HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: canright@convex.com (Robert Canright)
Subject: Re: Book on computer industry's effect on economy
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 16:21:00 GMT
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <BzuCv1.8y5@iat.holonet.net> kellys@orac.holonet.net (Kelly Schwarzhoff) writes:
>I'm looking for a book with more "statistics". How many people are employed? What
>percent of the GNP is based on high-tech industries, etc. Does anyone have any
>suggestions?

I doubt you'll find a book like that.  Have you tried computerized
literature searches through a library?  They can turn up books & articles.
I expect what you want will be in papers, not books.  My experience (in 
researching engineering) is that the innovative stuff is presented at
conferences & that scholarly journals print "old news".

>In addition, I found a lot of the articles to be rather negative.

What do you mean by that?  Everyone knows there is a lot of marketing
hype in the computer industry that doesn't come true.  Every so often one
sees an article "exposing" some of the fluff to be false.  Is that what
you're talking about.

>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Kelly Schwarzhoff
>Internet: kellys@holonet.net	Fidonet: 1:161/445
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: 21 Dec 1992 23:37:04 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, kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) says:

> Unless you show evidence that economic growth can't work to reduce the debt, 
> I can't give much creedence in what you say.
>

           Patience, Grin Grin Tharl, patience. 
           The proof will be with you in a short time.
           And for a short time only.
>
>Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
>

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 17:21:47 GMT

In article <1992Dec22.152116.8061@inel.gov> whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray) writes:
>In article <1992Dec21.171659.18729@ttinews.tti.com>, kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
>|>  You think the national debt is bad? Look at the CONSUMER debt! It was
>|>  something like 12 trillion in 1990. ...
>
>Or roughly $50,000 for every man,  woman,  child and probably most of the
>cats dogs and parakeets in the US of A.  This seems to be on the very edge
>of credibility.  perhaps even round the bend.
>

I remember encountering a figure close to $12 trillion for the
total private debt (including consumer and corporate).
It arose in the discussion of Barron's and the D-word.

-- 
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.
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: 29 Dec 92 03:43:09 GMT
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

In article <1992Dec23.163220.15747@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>
>Using only budget numbers, a freeze on real program spending, a real
>interest rate of 4.35%, a real GDP growth rate of 2% and
>capturing 20% of real GDP growth as government revenue
>will result in a declining debt-to-GDP ratio in 1999.
>The real interest rate and real GDP growth rate assumptious
>seem duly cautious.  The freeze on real program spending is
>achievable (especially in a growing economy).
>
>The dangerous part of this scenario is that it ignores off-budget
>items.  This is what worries me.  I'm not convinced that
>growth alone will do the job, given that there isn't much
>margin of safety when we use only the on-budget items
>(and ignore unfunded liabilities).
>
>I'm keeping my spreadsheet handy and my hand near the panic
>button.

This kind of calculations is really scary:

- Did you do any analysis as to how sensitive the scenario would be to
  variations in any parameter (like interest rates?)  What if some
  national emergency comes up?  What if a recession comes along?
  It's impossible to do a complete, accurate
  and dependable analysis of anything in economics, which tells you
  something about the "scientific" nature of economics and
  why relying on calculations like these to *live on the edge* is
  complete nonsense.

- Living on the edge till 1999 may be possible (not likely), but how close
  to the edge are we after that?  How long will it be until we can handle
  an emergency without getting close to bankruptcy again????

My entire message has been: let's not risk our future by playing with
this stuff.  Don't do speculative analysis.  Be proactive.  Prevent the
crisis from happening in the first place.  Stay far from fiscal limits.
Balance the budget.

The proper role of economics, in the first place, should have been to tell
society to be conservative because it can only reliably do steady-state and
not dynamic analysis.  But no, you guys choose to stay in your mathematically
rigorous but nonsensible world of models based on unrealistic assumptions
and ignore to warn the public of this MAJOR PROBLEM in our economy!
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9521 sci.electronics:21555 misc.consumers:21179
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.electronics,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: DOES AMERICA SAY YES TO JAPAN?
Date: 24 Dec 92 18:19:07 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ

dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

>In <1992Dec22.162623.3860@acuson.com> miklg@acuson.com
>(Michael Goldman) writes:

>>No one, get that, not a
>>_single_ one of them, would say that Japan is an open
>>society in terms of trade.

>This is, however, a non sequitor.  The question is not how much free
                               ^
At the risk of being labelled pedantic, "non-sequitur" is Latin for
"it does not follow," and in English (even American English) means a
inference that does not follow from the premises.  What you probably
meant to say is that even though Japan is not an open society in terms
of trade (and in many othe ways), this should not worry Americans.

|trade there is in Japan.   There are restrictions on free trade both in
|the US and in Japan, and restrictions are generally greater in Japan in
|most areas, but greater in the US in some areas.  Try importing manhole
|covers or shirts, for example, without applying for an import quota
|from the US government -- you will be in the slammer very quickly.

|The question is whether Japan's success in the market is due to its
|restrictions on trade.  The answer is a clear no, in my opinion.

It is my turn to use the phrase correctly.  This is an example of
a non-sequitur.

|Insightful people have been predicting Japan's economic success for
|about twenty years -- and these predictions were based on the
|observation that the quality of Japanese manufacturing was steadily
|climbing, and was soon going to surpass the quality of US products.  US
|products aren't bad, mind you; but Japanese products are as good or
|better.

In 1946 when I was employed in Japan for a year (by the US Air Force --
God Bless Them), I bought a Hemi slide rule: exquisite.  This was an
eyeopener for me, and I have always retained an admiration for Japanese
workmanship.  That is until I bought a Toyota Crown Deluxe in 1965.
A hunk of Junk.  I understand they have improved, but so have American
built cars.  I just bought a Ford Taurus.  Great car.  So American
workmanship can also improve.

But back to the case of "reciprocal free trade."   Let's hope the
Clinton administration will do what is required: demand effective
reciprocity.  That's all American industry needs.


--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 15:21:16 GMT

In article <1992Dec21.171659.18729@ttinews.tti.com>, kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec14.224955.7981@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> spm2d@uvacs.cs.Virginia.EDU (Steven Miale) writes:
|> %
|> %Today I mourn the economic death of America.
|> %
|> %We're on a collision course with the national debt.  ...
|> 
|>  Says who. You?
|> 
|>  You think the national debt is bad? Look at the CONSUMER debt! It was
|>  something like 12 trillion in 1990. ...

Follow me on this :

	12 trillion = 12 000 000 000 000 = 12 * 10e12

The population of the US is roughly 250 million:

	250 million = 250 000 000 = 250 * 10e6 = 25 * 10e7

Let's call it 240 million to make the arithmetic really easy;  then we
have

	12 * 10e12
	-----------  =  0.5 * 10e5  =  5 * 10e4
	24 * 10e7

Or roughly $50,000 for every man,  woman,  child and probably most of the
cats dogs and parakeets in the US of A.  This seems to be on the very edge
of credibility.  perhaps even round the bend.


========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
From: sringrose@galaxy.gov.bc.ca
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Rates charged for Canal Use
Date: 25 Dec 92 14:42:46 -0800
Organization: BC Systems Corporation

Dues for both the Panama and Suez canals are based on tonnages assigned to
ships by the canal authority.
The tonnages are roughly equivalent to the gross tonnages, ie. a measurement
of volume rather than displacement. Any book on ship construction should 
carry an adequate explanation. Try Ship Construction by Taylor from Butter-
worths.

D.Loughnane
71075.102@compuserve.com
  
 this reply courtesy of scott
> 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cabobin@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ERIC BOBINSKY)
Subject: Game Theory - Query
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 31 Dec 1992 10:12 EST  

I would appreciate it if anyone would be kind enough to let me know of 
a program (economics or otherwise) with a strong emphasis on game theory.
I'm not strictly interested in purely economic applications, but it would
seem that the game theorists are to be found in that field.  Thanks in
advance!

Eric 
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9507 alt.amateur-comp:400 talk.politics.misc:65243 misc.misc:4168
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 23 Dec 92 17:35:36 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec18.010103.16762@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

>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

[del]

This is not true. While under the gold standard the economy expaned faster
than the money supply, leading to a gradual *fall* in prices. Inflation is
completely unecessary. 

>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.

Actually, the Fed increased the money supply in 87, I believe.

>>  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

This is essentially the same thing. If the quality of goods goes up
but the price remains the same, it is as much a benefit as the prices 
staying the same for a good of constant quality.

The fact that the computer industry's goods have been plummeting is that
they are  constantly increasing supply and quality. This can offset
the effects of increasing the money supply,  but the distortions caused
by inflation will still result in a recession eventually. This is what
happened in the 20's.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

Xref: sparky sci.econ:9512 alt.amateur-comp:402 talk.politics.misc:65266 misc.misc:4169
From: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: New Hydrogen BBS
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:43:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: howard.smith@spacebbs.com (Howard Smith) 


                     !!! PROSPERITY WITHOUT POLLUTION !!!

                                Please call the
                       AHA HYDROGEN BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM
                                 (415) 494-3116

                     SupraFaxModem  V.32bis  14400 baud  8N1
                                    24 hours
                            Sysop:  Howard H. Smith

                         AMERICAN HYDROGEN ASSOCIATION
                        210 South Siesta Lane, Suite 101
                             Tempe, AZ 85281   USA
                              Tel: (602) 921-0433

                            AHA BBS: (415) 494-3116


                   HEARLDING THE DAWN OF THE HYDROGEN ECONOMY

                      !!! PROSPERITY WITHOUT POLLUTION !!!

---
 . SLMR 2.1a . Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
                                                                      
----
SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines - BoardWatch Top Ten BBS
415-323-4193 (v.32bis) - 4gB (50,000 files) + Wx, UPI News, etc.
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 3 Jan 93 22:05:32 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <58038@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>There is a lot of ignorant nostalgia out there for the good old days of hard
>currencies, ignoring the chaotic and destabilizing effects of a primitive
>type of currency system. Back before governments learned how to manipulate
>the currency supply and when there was no government mechanism to buffer
>people from wild market swings, guns were used to regulate the economy much
>more often.  As an early USA example, Shay's rebellion in this part of
>the world came about partially as a result of a specie shortage where
>Western mass farmers were at the end of a chain of debtors originating
>in England. Unable to find cash, many farmers lost their land and ended
>up trying to shoot judges. In Rhode Island, the merchants lost control of
>the state legislature and the state issued paper currency to ameliorate
>the crisis, but here, no compromise was made, and troops from
>Boston restored the reign of hard currency. 

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Alas, there is much, much more ignorant admiration of the all-knowing
government to be able to "fix" the economy by increasing the money supply.

I don't know much about the situations you state, so I cannot comment
on them. Let me point out some examples of government manipulations
of the money supply.

America, under the Articles of Confederation: the currency was printed
at a rate so fast that the currencies soon became worthless. Some of
the signers of the Constitution would have readily tossed asside the
document if it had allowed the issuance of paper money.

Germany, World War I: after the war the German hyperinflation was so
bad that the Reichsbank could not print enough money to keep up with
the exponential rise in prices. Oddly enough, a "shortage of goods" was
blamed.

Russia now: there have been so many Rubles printed of late that inflation
has reached 1000% I believe.

I can't remember any more details at the present, but I know that
the South American countries have huge problems with inflation

Many problems attributed to the gold standard were actually the result
of government interference. The National Banking Act of 1860 centralized
reserves in a few banks in New York, thus allowing them to inflate the
paper money supply. The issuance of greenbacks in 1860 was to blame
for the deflation experienced after the U.S. went back on the gold
standard. The Federal Reserve in the 1920's inflated the money supply 
so much it caused the boom of the 20's, and the bust of the 30's, and
the gold standard was blamed for it.

But that is what usually happes: the government screws things up, then
the government is called in to fix the mess. Sounds kind of like a sliperry
slope doesn't it?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P. Chatterjee)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Game Theory - Query
Date: 31 Dec 1992 17:48:52 -0600
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

cabobin@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (ERIC BOBINSKY) writes:

>I would appreciate it if anyone would be kind enough to let me know of 
>a program (economics or otherwise) with a strong emphasis on game theory.
>I'm not strictly interested in purely economic applications, but it would
>seem that the game theorists are to be found in that field.  Thanks in
>advance!

Almost all the major economics departments have a game theorist or two in
their ranks. Martin Shubik (Yale), Lloyd Shapley (UCLA), 
David Kreps (Stanford) and James Friedman (North Carolina) are among the 
better known ones.

I've been told that a lot of business schools, operations research 
departments and stats departments have game theorists in their faculties.

Hope this info helps.

 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: drooling@wam.umd.edu (Dale E Robinson)
Subject: FAQ
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 14:45:03 GMT


   I am looking for the FAQ for this newsgroup.  Could someone
please e-mail one to me or repost it.  I am also looking for an
ftp site with basic economic data (GNP, unemployment, inflation, etc.).


                                  Thanks in advance.

drooling@rac.wam.umd.edu
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:08:46 GMT

In article <58004@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>Can you name a period and economy in the industrial ages where prices have
>been stable for more than a few years?

To butt in here, consider the U.S. economy in the 19th century, which was
industrializing throughout the century.

  1828-1860:  prices were about 10% lower in 1860 than in 1828; annual
              price changes never exceeded +/-8%; biggest variation
              from the trend line was less than 5%.
  1880-1913:  prices in 1913 equalled those in 1880; annual price changes
              never exceeded +/-3%; biggest variation from the (flat)
              trend line was less than 5%
              [see: Greider, William, Secrets of the Temple, Simon and
                    Schuster, 1987, HG2563.G72 1989 - a great book which
                    you will find has disappeared from every library you
                    can access :)]
              
The end of price stability in 1860 was caused by civil war financing
via greenbacks.  Libertarians will argue that the end of price
stability in 1913 is a direct result of the creation of the Federal
Reserve system that year, but prices really didn't take off until 1917
when the U.S. entered the war.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 27 Dec 92 03:12:03 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Dec26.160846.8549@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>In article <58004@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>
>>Can you name a period and economy in the industrial ages where prices have
>>been stable for more than a few years?
>
>To butt in here, consider the U.S. economy in the 19th century, which was
>industrializing throughout the century.
>
>  1828-1860:  prices were about 10% lower in 1860 than in 1828; annual
>              price changes never exceeded +/-8%; biggest variation
>              from the trend line was less than 5%.
>  1880-1913:  prices in 1913 equalled those in 1880; annual price changes
>              never exceeded +/-3%; biggest variation from the (flat)
>              trend line was less than 5%

Weren't there several gigantic panics and depressions during these periods?
If average wages drop significantly, prices are essentially higher even if 
they are nominally stable. 



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kellys@orac.holonet.net (Kelly Schwarzhoff)
Subject: Re: Book on computer industry's effect on economy
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Fri, 1 Jan 1993 21:21:53 GMT

 > I doubt you'll find a book like that. Have you tried computerized
 > literature searches through a library? They can turn up books &
 > articles. I expect what you want will be in papers, not books. My
 > experience (in researching engineering) is that the innovative stuff
 > is presented at conferences & that scholarly journals print "old
 > news"

I tried searching through melvyl and gladis (UC and UCB's electronic card 
catalog) but I had problems trying to categorize what I was looking for.
What do you say when you're looking for economic statistics of the computer
industry's effects? Do you have any suggestions as to which papers I could
look for?

> What do you mean by that? Everyone knows there is a lot of marketing
> hype in the computer industry that doesn't come true. Every so often
> one sees an article "exposing" some of the fluff to be false. Is that
> what you're talking about.

True, there is a lot of hype, but to say that computers has made business
more unproductive is a bit of an exageration, wouldn't you say? 

Besides, in my essay I'm trying to concentrate on the positive effects. 
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Schwarzhoff
Internet: kellys@holonet.net	Fidonet: 1:161/445
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9504 alt.amateur-comp:399 talk.politics.misc:65225 misc.misc:4167