effect on the economy. Those who object so strongly to taxes seem
to forget that the government spends its tax income AT LEAST as
fast as it receives it. Most of the money taken in is handed
right back, although redistributed, becoming buying power in the
hands of the public and industry again. What changes is who gets
the money, and that's a microeconomic problem, or a problem of
social justice, or politics. Maybe taxing one industry
discourages that industry, but another one gets the money and is
encouraged. The best place to put tax money is in the hands of
poor people, because they are sure to spend it all right away,
and not hoard it or leak it away in bad investments outside our
economy. It's the people who don't spend all of their income on
goods and services in this economy who are responsible for most
of our problems. Those tend to be the people and organizations
who make so much money that they can't possible spend it all on
goods and services.

Control theory gets into macroeconomics by explaining what keeps
the circular flow going.

Later.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avery Andrews (930128.1120)

>In general, I think that current linguistic theories should be
>regarded as just being resources that are out there, and that
>from a PCT perspective, one should just take whatever insights,
>if any, that they might seem to offer. And, at the moment, I
>see Motor Control as a *much* higher priority target.

You're probably right.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Best to all,

Bill P.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU