HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Dumping
Date: 23 Dec 92 18:27:58 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <BzEr6J.Dy6@apollo.hp.com> you write:
|> In article <1992Dec16.050512.25091@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
writes:
|>
|> > 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!
|>
|>
|> ---peter

I think his point was a more narrow one than you are making.  Everyone
agrees that the US needs to be competitive to insure prosperity.  Glen
was simply pointing out that "competitive equilibrium" discourages
dumping as a strategy, and that in a strong world market, the US
doesn't necessarily need to be a part of every competitive equilibrium.

It's a good point, I think, and one which pro-protectionist types too
frequently miss.  For example,  there is much concern over this EC
consortium to make airplanes.  Everyone in the US is worried, you know.
They're afraid that gov't intervention in Europe will put the US 
manufacturers out of business.

They may be right, but if they do, it won't be such a bad thing.
Why?  Because we know that gov't intervention is no more efficient than
private capital.  If it's any less efficient at all -- and it probably
will be -- then the entire EC economy becomes weakened by that 
inefficiency.

We ought not respond by by becoming more inefficient ourselves.  Such is
the subtle contradition of protectionism!

Instead, we should take it on the chin, and,  know that the capital freed
up from US airline manufacturers will eventually pursue some other endeavor
*AND* with maximal efficiency.  In that sense, our *whole economy* will 
continue to exhibit monotone non-decreasing levels of capital efficiency.

Now the "jobs" problem.  Let me give you the bad news.  The purpose of
Capital is to maximize return -- not necessarily to create jobs.  In fact,
Capital will seek to reduce labor costs (jobs) whenever possible.  It's not
in capital's best interest to create jobs.  It's merely Capital's rhetoric.

Get this:  what's good for Capital and "competitiveness" is not
necessarily what's good for America, for exactly the reasons you've
pointed out; namely
that Capital competitiveness may produce a concentration of resources which
is antagonistic to "the general welfare."

Therefore, we may choose to give up competitiveness in the name of creating
jobs.  And we can invite Jim to explain to us how his wunderzystem will
produce prosperity for *all* and not just "some" or "most", including those,
who out of freedom choose not to turn themselves into competitive machines.

Paul Collacchi
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 24 Dec 92 15:11:22 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <38015@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <BzCFHw.3At@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>
>>I'm sorry.  I based my labor/inflation statement on reality, not some
>>fairy tale notion of "constant money supply and no deficit spending".
>
>Fairy tale my butt. This was the policy of the 18th and 19th century.
>Notice that the value of the dollar rose slightly between these times.
>How awful.
>

Neither the Civil nor the revolutionary war were fought on balanced 
budgets. Since the US government only existed for a small part of the
18th century, that seems to take out a big chunk of the time period
you indicate. Could you be a little more exact about the period that this
policy was followed and about the supposed benefits? Did you consider the
existence of state issued specie during much of this time?

>But the effects of inflation are unpredictable. You are under the
>impression that inflation affects everyone equally. WRONG. Inflation is
>a ripple effect--those at the beginning of the ripple (the govt) get a 
>great deal--they get to buy goods or services at the current price. But
>then the prices begin to rise. Those at the end of the ripple now effect-
>ively have less money, as their currency in now worth less. 0% inflation
>would great assist business in speculating on the future--no need to try
>and predict an unpredictable rise in the prices of goods and services.
>0% inflation does not lead to the capital consumption caused by inlfation
>or deficit spending (see $4+ trillion debt).


Can you name a period and economy in the industrial ages where prices have
been stable for more than a few years?

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: whg@inel.gov (Bill Gray)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho Falls, Idaho
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 20:07:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.172147.24527@bnr.ca>, bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
|> 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 [caps added])
|> ...
It is certainly believable if corporate debt includes unfunded pension liabil-
ities.  Maybe even if it doesn't,  in view of oustanding junk.  It's hard to
believe individual consumers could have run up this kind of debt,  but then
a credit card offer arrives in my junk mail every week.  Perhaps I need to get
busy and borrow my share :)

========== 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: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 3 Jan 93 21:48:56 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <58004@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <38015@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>>In article <BzCFHw.3At@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>>
>>>I'm sorry.  I based my labor/inflation statement on reality, not some
>>>fairy tale notion of "constant money supply and no deficit spending".
>>
>>Fairy tale my butt. This was the policy of the 18th and 19th century.
>>Notice that the value of the dollar rose slightly between these times.
>>How awful.
>>
>
>Neither the Civil nor the revolutionary war were fought on balanced 
>budgets. Since the US government only existed for a small part of the
>18th century, that seems to take out a big chunk of the time period
>you indicate. Could you be a little more exact about the period that this
>policy was followed and about the supposed benefits? Did you consider the
>existence of state issued specie during much of this time?

Of course, but if you look at the CPI you will notice that it was
at those times (the wars) when prices rose, the rest of the time the 
price level dropped. The chart is a testament to a money supply which  
increases only slightly.

The price stability of the U.S. began in the late 18th century. Check
out the CPI for Britain, however, and you will see the stability go back
to the beginning of the 18th century


>>0% inflation does not lead to the capital consumption caused by inlfation
>>or deficit spending (see $4+ trillion debt).
>
>Can you name a period and economy in the industrial ages where prices have
>been stable for more than a few years?

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu


I again refer you to the CPI. The general trend in the 19th century 
was a gradual fall in prices, as opposed to the 20th, which has been a
huge rise in prices.

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






Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kellys@orac.holonet.net (Kelly Schwarzhoff)
Subject: Book on computer industry's effect on economy
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 00:47:24 GMT

A few days ago I asked if anyone had a book abou the computer industry's effects
on the economy, and got a response back suggesting "Computers in the Human
Context" (I think that's the title). Anyways, I bought the book and have been
reading it, but it's not exactly what I'm looking for.

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?

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

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Schwarzhoff
Internet: kellys@holonet.net	Fidonet: 1:161/445
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 30 Dec 92 20:12:43 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <38089@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <1992Dec26.160846.8549@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>
>>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
>
>This was when the Fed began lowering reserve requirements and began
>printing up more money. The price instability was a direct result of
>Fed internvention in the economy, and so was the boom of the 20's, and
>the depression of the 30's.
>
>Let's here it for the Fed--our dollar has lost >95% of its purchasing
>power since then. Hooray.

How do you account for the numerous boom/bust cycles that predated
the Federal reserve?

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


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9499 sci.edu:1251 sci.electronics:21339 sci.engr:2402 sci.environment:13772 sci.logic:2473 sci.misc:1914 sci.research:1373 sci.research.careers:1704 rec.misc:338 news.future:874 news.misc:2069 news.sysadmin:1577 psi.general:11 psi.psinet:70
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Micro Data Wanted ASAP!!!!!!
Date: 24 Dec 1992 09:39:22 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu



I need some micro data, concerning computer related sales of the
following equipment:

--Windows accelerator Boards
--Multi-Media Products
	--Programs that use Windows Sound Blaster 
--IDE Cache controller cards 
--Rom simulators
--PC television software

Would like public domain, but will pay. Would even like other sources,
in case anyone knows of this.

-- 
"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.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 28 Dec 92 13:55:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Dec27.181854.1514@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>There were panics and depressions during both periods.  The 1880s were
>a decade long depression in rural areas because of low farm prices.
>This was the major reason for the Populist call for free coinage of
>silver - they definitely believed a little inflation was good, presaging
>the platforms of both major parties today.
>
>Good data on aggregate wages isn't really available for either of these
>periods, so arguments as to "prices vs. prevailing wages" are going to
>be hard to support.

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
From: alvaro@cs.hw.ac.uk (Alvaro Fernandes)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Information on Accountancy Companies
Date: 21 Dec 92 17:54:27 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt University, Scotland

I have a friend who is finishing his first degree in Economics. He decided to
search for a job, here in the UK, that offered the opportunity for studies
leading to a Chartered Accountancy qualification. He applied for five
companies, namely, Price Waterhouse, Arthur Andersen, Coopers & Lybrand, KPMG
and Ernst Young.

His problem (which undoubtedly deserves a smiley) is that he got job offers
from all five of them and now is short of criteria to help him decide which
one to join. He has no net access and I have no personal acquaintance with
accountancy, so I thought I could try to be of some help to him by appealing
to the fabled kindness of you all.

So, through this group or by email, would any one care to share ** any **
opinions, comments, insights, inside information on the above companies to
reduce my friend's perplexity to a more manageable level?

I more or less boasted with him that you would drown us with helpful comments,
please help me save my face :-). I apologize in advance if this is not the
appropriate newsgroup request. I'd appreciate suggestions of more suitable
groups for this purpose.

Ta you all,


-- 
Alvaro A.A. Fernandes ............................... (alvaro@cee.hw.ac.uk)
Department of Computing and Electrical Engineering,  Heriot-Watt University
Riccarton,      Edinburgh EH14 4AS,       Scotland,          United Kingdom
From: mg78@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Michel Gelobter)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Lorenz Curves
Date: 3 Jan 93 03:14:45 GMT
Reply-To: mg78@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Michel Gelobter)
Organization: Columbia University

I am looking for a way to plot a Lorenz curve.

Does anyone know of a routine to do this in any software package?

If you recall, a Lorenz curve is the function F(x)=y for 0<x<1 and is 
used to graph income distributions for example (GINI distributions).

Thus as you go up the x-axis, expressed as percentage of the population, you
also rise on the y-axis, expressed as percentage of wealth controlled by
that percentage of the population.  The curve allows you to see the 
extent of the concentration of wealth, or other things, like rare events.

In any case, it is difficult to estimate, and I was wondering if anyone knew
of a package that does it.

I will post replies in a summary.  Thanks!
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9543 misc.invest:15461 rec.games.mud.misc:1746
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 4 Jan 93 03:50:25 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <38122@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>>Neither the Civil nor the revolutionary war were fought on balanced 
>>budgets. Since the US government only existed for a small part of the
>>18th century, that seems to take out a big chunk of the time period
>>you indicate. Could you be a little more exact about the period that this
>>policy was followed and about the supposed benefits? Did you consider the
>>existence of state issued specie during much of this time?
>
>Of course, but if you look at the CPI you will notice that it was
>at those times (the wars) when prices rose, the rest of the time the 
>price level dropped. The chart is a testament to a money supply which  
>increases only slightly.


>The price stability of the U.S. began in the late 18th century. Check

The revolutionary war starts in 1776 and the Constitution is only
adopted at the end of the century, so that leaves precious little of the
late 18th century.  Could you be a little more specific?

>out the CPI for Britain, however, and you will see the stability go back
>to the beginning of the 18th century

Where are you getting these CPI figures? Are they adjusted for average
wages?



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: 23 Dec 1992 20:41:21 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, bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) says:

>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.


    I believe the figure in Barron's INCLUDED government debt as well.

    From my economics book ( 1988 ):  total consumer debt around 3 Trillion
    From my accounting book ( 1989 ): total unfunded corporate liabilities 
    are around 1-3 Trillion.

    Total corporate debt I remember being in the same ballpark.  So toal
    debt would be somwhere around 7-8 Trillion, which, added with 
    explicit government debt, = around 12 Trillion.


>-- 
>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: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 30 Dec 92 17:10:26 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec26.160846.8549@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

>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

This was when the Fed began lowering reserve requirements and began
printing up more money. The price instability was a direct result of
Fed internvention in the economy, and so was the boom of the 20's, and
the depression of the 30's.

Let's here it for the Fed--our dollar has lost >95% of its purchasing
power since then. Hooray.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 29 Dec 92 17:44:30 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <BzGtFz.Ar6@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <37961@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>
>>again. The best method for keeping the money supply relatively stable
>>is the gold standard.

>  Why should we place the value of our currency in the hands of
>  corrupt, unstable states like South Africa or Russia, who have
>  vast possibilities to mine and dump gold?

The amount of gold they would be able to dump is nothing like the
power the governments of the world have to inflate the money supply.

>  Also, note that sometimes you might WANT to have the tool of
>  monetary policy.  The correct solution is to make sure it's
>  used sparingly and wisely.
>

Good grief. Like when? A commodity based currency is the best means
to prevent inflation. While the US and Britain were on the gold standard
the CPI gradually fell, and towards the end the values of the dollar
and pound were nearly the same as when the countries started the gold
standard. If countries tried to dump gold, it would be only of short
term harm, because they can't do it forever; governments can.

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


Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kellys@orac.holonet.net (Kelly Schwarzhoff)
Subject: Looking for book on computer industry's effect on the economy
Organization: HoloNet National Internet Access BBS: 510-704-1058/modem
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 04:08:53 GMT

I realize that this is rather general, but can anyone suggest a good book
about the computer industry's effect on the U.S. economy.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Schwarzhoff
Internet: kellys@holonet.net	Fidonet: 1:161/445
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 28 Dec 1992 06:38:20 GMT

In article <38023@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>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. 

agreed, but only if the money supply does expand no faster than the economy.
it is hard to get it exact, and i'm willing to bet that the government
would rather err on the side of higher inflation. either way, the inflation
is minor, not the uncontrollable kind which is a problem.

--
charles
Newsgroups: sci.econ