HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:43:16 -0600
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

In article <1992Oct7.194617.13601@bnr.ca>, bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
> In article <1992Oct7.114158.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>........ 
>>
>>He showed employment figures, deficit figures, growth figures, you name it.
>>The figures sure didn't make us look good.  Is he right?
> 
> I suggest that your statements are in and of themselves indicative of
> a problem.  They make it seem as though you know very little about
> the state of your country (absolute, relative to its recent history,
> and relative to the rest of the world).  This appears endemic in
> the body politic.  It is no surprise that bad things may happen when
> the electorate is asleep.
>

Well, you are right.  It might SEEM that I was asleep, but I try to stay awake
......zzzzzzz

hummm..  your message is doing it... I am falling azzzzzleeepp.

But lets get serious.  The question is on the overall message that Perot
presented.  We can get into individual numbers, but in a political speech
one would have to find the bottom line;  Perot's main message.

He presented many figures on the economy, all negative.  I could not list 
all of them.

The overall message that I received from Perot was that the American economy
has been severely demaged during the last 12 years.

So I would like to know;

	a) do people agree with Perots' statements? and
	b) did people also feel that Perot's main message was that the last
           12 years hurted the economy.

> Perhaps worse, you are asking the net at large a simple question,
> "Is he right?"  To pose a rhetorical question, why
> would you trust answers from the net any more than
> Perot's presentation?  I must assume that you would, otherwise
> you wouldn't ask.  
>

Well, from reading the net I have the chance to learn people's OPINIONS,
such as yours (thank you very much).  Do I trust them?  It is not important 
if I trust them or not.  What is important is that we share our opinions.


My opinion is that Perot's speech was not necessarily an economics speech.
It was a political speech.  Even though the economy suffers, looking
at the figures, the last twelve years also include 

	a) low inflation and 
	b) low interest rates.

I don't recall Perot saying anything about inflation and i%.

Also, Perot did not mention how much money he made in stocks during the last
twelve years either.

> -- 
> 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.  


Oscar Trevizo, trevizo@fnal.fnal.gov

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just my opinions, and not necessarily Fermilab's.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:46:50 GMT

In article <BvI7un.LpB@gdls.CSCTMD.COM> mccabe@gdls.CSCTMD.COM (Harold McCabe) writes:
>I am concerned about many references (both here and on misc.invest) to the
>US Federal government `printing more money' because according to my
>limited understanding, `print more money' is not an easy thing to do.

The U.S. Government could subsume the Federal Reserve into the
federal government (effectively "nationalizing" it).  Then it could
indeed print money.

Without formal institutional revision, the Fed could ignore its charter
and simply give the federal government money.  The first-order effects
would be the same.

>I think what is meant is the expansion of the monetary base.  The Federal
>Reserve has, I think, two ways to do this:  non-borrowed reserves at
>federal banks (which it influences by reserve requirements and interest
>rates on loans between banks and between a bank and the Federal Reserve)
>and open market operations.  Apparently, the Federal Reserve does not have
>a *lot* of control over the monetary base, because the Federal Reserve

Well, it does control M1.

>would like to expand the monetary base, but it is not expanding when
>measured by M2.  
>If the Federal Reserve is perceived as wildly expanding
>the monetary base, won't the money markets recognize this and cause the
>cost of borrowing to increase?  

Yes, when short-term rates are quite low, long-term rates may go up
as a result of increased inflation expectations.  The Fed has less
influence on the long end.

>And then, wouldn't the reserves at banks
>diminish as depositors pulled their money to take advantage of higher
>interest rates?
>Wouldn't this make wild expansion of the
>monetary base very difficult for the Federal Reserve?  

Yes, it is very difficult to achieve within the parameters of normal
operation.  It can be done, but because people are unlikely to be
fooled, the consequences are likely to occur almost upon the act.

>Is the printing
>of more money a real, or merely perceived, danger?  

It has happened elsewhere.  In the U.S., the printing presses were 
pretty busy in the 1970s.

The sorts of things under discussion (doubling M2) are quite drastic.
I would not expect them until the U.S. is in desparate economic
circumstances.

So, in the short term, there is little threat.  In the longer term,
the threats are more fundamental; if they are not dealt with,
the effective printing of money would be a possible consequence.


>Someone please explain
>this to me:  I am neither an economist nor a financier.
>

Which may be somewhat of an advantage in assessing risk in this
situation. 

>Harold McCabe
>


-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.econ,comp.ai.neural-nets
Subject: Re: Papers using Neural Nets in Economics?
From: jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 92 07:33:49 PDT
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA

bgoffe@seq.uncwil.edu (Bill Goffe) writes:

> Well, the header says it all. I've got a paper in progress

Try Halbert White at UCSD.

He is one of the leaders in the NN field and he is an economist.

--                    
INTERNET:  jim@netlink.cts.com (Jim Bowery)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!jim
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
	<1992Oct13.170229.7596@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:51:41 GMT

w.r.t.
The principle direct democracy is based on is simple and
compelling: "All men [and women] are created equal." Everybody should be
equal before the law. This is democracy.

What is the criteria for 'equal before the law' taxation?

	Same dollar amount 
	Same percentage of income
	Same percentage of wealth
	Same income remaining after taxes
	Same wealth remaining after taxes

Under the current system, none of the possible criteria is used.

Only one of the possible criteria can be chosen, thus creating
inequality before the law by the other criteria.
From: trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Date: 7 Oct 92 05:41:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: fnalf.1992Oct7.114158.1
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

Hi,

Did anyone watch Perot on TV last night (Tuesday)?

Perot made the last 12 years (Reagan and Bush) look like the downfall of 
America.

He showed employment figures, deficit figures, growth figures, you name it.
The figures sure didn't make us look good.  Is he right?

I guess many will disagree with his figures.  Many more will disagree with 
the causes Perot implied.

My opinion is that at the end, Perot's arguments will only help Clinton.

Oscar
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: wich1820@ww.tu-berlin.de (Thorsten Wichmann)
Subject: Nobel prize
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 12:55:47 GMT

Any suggestions who will or who should win the Nobel prize in economics this  
year? What do you think about Mancur Olson?

Thorsten


===================================================
T. Wichmann, Dept. of Economics, Technical University of Berlin


Xref: sparky sci.econ:8036 alt.amateur-comp:84 soc.culture.usa:7697 alt.activism:17315
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 20:31:20 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Oct9.134942.19343@news.ysu.edu> ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:

>The historical record indicates that a decrease in the number of hours 
>worked results in a proportional or more than proportional increase in
>productivity for several reasons.


Are you sure you have attributed cause and effect correctly.  It is quite
possible, that rising productivity allowed a decrease in working hours.


-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: wattsj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John Watts)
Subject: Re: Problems with Neo-Classical Economics
Organization: Purdue University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:48:38 GMT

In article <thompson.718474864@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu (Vadim S. Kaplunovsky) writes:
>
>>In article <thompson.717719660@hermes.socsci.umn.edu>  
>>thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
>>> .......

 --- stuff deleted ---
>
>>The neo-classical theorem (sorry, I forgot the name) that the initial
>>allocation of property does not affect the economic behavior seems to me
>>just as sound as the no-walking theorem of the no-friction mechanics.
>
>I'm afraid I don't know of any neoclassical theorems that make this
>claim.  
 --- more stuff deleted ---
>
>I would be very interested in getting a reference to this theorem if
>you can provide it.

sounds like a loosely stated paraphrase of the "coase theorem" ...

john watts
krannert school of management, purdue university
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mpinnock@casper.cs.uct.ac.za (M B Pinnock)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Organization: Computer Science Department, University of Cape Town
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 07:45:37 GMT

In <1992Oct8.164920.27370@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola) writes:

>Dave Caulkins writes
>> 
>> The concept is simple and compelling - US taxpayers should be
>> given the right to 'vote' on how their tax dollars are spent.
>> 

>They do.  They vote for the people who decide how to spend it.  In  
>practice, they vote for the people who promise to spend it on them.

Correction: In practice they vote for people who promise to spend other
peoples tax dollars on them.

Brian Pinnock

Xref: sparky sci.econ:8045 talk.politics.misc:50687
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:50:53 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <MATT.92Oct8122111@physics.berkeley.edu>, matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:
> In article <1992Oct8.103450.1931@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:
> 
>> A lot of us are making the mistake that Perot is running to hurt or help
>> one of the other candidates.  What we must realize is that he is in the
>> race to win it
> 
> In the race to win it?  I don't think so.  There are many things about
> Perot that I don't admire, but I have enough respect for his
> intelligence to believe he knows perfectly well that he is not going
> to win this election.  Whatever his reasons for reentering this
> campaign, winning the election just isn't one of them.
> 
> Voters ought to remember that too.  The next President is going to be
> either Bill Clinton or George Bush, and we might as well face reality
> and accept that fact.  If you choose, for whatever reason, to vote for
> Perot, then you are giving up your opportunity to influence the
> decision between those two candidates.

	Tell that to the socialists.

	However, Perot has already:

	Two best-sellers.
	Widely enhanced visibility.
	A group of loyal supporters.
	Proven brokerage ability with both Clinton and Bush.

	Can you say "power broker".  Can you say "1996".  Can you say "Cabinet
post"?

	Even if this is his last foray into politics, he will make many
millions more in business because of it.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8037 talk.politics.theory:4484
From: ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:53:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: ole.1992Oct9.185310.27797
Organization: CDAC, WA

In article <1b2n4vINN5ue@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <9298@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>I guess it all depends on what congress and the president do.  If they
>>continue to run a deficit, no one will lend to them, so they will have
>>to inflate away the deficit.  Leading quite possibly to the collapse of
>>the current constitution.  Result would be similar to Germany, circa
>>1930's.
>
>I don't agree.  The result would be similar to the US in 1787 with the collapse
>of the Confederacy.  Namely, we will, in a bottom up process, by our own

   The economic uncertainty in the world today, will cause increasing racial
hatred inside countries against immigrants, and against other countries for
doing better than them.  As has happened in the past, and as history will
repeat itself, there will be a war on the scale noone has seen before, after
which people will just get tired of it all and start afresh.  60 years
later, the economy will be in a mess again, and there will be another war. 
I might just live to see that one too.


-S
ssave@ole.cdac.com
From: cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:36:45 GMT
Organization: Lanchester Polytechnic

In article <Qeo2Z8e00awRAHekYe@andrew.cmu.edu> ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu (Thomas Omar Smith) writes:
>> >  I [may] not agree with a word you say, 
>> >  but I will defend to the death your    
>> >  right to say it.                       
>> >                     - Voltaire         
>> Voltaire's Program is the key to an economic program that will help
>> deal with the problems.
>> So its good to see Voltaire's Quote again - it is the path to an
>> economic program that will deal with the real problems.

>Voltaire's quote has almost nothing to do with Economics.  but I'll
>agree it is a great quote.

What has Voltaire quote (as above) got to do with economics? It certainly
has somthing to do with politics, but economics?

>It's hard to believe in this day and age that there are still people who
>honestly believe that socializing America will add prosperity.  Almost
>no nation that has undertaken a socialist agenda has benefitted from it.
> Even the Chinese are abandoning socialist economics in favor of
>capitalism.  Socialism doesn't work, and is counter-intuitive to all
>human psychology.

Question What is socialism?

An example of successful socialism could be the British Steel Industry
between 1967 and 1987. For even though a large number of workers lost
their jobs only the public sector was able to provide it with enough money
in order to replace the old blast furnaces. British Steel has now been 
returned to the private sector.

I presume most people would like the state to provide for a police service
and provide for the countries defence. The problem is there are things called
public goods which either have to be provided by the public sector - which
very loosley is socialism or the public goods would not be provided at all.
-- 
Dave                                                       cmh004@cck.cov.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call this place what you like - Coventry University, Coventry Polytechnic or
Lanchester Polytechnic it is all the same and is called school.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8129 talk.politics.theory:4544
From: wich1820@ww.tu-berlin.de (Thorsten Wichmann)
Subject: Nobel Prize
Organization: ZRZ/TU-Berlin
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:00:24 GMT

Any suggestions who will or should win the Nobel prize for economics this time?  
What about Mancur Olson???

Thorsten

===============================================================================
T. Wichmann, Dept. of Economics, Technical University of Berlin
From: ywang1@husc8.harvard.edu (Yongkang Wang)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Infor Wanted: Professors
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:57:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct13.185736.16351
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Hi,

I would like to contact a number of professors, for academic reason, at the 
Economics Departments of the following Unversities and Institutions, 
but I don't have their email addresses.  If you are from any of the following universities, 
would you please email me and we will see if you can help me out.
Thank you in advance.


  Stanford University
  Columbia Unicersity
  Yale University
  Univesrity of Iowa
  UC San Diago
  University of Barcelona
  Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Washington


Best Regards,

Yong
ywang1@husc8.harvard.edu
 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Subject: ENV SATELLITE SHUTDOWN IN DEC 1992
Keywords: nasa, environment, meteorology, satellite, ozone, aerosol
Reply-To: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov (Michael W. Rowland)
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA 23681  USA
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:58:07 GMT

This is a repost of 6 Oct. posting (revised)...

We at Langley Research Center received news on Thursday, October 2,
1992 that NASA intends to shutdown the following satellites in
December to save about $15M:

     NUMBUS-7

     ERBS

     NOAA-9 (partial?)

     NOAA-10 (partial?)

     UARS (SPRING 1993)

Some of the following experiments that will terminate when
their satellites are shutdown are:

     Stratospheric Aerosol Measurement II  (SAM II)

     Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBS) (3)

     Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment II (SAGE II)
     
     Total Ozone Measurement System (TOMS)

     Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE)

     Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS)

No plans have been stated to restart the satellites.

Budget cuts are specified in House Conference Report 102-902
that is attached to HR 5679, Sept. 24, 1992.

Mike Rowland

Mike Rowland, Aerosol Research Branch, MS 475
NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton VA 23681
internet: rowland@zorba7.larc.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: Becker & Drugs (Re: Becker won)
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:59:01 GMT

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>In article <Bw2C4C.DuE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>> Becker won the Nobel Prize.
>> 
>> Comments?

>Does anyone know Becker's position on (illegal) drug legalization?

>All I know about Becker is that he won the award for his research 
>on market forces and its effect on individual decision making (which
>I may have worded poorly) and he's from the U of Chicago so I suspect
>that he recognizes the inherent failure of drug prohibition.

I have not read or heard anything by/from Becker specifically about
drug legalization.  However you will probably find the following
enlightening about his views on price effects on drug consumption.

"A Theory of Rational Addiction"

(joint with Kevin Murphy)

published in the Journal of Political Economy 96:4 (Aug. 1988) pp.
675-700.

Abstract:

"We develop a theory of rational addiction in which rationality means
a consistent plan to maximize utility over time.  Strong addiction to
a good requires a big effect of past consumption of the good on
current consumption.  Such powerful complementarities cause some
steady states to be unstable.  They are an important part of our
analysis because even small deviations from the consumption at an
unstable steady state can lead to large cumulative rises over time in
addictive consumption or to rapid falls in consumption to abstention.
Our theory also implies that "cold turkey" is used to end strong
addictions, that addicts often go on binges, that addicts respond more
to permanent than to temporary changes in prices of addictive goods,
and that anxiety and tensions can precipitate an addiction."

One conclusion of the paper is that the elasticity of demand for
highly addictive goods is low with respect to short run price
variation, but high in response to permanent price changes.  In fact,
they claim that the long-run price elasticity is higher than it would
be if the good were not addictive.

The paper is vintage Becker, complete with two figures, 22 equations
(including several differential equations) and a mathematical
appendix.


--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8104 alt.amateur-comp:107 alt.activism:17465
From: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
Subject: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
Date: 14 Oct 92 03:45:06 GMT
Reply-To: ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben)
Organization: St. Elizabeth Hospital, Youngstown, OH


In a previous article, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:

>
>In article <Bw2C4C.DuE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>> Becker won the Nobel Prize.
>> 
>> Comments?
>
>

Isn't Becker the proponent of so called "Human Capital" theory? 

I thought I read where that theory was admitted to be nonsense at
the turn of the century by the people who put it forward then.

I thought it is basically anti automation and pro having 
fewer workers work harder,

Rather than workers being able to produce more because they are 
working with the most advanced machinery.

               Ronda


P.S. Maybe there is a need for a People's Noble Prize for Economics




-- 
Ronda Hauben                    email address:ae547@yfn.ysu.edu
Amateur Computerist Newsletter              or
P.O. Box 4344                   rhauben@heartland.bradley.edu
Dearborn, MI 48126