HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: Dumping
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:05:12 GMT

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. We don't need the US
to compete in every market, we just need *somebody* to compete.

>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: dcling@athena.mit.edu (Douglas C Ling)
Subject: Inflation Scenarios in developing countries
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:14:54 GMT

Help me understand the phenomenon of inflation!

What is the difference between these two inflationary scenarios in a 
developing economy with IDLE CAPACITY and huge foreign debt (as percentage of 
GNP) (e.g. in Zambia):

1)  Inflation caused by currency devaluation

2)  Inflation caused by the ABC Multinational Corp. that brings
    $1 billion to the LDC in HARD CURRENCY, collects an equivalent 
    amount in local currency, and re-invest in the local economy -
    presumably to utilize the idle capacities.

Please demonstrate, mathematically if feasible, the difference or 
equivalence of the two models. 

Other suggestions in terms of names of experts in the area, readings, ideas, 
and arguements are well appreciated.
From: ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Date: 13 Dec 92 08:36:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.gf_s=9y00WB=04y2pW
Distribution: na
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 12-Dec-92 Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANY..
by Louis Schmittroth@aupair 
> Where does the new Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers stand
> on the issues of free American trade versus closed Japanese markets?  
> What's her name -- Linda Tyson????

Laura D'Andrea Tyson. She's on the faculty at Berkeley. It is difficult
to characterize her thinking on trade easily. Check out her article
"They Are Not Us" in the winter 1991 American Prospect. She argues for
reciprocity in trade, above all. She's also big on public investments in
infrastructure and human capital. 


Steve Sorensen

ss9o@andrew.cmu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:40:14 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <168BAA41A.KLAFF@lexmark.com> KLAFF@lexmark.com writes:
>In article <Bz2BCt.FMJ@apollo.hp.com>
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> 
>>                  . . .        Why isn't there an AMERICAN company
>>  making laserprinter guts. . . ?
>>
>>---peter
> 
>Not to nitpick, but we do make laserprinter guts!


  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


Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 14:22:14 EST
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: na
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <1992Dec15.171206.3258@chpc.org>, rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie) writes:
|> >Interesting that you should rail against Milken.  Do you realize what
|> >junk bonds are?  They are generally bonds issued by smaller companies
|> >who are riskier than large established companies.  The fact that
|> >the junk bond market existed was a boon to small businesses trying to
|> >get started.
|> 
|> Oh.  I thought junk bonds were a financing vehicle used for 
|> leveraged buyouts in which the aquirer pledged the aquiree as security
|> for some multiply suborninated, sub-junior, standby payment debentures;
|> paid themselves fat saralies, borkerage fees, etc; and then dismembered
|> the company on a "short term profit optimization" basis so they could
|> leave an empty shell behind as they sought out the next opportunity
|> to make a fortune through financial manipulation, rather than
|> product design, development and marketing.
|> 
|> But then maybe I'm wrong.
|> 

Yes and no.  Certainly junk bonds were used in the manner you describe,
however, that is not the primary use or purpose of a junk bond.  Many
companies issue debt securities which don't rate the high grades given
by S&P and Moody's.  Many are smaller companies who represent a riskier
investment.  


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9321 misc.legal:21261
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Date: 11 Dec 92 23:32:40 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <184599@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

...

>Thirdly, the Japanese domestic situation begins to resemble an over-priced
>consumer tinderbox, in which domestic producers are either vulnerable
>to price cutting by one another, or by other foreign (to them) producers 
>who are constantly knocking at the doors.  Any reduction in Japanese
>foreign market share could result in vicious price cutting at home to make up
>for lost revenues.  In other words, tough foreign competition will eventually
>show up in their domestic pricing.
>
>You can't cheat a competitive market, for long. 

  I don't know- the Japanese have been pretty good at doing just that since
the 1970's, when Matsushita would offer secret refunds to U.S. retailers,
such as Sears, after the products where declared at a price agreeable
to U.S. Custom agents.  They were also successful at getting trucks classified 
as cars.  When they are pressured to open some of their domestic markets like 
beef for instance, they just bought up cattle farms in the U.S. and then would
only buy from those Japanese-owned farms.  They have done the same for grapes.
I could go on forever with real-life examples on how to "cheat a competitive
market".

    The point is, as I have said many times before, is that the U.S. is not
structured to deal with this type of competition.  The Japanese government
collaborates with their home companies.  They can look away at illegal
practices at home while at the same time let foreign products sit for months
at Japanese ports while they are being "inspected".  Not that U.S. companies
are that scrupulous either , but we must seem like chumps to them the
way individuals here so easily sell out to them, both in the private and 
public sector.  It's a game by their rules that they are winning, and while 
we are all debating what constitutes dumping, more jobs and industries
will be lost in '93 until some real policy changes are implemented.

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton's Econ Conference and Non-Traditional Economics
Date: 18 Dec 92 15:36:24 GMT
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Serces

In article <9212171412.AA17812@cs.utexas.edu>, wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL (Will Martin) writes:
> During the election, I heard various "fringe" candidates, like Bo Gritz,
> discuss the evils of the Federal Reserve, and how the entire national debt
> could be wiped out overnight by the production of a single 4-trillion-$
> coin (actually of negligible intrinsic value), which woul be turned
> over by the US Government to the Fed and thus negate the entire existing
> debt. This woul be followed by the elimination of the Fed and the return
> to United States Notes and eventually a bullion-backed currency.
> 
> This view and proposal was completely ignored by the mainstream media,
> and so I've never seen any objective evaluation of this proposal. The only
> people discussing it were its proponents. So I have no real idea if
> the plan is or is not feasible. (Has it been discussed on USENET or net
> mailing lists? Do archives of such discussion exist?)
> 
> What I was wondering is whether anyone of the multitude participating
> in Clinton's economic conference brought up this topic and presented it
> as an alternative to be considered. If it would work, it seems to be a
> salvation we shoud not ignore. If it would not work, I sure would like
> to see it rationally refuted by "mainstream" economists.
> 
> Any comments or pointers to info on this? Thanks!
> 
> Regards, Will
> wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil

The minting of money, since it is non-bullion based, must be backed by an
increase in productivity levels (more goods) or it will result in inflation. 
If the US were to mint such a coin, it would either cause inflation (massive)
or nothing (since debts would be rescheduled).  In either case, though, the
rating of the US Securities would plummet because the US would have shown
itself to be attempting to evade its debt (always something debt-holders are
not fond of).  Think of it this way, we can't make our own money because it
would be worthless (not backed up but anything).  The US can't either.  In
fact, during the Weimar Republic (between the wars Germany) this same solutin
was tried (print more money) and the result was the worst inflation in history
to that time.

Peace
Lawrence R. Vaught
Hippee@oread.cc.ukans.edu
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9419 alt.amateur-comp:351 talk.politics.misc:64428 misc.misc:4061
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 00:06:03 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:
|> 
|>   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.  
|>   >
|>   > ---peter
|> 
|>   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. 
Switzerland has had nearly zero inflation, and did it without
unemployment, poor treatment of workers, or a weak economy.

In the US case, the bigger problem was the post-war (WWII) protectionism
of other countries which subsidized the process of taking money out of
the US and paying it to workers in foreign countries.  Then we printed
more money to keep up the available cash in the US.  We still pursue
a policy that protects the Japanese and the European manufacturer by
allowing him free access to our markets without demanding similar
access to Japanese and European markets.  As are economy deteriorates,
we create money (deficit spending) to "entitle" those out of work and
to pay people in "created" jobs.

We need to call in the loans (demand trade surpluses until our investment
in other countries is repaid), streamline government (eliminate some
programs and make the others more efficient), and only spend what we
have.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9315 talk.politics.misc:63883
From: ldillard@digi.lonestar.org (Tom Dillard)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Worthless government agency
Date: 11 Dec 92 19:19:49 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Dec9.145110@IASTATE.EDU> danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.193431.16474@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, n9020351@henson.cc.wwu.edu
>(James Douglas Del-Vecchio) writes:
>> tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) writes:
>> 
>>>The people who work there are counted as "employed" and are counted in
>>>productivity figures.
>> 
>> I wish reporting agencies and newspapers/tv would use a different
>> figure to report employment.  Rather than total employment, it
>> should be "civilian employment rate"  where all federal, state,
>> and local government employees are excluded from the count, one
>> way or another.
>
>   I'm a math professor, employed by the state of Iowa and partially
>supported by tuition.  I produce a useful service (Freshman Calculus)
>but I also do some beuracratic things.  How do I count?  Half a person?
>For that matter I do research which is real hard to quantify as a good,
>service, or infrastructure component.  It seems to combine elements of all
>three.
>
For that matter, we ALL work for the government for about the first half
of the year (doesn't the exact date get pushed farther every year?).  So,
would private sector employment be zero percent for the first few months
of every year?

thanks;
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade Deficit
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:44:10 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec11.091103.9478@edinboro.edu> s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:

>> Per capita, Japan buys MORE than we do.
>
>I think its VERY relevant.  If their per-capita productivity is so high that
>they can have a trade surplus as large as they do, per-capita income will
>increase for them.  It shows just how far ahead Japan is in productivity:
>their per-capita income is about the same as ours, but they produce so much
>more.  They will eventually have a higher living standard.

  Another well-informed posting.  8-)   US productivity is higher
  than Japan's (source OECD).


---peter
 
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Inflation (Was: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems)
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:48:56 GMT

In article <BzD8H6.IBG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>In article <1gnkm6INN7op@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>mike) writes:
>>|> Mike Polen) writes:
>>|> >mike) writes:
>>|> >|> 
>>|> >|>   nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>|> >|>   
>>|> >|>   [stuff about unions deleted]
>>|> 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?
>
>Economists, who are notorious for being in disagreement, have shown a fairly
>broad agreement of two things: The desire for 2-4 percent inflation, and 
>perhaps 3-5 percent rate of unemployment.  Their *real* disagreement begins
>when they start talking about *how* to achieve such a rate.
>
>I have to run, so I can't give an elaborate answer to the benefits of
>inflation, so I'll give you an example:
>
>The US is able to discontinue deficit spending, therefore leaving itself
>with $4 trillion in actual debt.  In real terms, without making a single
>payment to reduce the $4 trillion debt, the debt is shrinking just becuase
>of inflation.
>
>In general, inflation helps all borrowers (the young) and hurts all savers
>(the elderly) but the elderly *more* than make up for that with how they
>are getting away with the COLA's out there, but that's another hornet's
>nest.
>

A constant rate of inflation will get built into expectations and
impact the nominal interest rate.  Only _unanticipated_ inflation
has the effects outlined.

The traditional reason that a low rate of actual expected inflation
is deemed useful is the observation that prices (especially of labour)
are downward sticky.  It is easier to freeze wages than to lower them.
In a world of 3% inflation, a nominal wage freeze is a real
wage decline; this may be useful in achieving a market-clearing
price for labour.


-- 
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.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 14:47:04 GMT

peercy@crhc.uiuc.edu (Mike Peercy) writes:

>In fact, I would argue that attempting to achieve a monopoly through
>dumping is inherently unstable.  That is, the closer one comes to
>achieving monopoly, the more resistance to that achievement exists.
>Is anyone aware of a system's theory treatment of predatory monopoly
>along these lines?

I believe that your arguement somewhat falls apart when there are 
high fixed barriers to entry. For example, FABs for semiconductor
production have become prohibitively expensive. This results in 
extreme economies of scale. You basically cannot enter the market
if you can only expect 1% of the market. Another barrier to entry
is technology. Building the technology base required to compete in
the market sometimes takes a finite period of time, and you can oftn
not purchase the technology off the shelf, but must develop it yourself.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: Rising Sun (the book)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 13:50:49 GMT

In article <92345.121059FJM1@psuvm.psu.edu> <FJM1@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
			.
			.
			.
>USA.  Reading RISING SUN has motivated me to read AGENTS OF INFLUENCE (P.
>Choate)--this is the book Ross Perot kept talking about--an interesting
>example of how Japan operates is described in the beginning of the book---
>Japan lobbied intensively to have small trucks treated as cars under import
>classifications as cars have a tariff of 2.5% compared to 25% for trucks.
>At the same time, Japan successfully lobbied to keep small trucks classified
>as trucks for safety regulations (trucks don't need bumpers, head rests...).
                        .
                        .
                        .
'Just want to caution against excessive simplifications
in thinking about how "Japan lobbies ...".  The
interests of the six (or were there seven exporting
to the US at the time described in this passage?)
auto manufacturers are NOT identical.  Honda has
preferred that the trucks be categorized as trucks,
so they don't use up the "voluntary" quotas.  'Fact,
Honda might even have changed its position since
then, because of the product mix it manufactures in
the US.  In any case, it's good to understand big
pictures, but it's also good to seek the diversity
and detail always present in reality--and it's also
good to keep a balance.
-- 

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
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Inflation (Was: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 02:07:49 GMT

In article <1992Dec18.010613.16926@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <BzD8H6.IBG@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>>In article <1gnkm6INN7op@spim.mti.sgi.com> mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:
>>>I give up.  What are the benefits of inflation?  Why is constant
>>>inflation better than any other kind?
>>
>>Economists, who are notorious for being in disagreement, have shown a fairly
>>broad agreement of two things: The desire for 2-4 percent inflation, and 
>>perhaps 3-5 percent rate of unemployment.  Their *real* disagreement begins
>>when they start talking about *how* to achieve such a rate.
>
>so, why?
>what is the benefit of inflation?

Wages are sticky downward.  It allows real wage reduction in declining
industries.

>just because economists agree that it is good doesn't convince me.

Let me know what would so I know whether to spend any time on the subject.

>>The US is able to discontinue deficit spending, therefore leaving itself
>>with $4 trillion in actual debt.  In real terms, without making a single
>>payment to reduce the $4 trillion debt, the debt is shrinking just becuase
>>of inflation.
>
>WRONG!
>you've forgotten one little thing: interest on the debt!
>as long as real interest rates (nominal rates minus inflation) are above
>zero (as they almost always are, which is why interest rates go up
>when inflation does) the US's debt will increase even without additional
>deficits. which is why we are in so much damn trouble.

Not necessarily.  If inflation is 4% on a $4 trillion debt, and the deficit
is less than $160 billion (which, unfortunately, it isn't), the debt would
go down in real terms.  

Keep in mind that interest costs are already included in the deficit.

>so how can inflation be good?

For one thing, not all inflation is inflation -- about 2% of inflation
a year is really the effect of technological improvements in the market
basket.  In short -- would you rather have $1000 to spend on a Sears
catalog today or $1000 to spend on a Sears catalog in 1972?

But the big issue is downward stickiness of wages. 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc