HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: A different Laffer curve? (was: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:01:41 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec15.141252.14523@litwin.com> claird@litwin.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>>In article <1gieqsINNma6@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>			.
>			.
>			.
>>  I'm sure occasionally it has done someone, somewhere some good.  
>>  The technical computer groups, are, in my experience, good
>>  sources of technical information.   Although even that, IMO,
>>  reflects the fact that for most people on Usenet "somone else"
>>  is paying for it.  That is, on Compuserve you are paying $12
>>  an hour.  At those rates you generally want to get in and out 
>>  quickly, posting your question or looking for answers to your
>>  earlier question(s).   Most CI$ users can't afford to read
>>  hundreds of daily postings and consider providing answers to
>>  a few of them, at least I can't.  Selfish?  Practical.

>			.
>Idle question:  do you believe that Compuserve
>could profitably adjust its pricing?  It's easy
>to extrapolate your observations to conclude
>that, if Compuserve had lower marginal charges,
>the quality of the dialogues on their fora would
>rise, and they would then attract more readers
>and writers. 

  Since we have no idea of their internal costs it's
  impossible to speculate meaningfully.  Certainly
  if I could access their fora for $6/hr instead
  of $12 I would spend more time reading them, but
  probably not twice as long.  Also, if people did
  spend more time then this would increase CI$'s
  fixed costs, too.  They'd need more computers, 
  tie-lines, disk-space, etc.  

  Really hard to say.


---peter


  
  



Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:25:15 GMT

In article <1992Dec12.164200.2712@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Dec12.123740.3302@samba.oit.unc.edu> Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>>Classical theory contained some ideas that are relevant here. I refer
>>to Adam Smith's idea "that the division of labor is limited by the
>>extent of the market" (Chapter 3 in The Wealth of Nations). Important
>>points: 
>>(1) Technology and technological change are not givens that rain down from
>>heaven.
>Nothing I've said relies on this assumption.
>>(2) Increasing returns to scale are pervasive.
>False.  Otherwise, General Motors would still have 50% market share.
>In the new niche market, GM can't survive profitably because its
>production lines run most efficiently at runs four times too large.
>>(3) Economic growth, both for firms and countries, reflect a learning
>>process that one cannot leap into the middle of.
>>(4) Non-price forms of competition are pervasive as well.
>I've specifically acknowledged (4).
>>(5) History matters.
>>(6) Uncertainty about the future matters.
>Nor have I assumed away any of these.
>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

Hey, my posting works again.

Ted, don't take it personnally. I don't have an opinion on dumping.
My claim is that you and others in this thread have been talking past
each other because you have been speaking from different paradigms.
You can acknowledge certain claims all you want, but the basic bundle of
tools you seem to use, Neoclassical economics, I claim, is incompatible
with the above points.

Let me ask you a couple of questions, some of which will take a little
bit of research, but not too much.

(1) Are you familar with the above Smith quotation and the ideas
associated with it?

(2) Does the U. of C. have any of the following journals available in
their libraries:

  The _Journal_of_Post-Keynesian_Economics_ (associated with the
  Post-Keynesian "school" of economics)

  The _Cambridge_Journal_of_Economics_ (associated with
  NeoRicardian/Sraffian/Cambridge-Italian "school" of economics) 

  The _Journal_of_Economic_Issues_ (associated with the "school" of 
  institutionalism)

(3) Am I correct in assuming you have done some coursework in economics
at Chicago? If so, did you learn about the existence of the above
schools?
                                   Robert Vienneau

P.S. Feel free to edit the above and to change the heading.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:25:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec15.185329.11685@cs.rochester.edu> fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:
>>If the US is losing jobs, I have not seen a cogent explanation showing that
>>those jobs are ending up in Japan.
>
>I don't think the majority of those jobs are ending up in Japan.  Most of
>them are just being obsolesced.
  
  This is essentially correct.  See the current issue of _Fortune_, 
  cover story, about the US losing jobs to foreign workers.  One 
  statistic they gave suggested that for every million US jobs a
  US company cuts, maybe 100,000 are shipped overseas; the rest
  just cease to be.    

  The article is interesting and scary.   And the second cover story
  Fortune has done on US job losses in a few months.


---peter             
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Japanese Workers
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 14:34:32 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <louis.724395164@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>
>|In article <louis.724349346@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca| louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>||I would also bet, but cannot prove, that the Sony employees in Japan are
>||earning more assembling PowerBooks than the Apple workers in the US are
>||assembling desktop machines.  Anybody know the answer?
>
>|Define "more."  Odds are an American earning $30K a year has a much
>|higher quality of life than a Japanese worker earning the Japanese
>|equivalent of $33K a year.
>
>During the great constitutional debate in Canada and the 1992
>referendum the YES side (govts, industry) ran ads quoting a UN survey
>as to the highest average "quality of life" whatever *that* means.
>Canada was rated as No. 1, ichiban, but guess who was rated as No. 2:
>Nippon.

   Forget "quality of life" -- it's a rat-hole.  it has no agreed-upon
   definitions, which makes it easy to twist to whatever political or
   ideological slant you want to apply.  In the UN case it looked at 
   things like crime-rates, access to health care, and so on.  These
   are important but there are no agreed-upon weightings.    

   For economic purposes we can *probably* get away with "purchasing-power
   parity" most of the time, and by this metric the US is still
   number one.  Note that even purchasing power parity makes some 
   heavily slanted cultural assumptions.   But I agree with the other
   poster that on this basis the Japanese workers are making *less*
   than their American counterparts.  


---peter



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:04:35 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <JACKSON.92Dec17154850@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@stsci.edu writes:
>A naive question.
>
>If INFLATION is defined at the overall price level rising
>Then how can that occur without an increase in the money supply?

  We're using a lot of loose and fuzzy definitions of "inflation"
  here.   You can think of inflation in terms of the money supply
  relative to the total production of goods and services or you can
  think of it in terms of changes in price of a particular product
  or collection of products.  Although these usually track they're
  not guaranteed to.

  In the real world it's perfectly possible for the price of any
  particular item to increase without there necessarily being 
  more customers willing to pay more money for it.   You just
  need *some* customers willing to pay that much and a willingness
  to sell fewer units.


>For prices to go up, then incomes must go up in order to pay
>for the higher prices.

  But not always.  I.e., general incomes can drop, general 
  money supply can drop, you increase the price of your widgets.
  Normally this would be unwise, but maybe, based on your 
  particular business situation and customers it might be 
  reasonable.  


---peter

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com
Subject: Re: Real Estate Collapse
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:02:16 GMT

thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
> In article <Bz2BCt.FMJ@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> >  Why did real estate collapse?
> 
> Because the market was artifically propped up by tax breaks which were
> removed in the 1986 tax reform.

Some of them were removed.  Housing subsidies for the middle-class
remain. 

Lyle		Transarc		707 Grant Street
412 338 4474	The Gulf Tower		Pittsburgh 15219

Xref: sparky sci.econ:9441 misc.legal:21404
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Date: 17 Dec 92 00:49:59 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: na
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <Bz7KBM.2uMu@austin.ibm.com>, alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com
(Alan R. Weiss) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec8.181947.11191@midway.uchicago.edu>
thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
|> >
|> >>Even if you could "buy up and resell" dumped products, it will put
|> >>your production plant out of business. Then the dumper takes over the
|> >>jobs and the industry ....

It wouldn't put your production "out of business", it would simply idle it
or allow you to create inventory for that amount that you were no longer
having to produce.  How long would this continue?  If it really was for
long enough to put your production out of business, then it would suggest
that they had much deeper pockets than both you and the entire market.

If they really possessed that much of a capital advantage, then dumping
seems like a really crude way to win market share.  It would be more 
efficient to put your overwhelming capital to work at refining some 
additional capital advantage.  

Also,  notice that if you possess a capital advantage, then giving away
your capital -- what dumping does -- is counter-productive.

 
|> NO.  Haven't you READ the Paper by Louis Leclerc?  The point is,
|> the keiretsus (zaibatsus by any other name) can finance the loss
|> for a VERY long period of time, driving American industry out
|> of the business.  THEN, they can come in and take it over.
|> So, while they lose money on each sale, the loss is financed by
|> high prices in their own home markets plus transfer financing from
|> other industries' profits.
|>

This says in essence that Japanese consumers and profitable Japanese 
firms are subsidizing a practice which takes money and throws it away.
Hmmmmm.  I hope they keep it up.

Also, we've argued elsewhere that a sufficiently large cartel is made 
internally vulnerable by dumping, since American businesses can exploit
dumped products to make themselves more competitive against other
non-dumping businesses in the cartel. 

And, we can't come up with an example in which prices were gouged once
a so-called monopoly was achieved.

It seems to me that "dumping" is a practice by which the Japanese are
literally handing over their competitive advantage to us.

Paul Collacchi
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:15:08 GMT

In article <Bz3MAC.7nM@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec10.233707.26960@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>In article <Bz2E7r.JvC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>>>False again.  Bygones are bygones, sunk costs are sunk costs.  They're
>>>>making profits on the sale of tickets, even if they're losing money
>>>>overall.  
>>>
>>>  Again, why is this relevant?   They're still losing money.  
>>
>>Again, so what?  They're making more money than they would not selling
>>any tickets.
>
>  They're not *making money*.  They're losing less money than they would
>  otherwise lose.

The money's already lost.  They're already in the hole, and this strategy
allows them to improve their position.  That's making money.

>>>  "Profit" has a specific   meaning in a business.
>>
>>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.

Just because they were already $1 billion down when they started selling
tickets doesn't mean they're not profiting by selling tickets.
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: 12 Dec 92 01:57:20 GMT

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

|  True; there are also US companies making dRAMs and, I think, even
|  flat-panel displays.  So for you purists, let me rephrase it by
|  saying,  why are Japanese workers enjoying the bulk of all the 
|  jobs producing these kinds of products?   Why do so many US companies
|  find it necessary to look to Japan for these products?  If we want
|  more US jobs we should start making all those things we currently 
|  import from Japan.   Why can't US com[panies make those things 
|  cheaper and better than the Japanese? 

|---peter

There is no simple answer to your question.  Japanese trade policy
helped to hollow out American industries as well documented in
Prestowitz' book.  But that isn't the whole story.  I blame the insane
defense budgets of the Reagan-Bush years in part.  So does Akio Morita
when he says that if your best engineers and R&D spending are going to
non-commercial development you can no longer expect to be able produce
trivial things like TVs, VCRs, Camcoders, etc.  But now that the Russian
bear has disappeared, maybe the US can get back to some trivial
pursuits.

I am starting Thurow's book, "Head to Head."  Maybe he has some
practical suggestions.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.
From: c164-aa@po.berkeley.edu (Paul DuBois)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,ucb.org.csua
Subject: Re: SODA, SUPER HEROS AND OUR INTERNET (branch)
Date: 13 Dec 92 22:45:32 GMT
Distribution: ucb
Organization: University of California, at Berkeley

hh@soda.berkeley.edu (Eric Hollander) writes:

>Instead of attempting to discuss time-place-manner value, I will instead
>quote the great master of time-place-manner wisdom.

>Te
>(virtue)
>3041 characters

>38
...

Do you want to reformat this send me a copy so I can print it out a couple
of times?
--
Paul DuBois				    Permanent: pld@soda.berkeley.edu
  If you call this a short .sig, you oppose its reality.  If you do not call
  it a short .sig, you ignore the fact.  Now what do you wish to call this?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:56:41 GMT

mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>   nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>   >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.  
> 
>   Isn't that what causes increased labor prices which leads to run-away
> inflation?

Yes.  It has happened in various parts of the US, from time to time.
In NH in 1984, unemployment was about 2% (maybe 3% -- at any rate,
this is effectively zero). People loaded their families into, and 
strapped their belongings to the rooves of, their '68 Buicks and left 
places like Indiana, Oklahama or Michigan to move to Massachusetts.
Some of them made it, some of them broke down in Pennsylvania.
People came from Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, and Mexico, NY.

I almost dropped out of college to take a job programming computers 
(but I had a girlfriend at college -- wotta reason for a decision!).

Burger King franchises in Southern NH were paying $7.50 / hr for
burger-flippers.  High-school students were working 3 jobs in order to
pay for multiple automobiles.  (In fact, a few of them were saving for
college, but not most of them.)   

...And the working conditions were about the same as at Burger King
anywhere, probably because the available labor supply *really* cared
more about the high wages than about an employee lounge or child care
or education reimbursement or cooperative decision-making. 

The _correct_ solution (to provide good working conditions and worker
treatment) is for workers to own the companies they work for, so they
can reap the fruits of their own actions.   Employee-owned companies 
provide a sort of fusion of Marxist ideas into a capitalist framework.
It seems to work in the US, at least as long as the companies are
relatively small.  I can imagine that it might break down in large
companies, but lots of things break down in large companies.

Lyle		Transarc		707 Grant Street
412 338 4474	The Gulf Tower		Pittsburgh 15219
"I don't believe it!  I believe it, though..." 	- kazar
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Dumping
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 92 12:24:51 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <BzEr6J.Dy6@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
|> In article <1992Dec16.050512.25091@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
|> >yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
|> >>Getting back into the business is not a simple matter.  Suppose that the
|> >>US auto industry dies out and imported car prices rise to absurd
|> >>levels.
|> >
|> >Suppose Japanese auto makers lower their prices and US manufactures
|> >all go broke and Japanese auto makers raise their prices. What happens?
|> >We buy our cars from Germany and Italy and Korea and Taiwan and, heck,
|> >Britian and Mexico. What's the chance of Japan driving the *entire* world's
|> >auto industry under before running out of funds? Slim and getting ever
|> >slimmer as the number of industrial nations grows.
|> 
|>    Victor's example isn't *quite* as absurd as you make it sound.
|> 
|>    Imported car prices don't have to rise because of gouging by 
|>    foreign car makers of their monopolistically controlled US
|>    market.   
|> 
|>    They COULD rise simply because if more US industries go under
|>    we will not be exporting enough to create sufficient demand for
|>    US dollars.   Moreover, massive unemployment and a huge national
|>    debt could create social instabilities that could further lower
|>    the US dollar.    Given this, I could easily see a scenario where
|>    if the US car industry went under foreign car prices would rise
|>    dramatically.  
|> 

Your scenario seems to preclude the building of 'foreign' cars in
the United States.  Clearly if the dollar is dropping, foreign
companies can buy U.S. plants for a song.  They could take advantage
of a large unemployed work force to build cars which they could
then sell cheaper in the U.S. than if they imported them. 

|>                                                    
|> > We don't need the US to compete in every market, we just need
|> > *somebody* to compete.
|> 
|>    We *do* need the US to compete if we want jobs, prosperity, 
|>    and social stability in the US.    You guys are still looking
|>    at all these things like they're single-variable problems!
|> 

You are making the assumption that because there is no U.S. company
making a product, there are no U.S. workers making products.  Clearly
this isn't or wouldn't be the case.  The U.S. has some of the most
productive workers in the world, why wouldn't a foreign company take
advantage of that?  (This, of course, assumes that the federal government
doesn't make it relatively more expensive to operate in the U.S.).
Clearly jobs are important, but in most cases it isn't really important
if the jobs are created by 'foreign' owned companies.  The important
thing for the U.S is to make it attractive for companies to build and
invest in this country.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 16 Dec 1992 16:15:02 GMT
Organization: Mips Technologies, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

mike) writes:
|> Mike Polen) writes:
|> >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.  
|> >|> 
|> >|>   Isn't that what causes increased labor prices which leads to run-away
|> >|> inflation?
|> >
|> >No.  Given a constant money supply and no deficit spending, there is only
|> >so much to go around, and it all - eventually - is paid to someone. 
|> 
|> Well, that kind of neglects the velocity of money, but...
|> 
|> I'm sorry.  I based my labor/inflation statement on reality, not some
|> fairy tale notion of "constant money supply and no deficit spending".
|> 
I agree. But under "reality" inflation is caused by the printing of
money and deficit spending, not by a strong economy.  The two may even
be mutually exclusive.

|> Oh, and I don't mean that maliciously.  Ideally, it might be great to have
|> a constant money supply and no deficit spending... but that just doesn't seem
|> to be a reality at this point in time.

But it is the problem.
|> 
|> 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?
-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal