HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 16:48:40 GMT

In article <6NOV92.03424517@skyfox.usask.ca> howp@skyfox.usask.ca writes:
>Hi, 
>
>     I saw last Sunday an episode of _Adam Smith's Money World_ on PBS. It was
>just before the U.S. election and they talked about a book titled 'BANKRUPTCY
>1995' by authours Figgie and Swanson (sp?).  I have yet to read this book and I
>was wondering if anybody has read this book and what their impressions were
>(was it too alarmist? was it flawed? was it well/poorly written?). 
>

I have only skimmed through the book.  It seems no more alarmist
than the Grace Commission report (the source of many of its numbers).

The Grace Commission studied the trends in federal finance.
You could think of it as an investigation of the "If this
goes on..." nature.  "Bankruptcy:  1995" underlines the 
fact that "this goes on".

The "1995" is somewhat misleading.  The book does not predict
a catastrophe for that year.  It does point out that the Grace
Commission numbers imply that if the federal government were
an individual or corporation, the Grace Commission projections
for that year would indicate insolvency.

The book is not weighty.  Its major purpose is to convince
people that there is a very large problem in federal finances.
As a secondary objective, it deals with elements of solving
the problem.  It is an attempt at a wake-up call.

Many people do not regard the debt as presenting imminent dangers.
The book outlines criteria for establishing at what level
debt becomes unsupportable.  This is a valuable analysis, in
that it can move debate from a shouting match between 
fixed idealogical positions to practical discussion.

-- 
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: tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (Tom Boyce)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: electronic bartering systems
Date: 5 Nov 92 15:34:57 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: caltech
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.215.139.52

I was wondering if anyone here has looked into electronic bartering
systems? I am working with a health and human services organization here in
Los Angles which is establishing a pilot project for impoverished
communities. One part of the project involves setting up an electronic
bartering system.  

Any info would be appreciated but if you have pointers to people who have
actually done this sort of thing, they would be especially appreciated. 

Thanks,

Tom
From: josh@foglet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Trade War?
Date: 6 Nov 92 19:02:43 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Well, I'm surprized not to see some discussion of the "eminent trade
war" (as CNN put it) here.  Does anybody know if champagne is
considered white wine under the new tariffs?

What's the likelihood this will widen and play Smoot-Hawley to
Clinton's "Happy Days Are Here Again"?

--JoSH
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: Clinton Advisors
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 20:26:09 GMT

In article <1689DB722.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>Does anyone know if Robert B. Reich at Harvard has an Internet address?
>This guy's book, "The Work of Nations", is at odds with what Clinton has said
>about what he'll do about the export of American jobs, yet Reich pops up
>frequently as a talking head for Clinton's economic team.

I would agree with you.  I think Robert Reich is much more "free-trade" than
Clinton.  Of course, Clinton is a politician and needs to realize that some
of the electorate aren't in favor of free-trade if they're losing jobs.

Charlie


Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: tax or spend? which first mr. bill?
Summary: tax first, spend later.
Keywords: tax, spend, clinton, deficit.
Date: 7 Nov 92 05:11:26 GMT


  clinton may not have a mandate. but he seems to enjoy
  a good base of support from most everyone. if not on
  ideals, at least on the principal that he is the president.
  now, which should he do first? tax or spend?

  it sounds as though he will spend first. to "get the
  economy moving again." this is a mistake.

  while he does have the support of the people he should
  enact a plan to fix the deficit first. tax or cut spending
  right now and take care of business. if no one else, at least
  20% of the people will support him (the perot-bots).
  i think comsumer confidence will return on its own if the
  deficit were cut. increasing spending will increase
  consumption just because more cash is out there, not 
  because the will to spend is high. 

  so let's cut the deficit. cut government. 

  yeech. sincerity makes me sick mark. shut up.

  mark.

  mst3k until the cows come home.
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 8 Nov 1992 04:24:34 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <BxB4ME.9BC@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:
> 
>   1.  The entire world economy is very shaky just now; the last
>       thing it needs is a trade war.   We should all be trying 
>       to INCREASE the volume of world trade.

Quite right.

> 
> 
>   2.  France, et al, are democracies.  Their voters have made it
>       clear that they WANT some of their tax money to be used for
>       agricultural subsidies.   What the US is, in effect, saying
>       to the EC officials is that they should ignore the wishes of
>       their own voters and instead follow OUR dictates.

Actually, although France, et al are democracies, the et al
part of the EC don't all want this kind of subsidy.   In
fact, there's quite a fuss in Europe over Delors appearing
to speak for France when he ought to be speaking for the EC
as a whole.

In one minor sense, this incipient trade war might have a
good effect if it means that the other EC countries end up
taking a stand against French agricultural interests.  I
think that the US has shown an uncharacteristic degree of
subtlety in aiming its retaliation at French and German
agriculture, rather than at the other EC countries.   The
implied threat that the next step in retaliation *could*
affect other EC countries, may impell them to action.

I doubt, however, if that will result in the US getting
some of its - frankly absurd - demands met.   The request
for post-facto 'compensation' in particular, is meeting
with some hilarity in the European Press.

I think that the rest of your points are very well taken.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:47:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA
Keywords: flat tax

In article <1992Nov11.224507.3505@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>In article <BxJzCF.I11@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>>In article <markts.721352037@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>>>
>>>Do the rich actually use more services?
>>>
>>>I guess I'm in favor of progressive tax systems:
>>>
>>>- people who use progressively more services pay progressively more taxes!!!
>               ^^^               ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>  First of all, in a flat tax the rich WOULD pay more!    13% of a 
>>  1,000,000 dollars is more than 13% of 100,000 dollars.
>
>but SHOULD they pay more? Do they use more services?

   Who cares?  "Should" is a political/moral/religious/<etc> question
   which we do not have the tools to resolve.   Suffice it to say
   that the assumption that taxes a fee-for-services is essentially
   a libertraina assumption, and the Libertarian Party had one
   of their worst years ever at the national level this year, so
   don't hold your breath waiting for agreement.


  
>if you assume that taxes should be roughly on how much
>a person uses up services, then the rich shouldn't necessarily pay
>more.

   As I said, this is a minority assumption.   I don't share this
   assumption and neither do most other prople in the US at this time.
   Of course that could change, but who knows in what direction?


---peter
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:26:20 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Nov11.103204.3702@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>I think the rich should pay more taxes in some areas: it costs more in 
>policing to keep the rich at a comparative level of safety. After all,
>they are more of a target. Rich people should probably pay more for
>fire fighting: all those big houses take more firemen to put out
>big fires when big houses catch on fire. (OK, perhaps I'm assuming
>alot about crime patterns. But it does seem like there is more incentive
>to rob and kidnap well off people)

Rich people are much less likely to be targets of violent crime.  They
are also less likely to suffer a loss from theft.  Amounts are probably
larger, but that is not a State concern.  Rich people get more protection,
but it is probably not proportional to income.  Sorry, this argument is
not a good one for progressive taxation.

You might try the approach that rich people get more benefit from the
infrastructure to produce their income.  I believe that would be more
fruitful.

>it is cheaper to subsidize the poor, than have the poor turn into
>violent, rioting, gang joining criminals who will  car-jack your
>BMW or sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers.
>(funny, sounds just like the USA)

Subsidizing the poor is good politics, and accomplishes nothing.  Helping
the poor become non-poor is better economics.

They will sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers as long
as drugs are illegal and highly profitable.  The market for crack is
a rational response to the War On Drugs (WOD).  The WOD is a government
price support system fundamental to the kinder gentler War On Poverty.
It is intended to break the cycle of poverty by encouraging development
of an entrepreneurial spirit.  :^{)

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	"Innocence is irrelevant."
		Select two:	The Borg
				US Judicial System
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: cjp@megatek.com (Chris "Systems Stud" Pikus)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 21:57:33 GMT

david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
> 
> The title says it all. Perot got 14 million, Lullani F???ani got
> 19,000, the Peace and Freedom people got some 10,000. Clearly
> Libertarians are a lunatic fringe....
> -- 
> 					All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
> 						david@cats.ucsc.edu.

	Actually, according to the AP news service, the Libertairans
(nationwide) got a little over 250,000 million votes. Aproximately 100M
votes were cast which would make the number around 1/4%.

	Of course, your numbers might only be referring to California
votes case, in which case you should revise your Perot number down a
bit to avoid comparing apples to oranges. [I doubt that there were even
a total of 14M votes cast in CA.]

	Personally, I suspect that the number would have been a lot
higher if Perot did not run. [like more than a million]

	Then again, since exit polls showed that Perot took four votes
from Bush for every one he took from Clinton, Bush would have been
President again. Maybe that is what he wanted to do.

	This is no longer sci.econ, if y'all want to continue this
thread, followups have been directed to talk.politics.misc.

-- 
Christopher J. Pikus,        | "A lot of times men do things they don't want to 
Megatek Corp., San Diego, CA | do so the women they are going out with will do
INTERNET: cjp@megatek.com    | things _they_ don't want do do."   -- Tim Allen
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Breakup of the United States
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:59:57 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov2.135214.14062@seq.uncwil.edu> bgoffe@seq.uncwil.edu (Bill Goffe) writes:
>rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
>
>>From what I can gather, there have been several nations that have
>>had debt levels approaching that   the United States now has.
>>Of these, only one, Great Britain, managed to come out of it, but
>>they pretty much had to plunder the world to do so. 
>
>How about the U.S. in the past? After the end of WWII, the debt/
>GNP ratio was > 1.0 and now is slightly less than .5. While debt
>grew over those years, GNP grew much more.


   If you persist in countering emotional arguments like Mr.
   Burn's with the facts we'll have to take away your Usenet
   priveleges.  


---peter
From: austin@maths.tcd.ie (John Armstrong)
Subject: INFORMATION REQUIRED ON CLINTON'S ECONOMISTS
Summary: PLEASE SUPPLY NAMES
Keywords: NAMES OF CLINTON'S 150 ECONOMISTS
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 15:15:43 GMT

Could anyone please send me a list of Mr. Clinton's infamous
150 economists who endorsed him in his campaign.  Their names 
and their current academic post would be of great help along 
with their specialised area.

I would also be grateful if you could tip the top ones that will
become his advisors and confidantes.

With thanks,

JOHN ARMSTRONG
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Von Misses Correct? USSR not centrally planned?
Date: 9 Nov 92 13:52:05 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1dhjvuINNg57@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:



>We have a lecturer comming who claims the above: that Misses' thesis
>is correct, socialism cannot exist (due to information problems) and
>that the USSR was and Russia is not now a centrally planned economy.
>Instead, he describes it as mercantile.

>Is this true?

As long as he is talking of the Russian republics of right now he is
partially correct.

Though I personally would be hesitant to assign one name to the economy
of today's Russia.  It is more a mish-mash of partials.  Partially
communist, partially sociallist, partially capitalist, partially chaotic.

The central planning mechanism has broken down and even though the beaurocracy
is still in place, it is largely ignored.  Many industries are still state
owned (for now), but there are large and growing pockets of capitalism.

As for the was part, this sounds like a circular argument.  Centrally planned
economies can't work, therefore the USSR was not a centrally planned
economy.

I agree with MIsses and your lecturer that planned economies can't work.
But that doesn't mean that the ex-USSR wasn't doing there best to make
a go of it.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: German and Japanese living standards
Date: 6 Nov 92 15:24:35 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

A few reasons Germany and Japan have their standards of living:

1.  With their old industries shattered after WWII they got the
    chance, and money (can you say Marshal Plan?) to rebuild 
    NEW factories.  Growing up in Pittsburgh, I remember hearing,
    as our mills shut down, that the OLDEST stel mill in Japan
    was only 3-4 years older than our NEWEST mill.  Our old mills
    rebuilt their new mills, and thus, our competition.

2.  U.S. military presence has been the BEST prevention of war
    in Europe.  50 years and counting (except Yugoslavia's
    civil war, No U.S troops there).  Peace bringsd prosperity.

3.  The German nation had a LONG history of social programs,
    with mabye a few hickups like WWII, Weimar Depression, etc.
    It also, unlike Sweeden mentioned above, had a strong
    INDUSTRIAL history.

4.  Japanese corporations faced unreal, protected business conditions.

5.  Only one nation, Finland, paid back the money the U.S. govt.
    loaned it.

6.  Lots of U.S. military money (soldiers paychecks, buildings,etc.)
    in the area to get the economy started.

The reasons go on and on, but the basic principals are the same:  a
good, prewar economy, new equipment, social programs before war,
and the U.S.A. having a vested intrest in their success.  Its
time to set them free and spent the money at home.

Shawn Duffy
Edinboro University of PA
U.S.A.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: lml@vision.ummed.edu (Lawrence Mark Lifshitz)
Subject: how does European Exchange Rate Mechanism work (UK vs. Germany)?
Organization: University of Massachusetts Medical Center
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:38:42 GMT

I am trying to clear up a lack of understanding in how parts
of the European Rate Mechanism (?) currency exchange rates
work.  Last month there was this big hullabaloo about how
the UK was outside of its exchange rate bounds with Germany.
The UK ended up pulling out of the system because it's bank
couldn't maintain the rate within the specified range.

Question: why did the UK have to take the onus for the
problem and not Germany?  I don't mean from an economic
stance, eg, the UK mismanaged their economy so the exchange
rate couldn't be maintained.  I mean how do the powers
that be (whoever they are) decide that the UK is the one
which is in violation of the ERM rules?  After all, it
takes two to define an exchange rate.  Why wasn't Germany
worried about violating the ERM rules?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek)
Subject: nipaq.zip on info.umd.edu is corrupt!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 22:53:11 GMT
Keywords: econdata data info

	Would someone mind checking if I'm right about this - but the zip
file with quarterly gdp data - what I need - is corrupt.

	Are there any other sources with this data?

	Can I contact the people running info and tell them to fix this?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: BANKRUPTCY 1995: Any thoughts?
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:48:46 GMT

In article <23853@galaxy.ucr.edu> tgrupe@watnxt11.ucr.edu (Todd E. Grupe) writes:
>In article <1992Nov6.164840.1526@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)  
>writes:
>> 
>> Many people do not regard the debt as presenting imminent dangers.
>> The book outlines criteria for establishing at what level
>> debt becomes unsupportable.  This is a valuable analysis, in
>> that it can move debate from a shouting match between 
>> fixed idealogical positions to practical discussion.
>> 
>	I've just finished reading Bankruptcy 1995 very carefully, along  
>with a couple of other recent books on depressions, hyperinflation, and  
>the factors that cause them.  Higgie makes his case very well, but I  
>suspect the economic disaster he predicts would occur a few years later  
>than 1995, assuming our government doesn't take the necessary emergency  
>action in the near future.  

To avoid leaving an incorrect impression with anyone following
this thread, I'd like to point out something that was in my
earlier post.  Figgie does _not_ predict calamity in or by
1995; rather, he points out that by the standards of an 
individual or a company, the U.S. federal government will be
insolvent in 1995 if the Grace Commission scenario continues
to be followed.  At some (unspecified) time this will have
severe consequences.

-- 
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: vasta@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: searching PAPER
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:59:18 GMT
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620

I am searching for this paper. It is very important for
my research. I cannnot find it and so I thought to ask
if some people can help me:

The reference is:

FAGERBERG, Technology and economic growth: a review of the theoretical and
empirical literature. Paper presented at the Schumpeterian Society, Kyoto
august 1992.


Thank you


Michelangelo Vasta

/signature
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cscullion@trentu.ca (Chris D. Scullion)
Subject: Info Request:  Canadian debt stats
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Trent University Computer Services Department
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:43:00 GMT

Greetings.....

I'm in need of data on both federal and provincial debt loads.  If you know 
where I can find this data, please reply to the address below.

Thanks in advance!

				chris scullion
				cscullion@trentu.ca
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Money Supply numbers
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:18:16 CST


Does anyone know the money supply numbers for the past couple of months?
I want to know if the M2 & M3 numbers are still going negative.


The more recent I have are:

      Money Supply Growth Rates

M2 growth (4Q/4Q)  M3 growth (4Q/4Q)
-----------------  -----------------
1988  5.2%         1988  6.4%
1989  4.8%         1989  3.6%
1990  4.0%         1990  1.7%
1991  2.8%         1991  1.2%
 *    1.1%          *   -0.5%

(* 11/91-7/92) through week ended Aug 3, 1992

Source: Federal Reserve Board
-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 13 Nov 92 00:13:37 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov12.183042.23658@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
> In article <BxM7Ft.L4n@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1689D88F8.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>>Read "Small is Beautiful". We don't need to ship more stuff all over the globe
>>>to have a good US economy.
>>
>>  Boy you really have a fascination with a 20 year old book!   
>>  Perhaps you could document your conclusions in today's terms.
> 
> Peter, this is not the Book of the Month club. Anyone who wants to
> talk about economics should have read at least a review of Schumacher.

	Okay, here it is:

	Schumacher is wrong.
	Proof: 1930s USA.

>>  Millions of US jobs depend on markets overseas.  Major US companies
>>  like HP, Sun, Dec, IBM, Boeing, Caterpillar Tractor, Eastman Kodak, 
>>  and many, many others do a big part of their business in exports.
> 
> Schumacher doesn't address international trade explicitly. However, I
> suspect that if he were alive today, he'd argue something like this:
> there's nothing wrong with such trade, but having an the economy of a
> given political (and by your own claim, *cultural*) entity dependent
> on exporting things to other such entities that it does not control or
> even necessarily share much with is a mistake. If we can't build
> stable, healthy economies within the confines of a national boundary(*),
> what makes us think we can do it within the confines of the entire
> planet ?

	*We* could.  Just about every other nation on Earth could not.

	Talk about selfish.

	Just where is Japan supposed to get food?  Oil?

Brett
===============================================================================
80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.econ