HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: alla0008@student.tc.umn.edu (Graham Allan)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 27 Jan 93 00:52:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: news2.C1HMFJ.2o6
Organization: University of Minnesota

In article <1993Jan26.110417.880@ualr.edu> deyoung@acs.harding.edu writes:
>In article <1993Jan25.220240.1@vxdesy.desy.de>, godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de writes:
>>In article <1k1aa5INNp2f@pandora.sdsu.edu>, larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
>>> My experience has been that a large percentage of the people who have
>>> emigrated to Canada did so because they couldn't get into the United
>>> States (green card, citizenship, etc.), and the closest real country
>>> (not just in location) is Canada.
>>> 
>>Absolutely agreed.  Canada is hugely inferior to the US in all respects,
>>and Canadians occupy considerable time and efort ina fruitless attempt
>>to try to convince people otherwise.  To the rest of us it looks rather
>>ludicrous and a little sad.
>>
>>Laurence
>>
>Do you care to elaborate on this?  "Hugely inferior... in all
>respects" is a bit of a broad statement wouldn't you say?  It's all a
>matter of taste, mate, and you have simply shown your ignorance in
>systematically categorizing the people of an entire country, a country
>that, as pointed out earlier, has an immigration rate somewhere in the
>neighborhood of twice that of the US per capita.  And that's because
>Canada offers many opportunities in education and the possibility for
>a better life.

Oh my god, here we go again...

Graham.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 00:19:18 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.023633.23524@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>In article <C1BpGz.L20@news.iastate.edu> mjkugel@iastate.edu (Michael J Kugel) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan23.000840.20867@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca> golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Gerald Olchowy) writes:
>>>In article <1993Jan22.220321.8579@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:
>>>>
>>>>One reason, IMHO, why Americans have the "USA #1" attitude is
>>>>the relative amount of immigration to American vs. other
>>>>countries.  Most Americans are decendents of people who came
>>>>here in the last 100 or 150 years.  Most Americans know,
>>>>work with, and have friends that were born in other countries
>>>>and immigrated to America.   

I wouldn't think so at all!  IMNSHO, it would be the sheer power of the
US in economy and military.  Despite the recent "catch-up" played by 
other nations, the US is still *the* economic giant, with an 
INCREDIBLY person-oriented service economy, with services and goods
available that tend to boggle the mind of nearly any arrival to the US
[including the 'developed' nations].  The examples of how with luck
and drive, a single person can become stinking rich, and with less
luck *very* comfortable, the ultra-accesability to higher education,
the cheap land and buildings, consumer goods, food, and relatively
low tax rate.

THAT, when compared with what a resident here sees of other nations,
makes the US as Number 1 very real.

While most people know recent immigrants, I doubt it has much impact
upon the self-image of the US.


-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | For a mere $50 these personal  | Ak! Its 1992 tax|
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | opinions can also be yours!    |  season! Yuck!  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 23 Jan 93 14:07:31 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Two points:

1. Curexxx "Curreny as currency" DOES indeed have value. The extremely
persistent myth that physical, tangible goods are the only things
which have the elusive (and quite nebulous) quality of "value" is
simply false.  It is true that money (currency), such as bills and 
coindxxx coins have little value if used for things other than
excvhxxx exchange (although they do have some value in this sense:
citizens of the Confederacy used to light fires with their paper
money!), but nothing has "value" outside of the contect ofxxxxxx
the context of a market.  To believe otherwise is to never have
abxx an answer to the Diamnd-Water Paradox.

2. To some extent, interest rates drive inflation. Yes, money which
bears interest has some of that value eroded by inflation, but the fact
is that interest is part of what makes iunfxxx inflation happen.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9892 soc.culture.usa:10174 soc.culture.japan:14370 soc.culture.british:19503 soc.culture.canada:10456
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:10:00 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


All this talk about which country is "#1" seems to center on an e
attempt to come up with some sort of absolute best (which can 
presumably be measured or demonstrated), but I would think that
this question should be viewed in light of an indiviual, not 
some abstract person.  I should think that there are people in many 
parts of the world who do not enjoy the technological, commercial,
political, or military "advantages" that Americans do, and yet are
quite content with life.  Why the United States should be number 1
to them is beyond me.
I have lived in the United States all of my life, and appreciate many 
things which life here provides, and to which I have become 
accustomed, but I'd be telling less than the truth if I said that I
didn't think there were serious problems here.
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 26 Jan 93 19:04:14 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Welp, you guys have convinced me that interest does not promote inflation,
or at least your arguments seem to make sense. However, I remain
unconvinced that inflation must necessarily be "artificial"- 
whether there were inflation or deflation would seem to depend on 
overall economic productivity, rate of consumption of that production,
and the size of the money supply. (That is, ceteris perebis.)
From: jmunro@wyse.wyse.com (Jim Munro x2497)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:32:33 GMT
Organization: Wyse Technologies San Jose, Ca

One aspect of 'USA is # 1' has not been covered.

Where else can you live in an industrial society, get a well paid job,
live on the ocean, and enjoy weather and natural beauty second to none.

THis is true of almost all the US West Coast, and the reason why I am here.

Jim Munro
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Since no one is defending inflation, (was re: Inflation)
Date: 23 Jan 93 13:58:15 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


charles, you say that inflation is a "lie", which "leads to workers
thinking they are getting increases due to increased efficiency
when they are just keeping pace." I have no doub that people may
be misled by the numbers, and that managers (or others) may use 
such statistics against workers (as they say, "Figures don't lie,
but liars can figure."), but this hardly seems to be the fault of
anyone but workers. Now, before anyone mails me a bomb, understand
carfeulxxxxx carefully what I just said: that there are detrimental
effects of inflation, but workers getting fooled, is the workers'
fault, for not being informed. As adults in society, they have the
responsibility to take care of themselves. Basic math is 
something which anyone should be able to handle, in order to know
their own business (although, sadly, many don't), but if they don't,
why should we direct blame elsewhere?
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: godfrey@vxdesy.desy.de
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: (DESY, Hamburg, Germany)
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 22:02:40 GMT

In article <1k1aa5INNp2f@pandora.sdsu.edu>, larryr@saturn.sdsu.edu (Larry Riedel) writes:
> Gerald Olchowy (golchowy@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca) wrote:
>> jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) writes:
>> >One reason, IMHO, why Americans have the "USA #1" attitude is
>> >the relative amount of immigration to American vs. other
>> >countries.
>>
>> Canada has twice the immigration rate per capita than the United
>> States has.
> 
> My experience has been that a large percentage of the people who have
> emigrated to Canada did so because they couldn't get into the United
> States (green card, citizenship, etc.), and the closest real country
> (not just in location) is Canada.
> 
> 
> Larry


Absolutely agreed.  Canada is hugely inferior to the US in all respects,
and Canadians occupy considerable time and efort ina fruitless attempt
to try to convince people otherwise.  To the rest of us it looks rather
ludicrous and a little sad.

Laurence

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: University of Tennessee 
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 19:50:10 GMT

In article <4037@wyse.wyse.com> jmunro@wyse.wyse.com (Jim Munro x2497) writes:
>Well despite the lack of established religion, the US still manages to bring
>religion into almost everything. Evry coin says 'In God We Trust' for starters.

Yep.  We need to quit that.

>Every President is expected to be an active Christian, 

That's because the voting majoruity are christians, and that's who they vote 
for.  It is not a requirement of the office.

the airwaves are jammed with
>fundamentalist claptrap, 

This is not state-sponsored.

>and even schoolbooks are 'cebsored' by fundamentalist
>groups who have successfully fought for the exclusion of overtly Darwinian
>material.

This is one of the consequences of an elected school board being directly 
responsible to the electorate.  If the fundies in the area get loud enough, 
they can influance the board.

>
>Every school or College graduation is opened and closed by a religious figure.

Participation is not mandatory.

>
>Give me the good old styate religion anytime. I went to a Church sponsored school,
>as did my children. We all learned by example at an early age a healthy 
>disrespect for religion and its practioners. 

I doubt that.  More likely you learnd a healthy respect for ONE religion and 
its practicioners.  My fellow christians are notoriously intolerant.

After all, if it is forced on
>you by the government it must be bad right?

No, if it is forced on you by the state, the forcing is bad.  (I also oppose 
state floridation of water, for the same reason.)

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
E-Mail to PA142548@utkvm1.utk.edu, mail to ARCHER at that address will
bounce.    "Don't blame me, I voted Libertarian."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.usa.misc
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Since no one is defending inflation, (was re: Inflation)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 93 18:20:32 GMT

In article <1993Jan23.165450.9818@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>an illusion which creates a deceptive situation deserves as much
>of the blame (at least) as those it fools. even if most of the populace
>should know better, they don't -- as such, that is one drawback of
>inflation.

After the fairly extensive amount of inflation which people have seen
particularly over the past 100 years, it is NOT likely that there are
many people who are unaware of the presence of inflation.

It's difficult to decieve people who ARE aware that inflation exists.

>it is not a matter of basic math. it is just a natural tendency that
>inflation is often not considered when things increase in price. just
>as people may "blame" the store when the price of milk goes up, they
>similarly attribute "credit" to themselves when they get a raise
>which is in fact just inflation compensation. 

How can you say this in the presence of extensive COLA agreements?
People DO know that part of their raises DOES relate to inflation.
People demand raises that are based at least in part on the rate of
inflation.

Those that don't are either: 
a) Woefully ignorant, or 
b) Considering that something else is much more important than
inflation.  (For instance, a baseball player that did REALLY WELL this
year may demand a pay increase based on THAT.)

The fact that they'll "blame" the store for price increases, or
"credit" themselves with wage increases is another question
altogether.  It's either that they're incapable or unwilling to
recognize the reality that EVERYONE that increases prices (for ANY
reason whatsoever) is responsible for some portion of the inflation
that occurs.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: gomme@beaufort.sfu.ca (Paul Gomme)
Subject: Re: What is economics? (Was Re: "Death of America")
Organization: Dept. of Economics, Simon Fraser University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:14:47 GMT

In article <1993Jan14.054415.12922@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>From: serhody@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Stephen e. Rhody)
>These are the kind of conflicts of ideas that any natural scientist would
>be scrambling day and night to resolve or EXPLICITLY give up on as too
>chaotic.  But no, you guys keep doing the two things you do best: 1.
>studying unrealistic imaginary systems with mathematical rigor so as to
>give economics a "scientific" facade.

 [discussion of Adam Smith's free market deleted]

>I guess this is what I really meant.
>There's no virtue in complexity per se.

You can't argue this one both ways.  The most unrealistic quality of most
economic models is there simplicity.

>>If you want an example of a real, working system that requires an
>>economists understanding, try the United States.  Remember, you said
>>working, not working well :).  
>
>The whole idea was that you guys DON'T understand it in a useful way.

There are those who would argue that there's no virtue in understanding the
U.S. economy in 1993.  What we do want is to find those regularities
("laws") which apply to all economies.

>How about something USEFUL?  You roughly have the economic equivalent of, say,
>F=ma.

MV=PT
Y = C + I + G + X - M

>My idea is: don't try to describe how people DO behave.  It's a losing
>battle.  TELL THEM how to behave.

I thought the Soviet Union was no more.

Paul Gomme
--
gomme@sfu.ca                                   paul_gomme@sfu.ca
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 22 Jan 93 01:00:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Okay, now I will agree that inflation may be caused (at least some of the
time) by governmental activity.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9936 soc.culture.british:19641 soc.culture.usa:10283
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: What is economics? (repost)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 22:18:29 GMT

From article <1993Jan19.173008.5289@csi.uottawa.ca>, by cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne):
> In article <1993Jan19.095018.16153@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>YOUR POINT: I don't really know what professional economists do.
>>
>>Please, can anyone tell me, yes or no, to this simple statement that I will
>>repeat: economists only do one of two kinds of work: 1.  Rigorous,
>>mathematical analysis of imaginary systems that rarely have any
>>applications to real life; and 2. Unscientific, unrigorous, disagreeing
>>analysis of real systems giving rise to conflicting and misleading
>>conclusions making impact on real people's lives.
> 
> Probably a surprisingly accurate representation.

A surprisingly accurate representation of physics about 300 years ago,
and not entirely inaccurate as a representation of physics today.

I predict that 300 years from now, the social sciences, including
economics, will have advanced significantly.  I do not predict that
they will be where physics is now.  "The proper study of mankind is
man" is a pun, not a statement of where the light is brightest.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Inflation
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 21:13:00 GMT

In article <2259@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
>
>Yes, some inflation is natural, and some is caused my economic policies
>of the government. But why do you limit your explanation of inflation
>to the eexxx effects of money, and supply and demand?  The reason for 
>inflation happens before we even get to the market: the seller has 
>forsaken some amount of value of the item in question, by waiting-
>that is, by sliding through time. When the xxxx they finally get to
>the market, supply and demand schedules have already moved, and the
>seller has lost.  In truth, inflation of prices could occur in an economy
>of hammers and banaanaxxxx bannanas. Remember supply and demand only
>reflect underlying economic conditions, and the reason for inflation
>is one of those conditions, not part of S/D.

i really don't understand what you are trying to say here.
inflation simply means an increase in prices. if the price of hammers
in terms of bananas increases, then there is "price inflation"
of hammers in terms of bananas. but that would only happen due to
market effects. and when the number of bananas needed to buy a hammer
increased, people would start making more hammers and growing fewer
bananas. eventually an equilibrium, or at least a stable cycle
would be reached. you wouldn't see the inflation continue endlessly.

please explain the point you are trying to make here.

--
charles
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 26 Jan 93 01:42:17 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <2168@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
>
>You say that inflation is "100% a monetary phenomoenae".
>However, inflation may occur with an economy which has no money.
>How can inflation be purely a "mopn[D"monetary" thing?

There are two ways to cause a rise in prices. One is to shrink supply
in relation to demand (or increase demand in relation to supply.) This
will cause a rise in prices in those areas of the economy where goods
and services have become more dear. This can happen in both types
of economies. You will only experience a rise in prices in all areas
as a result of some sort of disaster.

The other way to cause a rise in prices is to increase the supply
of money. This will cause a rise in prices in *all* areas of the 
economy, even though the goods and services have not suddenly become
dearer. What is happening, essentially, is that with the increased
demand provided by the "free" money, goods and services can now be 
bought faster than they are being produced. Since prices attempt to
balance supply and demand, the prices will begin to rise, and production
will attempt to expand in these areas. When the inflation stops, however,
(i.e., the govt quits printing money), the consumers will revert back
to their old time preferences, and these areas wich have expanded will
no longer be deemed necessary by the consumers. They wil go under,
and this is the beginning of the recession.

Inflation also causes interest rates to drop, which means that capital
is being loaned out too quickly. Eventually, interest rates must go
up again to make up for the artificial demand for loans. In some
cases, a high inflation may be accompanied by high interest rates, as
evidenced by the recessions of the 70's.

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



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Since no one is defending inflation, (was re: Inflation)
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 14:15:13 GMT

In article <1993Jan24.163027.3144@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>In article <1993Jan23.182032.28056@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan23.165450.9818@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>an illusion which creates a deceptive situation deserves as much
>>>of the blame (at least) as those it fools. even if most of the populace
>>>should know better, they don't -- as such, that is one drawback of
>>>inflation.
>>
>>After the fairly extensive amount of inflation which people have seen
>>particularly over the past 100 years, it is NOT likely that there are
>>many people who are unaware of the presence of inflation.
>>
>>It's difficult to decieve people who ARE aware that inflation exists.
>
>i disagree, though i don't think either of us can prove it. when inflation
>pushes both wages and prices higher, i think most people only see
>inflation as pushing prices higher, and that they somehow "deserve" the
>full amount of their wage increase.

It's well nigh unto impossible to analyze your assertion, as it does
not represent the "rational expectations" that economics normally
assumes.  Assuming "irrational expectations" allows you to assume
essentially anything that you want, and makes it terribly difficult to
come to ANY conclusions.

The fact that some individuals may act in ignorance does not
necessarily change the aggregate behaviour, which amounts to
"awareness of inflation."  Those individuals that make decisions based
on a false perception of reality will make suboptimal decisions.
Since they are a minority, they don't necessarily have any tremendous
impact on the macro-economy.

For instance, the fact that some people buy lottery tickets based on
the fallacious assumption that they're likely to "win" hasn't resulted
in ALL money going into lotteries.  Lotteries remain a relatively
small influence in the economy as a whole.

-- 
Christopher Browne                |     PGP 2.0 key available
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca           |======================================
University of Ottawa              | Genius may have its limitations, but
Master of System Science Program  | stupidity is not thus handicapped.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada