HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: S.Goonatilake@cs.ucl.ac.uk (Suran Goonatilake)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Artifical Intelligence and Economics
Date: 12 Jan 93 11:59:46 GMT



>From: janm@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Jan Metzger)

>I am interested in any work being done were Artifical Intellegence and
>economics are combined.  I would be extremely gratefull if you could tell me
>about any work that you know is being done and how I can obtain information
>about it.

>Thank you,

>Jan Metzger


Jan,

There is a distribution list for the Intelligent systems for
economics digest which looks at the interaction between AI techniques and
economics.


To join the list send mail to,

           IE-list-request@cs.ucl.ac.uk
          (For users in the UK, IE-list-request@uk.ac.ucl.cs
                                IE-list@uk.ac.ucl.cs)

Send contributions to: IE-list@cs.ucl.ac.uk

There is a ftp archive which has past issues of the digest (there
are currently 4), 

   To access anonymous ftp archive:  %ftp cs.ucl.ac.uk (128.16.5.31)

                                    Name: anonymous
                                Password: (your email address)

                                     ftp> cd ie
                                     ftp> ls
                                     ftp> get FILENAME 
                                     ftp> bye


  Cheers,

  Suran 


Suran Goonatilake
Dept. of Computer Science
University College London
Gower St.
London WC1E 6BT
UK

Tel: +44 (71) 387 7050 ext 3719
Fax: +44 (71) 387 1397
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation (was Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 11 Jan 93 02:36:32 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1993Jan4.223300.17373@samba.oit.unc.edu> Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:

>>I don't know much about Post-Keynesianism, but if it resembles Keynesiansm
>>at all I would tend to discard it. 
>>
>>I personally prefer the Austrian school of Economics as espoused by
>>von Mises, von Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, George Reisman,
>>etc.
>>
>>Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)

>If your reading is limited to introductory textbooks and Austrians, I
>know you will not have encountered an adequate explaination of Keynes.
>With the exceptions of Hayek, Schumpeter, and the first 2 generations, I
>have not found Austrians to be particularly competent scholars. In
>particular, von Mises' Human Action is terrible.
>
>                                  Robert Vienneau

Where do the Austrians go wrong?

What is a *good* explanation of Keynesianism?

On the contrary, I have found the Austrians that I have read to be
quite brilliant. In particular, "Human Action" was amazing in scope, depth
and logic. It made sense to me...what are your problems with it?

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 7 Jan 93 22:41:36 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <58128@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>>Let's here it for the Fed--our dollar has lost >95% of its purchasing
>>power since then. Hooray.
>
>How do you account for the numerous boom/bust cycles that predated
>the Federal reserve?
>

You can attribute these to the National Banking Act of 1860. This 
legislation centralized reserves in a few banks in NYC, creating a 
quasi-central bank. These banks could then influence the money supply
much greater than would have been possible had true free competition 
had been in place.

I believe one of the most stable banking experiments in history was
the Scottish free banking system--there were no legal tender laws, no
reserve requirements, no government monopoly on the money supply.
A very sound banking system was established, much to the envy of the
neighboring British, and it was based on a de facto gold standard. It 
finally crumbled after legislation was passed regulating the industry,
I believe.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 13 Jan 1993 04:45:01 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc10.ins.cwru.edu



There are no good reasons why we should have inflation.

There are only excuses!
-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: hamachi@adobe.com (Gordon Hamachi)
Subject: Re: Surviving Hyper-Inflation
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:35:00 GMT

Gordon Hamachi writes
> I read the book and it scares the hell out of me.

Figgie's "Bankruptcy 1995" still scares the hell out of me, but for an  
alternative view, see Business Week, January 11, 1993, p. 14.

The reviewer says:

        His predictions of economic ruin are, frankly, silly.  If the deficit
    goes unchecked, he anticipates a currency collapse, widespread bank
    failures, massive layoffs, cuts in Social Security benefits, and
    hyperinflation.

        I would like to make Figgie a little wager.  I will bet him a year's
    pay that by 1995, the annual deficit will still be in the neighborhood of
    $150 billion to $200 billion, and even so, our currency will be strong,
    inflation will be quite modest, and the U.S. economy will be, overall,
    healthier than it is today.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Surviving Hyper-Inflation
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 16:17:52 GMT

In article <1993Jan12.013500.5339@adobe.com> hamachi@adobe.com (Gordon Hamachi) writes:
>Gordon Hamachi writes
>> I read the book and it scares the hell out of me.
>
>Figgie's "Bankruptcy 1995" still scares the hell out of me, but for an  
>alternative view, see Business Week, January 11, 1993, p. 14.
>
>The reviewer says:
>
>        His predictions of economic ruin are, frankly, silly.  If the deficit
>    goes unchecked, he anticipates a currency collapse, widespread bank
>    failures, massive layoffs, cuts in Social Security benefits, and
>    hyperinflation.
>
>        I would like to make Figgie a little wager.  I will bet him a year's
>    pay that by 1995, the annual deficit will still be in the neighborhood of
>    $150 billion to $200 billion, and even so, our currency will be strong,
>    inflation will be quite modest, and the U.S. economy will be, overall,
>    healthier than it is today.

I have to read this!  Look at paragraph one:  "If the deficit goes
unchecked, he anticipates...."  And then paragraph two states
(in essence):  "I bet that if the deficit _doesn't_ go unchecked,
what he anticipates won't happen."

Further, the reviewer's characterization of the (present) deficit as being
in the neighborhood of $150 billion to $200 billion is ludicrously low.

-- 
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: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Handbook suggestion:  game theory
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:44:35 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ

Someone asked recently who are the good people in
game theory, and a respondent correctly observed
that there are knowledgeable folk in many places.
For a different approach to the question, one might
thumb through the just-in-print

	Aumann, Robert J., and Sergiu Hart
	1992	Handbook of Game Theory, with
		applications, Volume I.  Else-
		vier, Amsterdam and New York
		City

I haven't seen it yet myself, but there are good
chapter titles ("Strategic Models of Entry Deter-
rence", "Axiomatizations of the Core") and 
celebrated authors (Simon, Mycielski, Harsanyi,
...).  Perhaps this will give some clues about who's
doing what.

I've pointed follow-ups back to sci.econ.
-- 

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
From: Thomas.C.Pinckney@williams.edu (Coty Pinckney)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re:network resources for economists
Date: 12 Jan 1993 12:13:23 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu

    I would like to second Scott Thompson's suggestion about putting 
working papers on-line.  This would lead to clear benefits for the
profession.
    In another area -- newsgroups have to potential to allow 
wideranging discussions among those of us who are geographically disperse,
rather similar to the types of discussions we end up having at
professional meetings.  To date, such discussions have not occurred on
sci.econ, primarily because, IMHO, participating in most of the 
threads in this newsgroup has been akin to teaching an undergraduate
course on macro topics in the U.S. that is out of control.  There has
been no professional benefit from participating.
    A series of newsgroups devoted to subtopics within the discipline
and aimed at professional economists, however, could have considerable
professional benefits.  Such groups may have to be moderated to serve
the intended purpose.  NSF could help by setting up and publicizing the
newsgroups, and, if necessary, reimbursing the moderators for a short,
initial period.

    Coty Pinckney

    Thomas.C.Pinckney@williams.edu
    Phone: 413 597 2192
    Fax: 413 597 4045
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: wallace@dtc.hp.com (David Wallace)
Subject: Re: Beta/Volitility
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 01:16:44 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Design Technology Center, Santa Clara, CA

In article <1993Jan8.015037.7536@news.ysu.edu> ai428@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel Schiffer) writes:
>
>Does any one no a formaula that can be used to derive volitility, as used
>in a Black-Sholes formula from the beta of a stock?
>Dan Schiffer

It's not very likely that such a formula exists.  The "investments" of
stuffing your money in a mattress and using it to buy lottery tickets both
have a beta of 0 (because the returns are completely uncorrelated with the
market), but they have very different volatilities.

Dave W.

-- 
Dave W. 	(dwallace@dtc.hp.com)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Re: Inflation (was Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:33:00 GMT

In article <38124@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>In article <1992Dec30.015836.12988@samba.oit.unc.edu> Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau) writes:
>
>>The purpose of pointing out the above is to show that the experts
>>disagree on practically everything about inflation. So we have lots of
>>theories to choose from. I personally prefer Post-Keynesianism.
>>
>>                                      Robert Vienneau
>
>I refer readers again to the CPI for the past two centuries. The general
>rise in prices of all goods and services is attributed to an increase in
>the money supply (the original meaning of inflation.) Notice that
>prices jump during the war of 1812, when the BUS printed money to help 
>finance the war. Notice that prices jump after 1860, when the U.S. govt
>issued $400 million in fiat moeny (greenbacks). Notice that the price
>level takes off after 1913, when the inflationary Federal Reserve system
>was installed, and with the exception of the Great depression, prices have
>risen steadily since, really taking off after 1971, when the U.S. abandoned
>the international gold standard (this was the cause of the inflation of the
>70's--not oil shocks, etc.)
>
>I don't know much about Post-Keynesianism, but if it resembles Keynesiansm
>at all I would tend to discard it. 
>
>I personally prefer the Austrian school of Economics as espoused by
>von Mises, von Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, George Reisman,
>etc.
>
>Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
>

Your preference for Austrian economics may explain your editing
abilities. My original post provided a non-monetary institutional
explanation for why price trends were different in the 19th century from
the 20th. Your CPI evidence is cited among at least one of
Post-Keynesians I originally referenced.

And I doubt you can explain what Keynes' theory was in any way that I
would find coherent. Based on a survey of one, I have found even graduate
students at Chicago cannot, although at least they are aware there's a
large debate about the relationship of Keynes to various theories known
as "Keynesian." This debate also extends to the relationship between his
ideas and the political views often assigned to his name.

If your reading is limited to introductory textbooks and Austrians, I
know you will not have encountered an adequate explaination of Keynes.
With the exceptions of Hayek, Schumpeter, and the first 2 generations, I
have not found Austrians to be particularly competent scholars. In
particular, von Mises' Human Action is terrible.

                                  Robert Vienneau

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: Hal.Varian@umich.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: network resources for economists
Date: 12 Jan 1993 14:39:23 GMT
Organization: University of Michigan - College of Literature, Science, and TheArts
Distribution: world
Reply-To: Hal.Varian@umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfred.econ.lsa.umich.edu

I'm going to be a participant in an NSF panel discussing how the NSF can help
to encourage the development of Internet resources for economists.  As I 
understand it, this is something of a brainstorming meeting.  If you 
post your brainstorms on this issue here, I will convey them to the
meeting participants.

--
Hal.Varian@umich.edu    Hal Varian
voice: 313-764-2364     Dept of Economics
fax:   313-764-2364     Univ of Michigan
                        Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1220
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: price/earning ratios
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1993 18:10:52 GMT

I am wondering if anybody knows where one can find the average price/
earning ratio for equities in various stock exchanges ( Primarily the
main American ones and the Toronto Stock Exchange). Also, I am
wondering whether anybody knows of a book or source which contains all
of the P/E ratios on a yearly or semi-yearly basis since, preferably,
the 1920s. 

I read some sources which claim that, currently, stocks are     
overpriced ( have a historically high P/E ratio). Please comment if you
feel free to do so.

In general, though, the consensus seems to be that the stock market should
perform well in 1993. ( especially in the U.S as Interest rates are lower
than in Canada). Please feel free to comment ( especially to disagree before
I lose my money in an equity based mutual fund!!!!)

Ishay
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: 8 Jan 93 21:01:20 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada

In article <1993Jan8.191333.17839@bnr.ca> bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>
>The scenario did contain something radical (by current federal
>government fiscal practice):  a freeze on real program spending.
>

Also, the implicit reneging on liabilities that are
off-budget (or unfunded).  A later post made this matter explicit.

-- 
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
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Brief Mathematical Analysis of Taxation/Welfare Systems
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 02:35:08 GMT


It's certainly not the NIT system that would CAUSE disincentives;
that's not what I said, at any rate.  It's the current sorts of
welfare systems that are in place that provide disincentives.

It is likely that there are "second-order" effects that would act as
incentives for people to get off of welfare if they are able (health
problems being a clear reason why someone might not be "able").
'Twould be interesting to determine just how they might affect the
quantitative analysis.

The "tough" question is, will the "second-order" effects overpower the
more blatant disincentives in the long run?

I'd be interested in seeing where analyses of various welfare systems
have been published; getting "hard information" would certainly beat
the typical "Oh, I remember seeing something about this in some
magazine/paper/TV report somewhere a few years ago", or the "Cousin
Bill is on welfare, and we don't talk to him much.  It's just
terrible!"

Academic journals have some biases, but by the time anything that
doesn't involve pictures gets to TV, most of the REAL information
tends to get boiled away, and it's typically a few years out of date
:-).

-- 
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: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 18:51:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan6.194108.26770@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner) writes:
>>
>>In article <1992Dec29.034309.17334@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>
>I didn't mean to say your analysis is invalid.

>
>However, analysis of your kind is what permits politicians to suit campaigns
>to their private agendas.  

At least I presented explicit assumptions and numbers.  Analysis
of your kind strikes me as a political campaign in and of itself.
Again, I invite you to answer the poster's question 
that brought me into this thread.

>>>
>>>My entire message has been: let's not risk our future by playing with
>>>this stuff.  Don't do speculative analysis.  
>>
>>Any analysis of possible outcomes is speculative.
>
>So?

So your own analysis of the possible outcome of the debt
situation is speculative.

>
>>>The proper role of economics, in the first place, should have been to tell
>>>society to be conservative because it can only reliably do steady-state and
>>>not dynamic analysis.  But no, you guys choose to stay in your mathematically
>>                                ^^^^^^^^
>>I find this offensive.
>
>It was not meant to be friendly.  I'm sick and tired of social "scientists"
>acting superficially like real scientists and ignoring basic common sense
>and screwing things up for everybody!
>

I resent being ascribed membership in a group of which I am not a part.

>Most of my comments were not directed at any individual but at economists in
>this country as a whole.  I simply found in your posting an example of
>the absurdity that economists indulge in.

Please make sure to explicitly direct your comments, or we will
end up in a flame-war.

-- 
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
From: samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena)
Subject: Re: Announce: US Mfrs request end to flat-screen tariffs
Organization: Crop Science Dept., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 1993 07:27:02 GMT

In article <8fErCQD0Bwwb820klz@transarc.com> Lyle_Seaman@transarc.com writes:
>
>From Dow-Jones:  
>
>  If Commerce revokes its July 1991 ruling that U.S. industry faced unfair
>competition from Japanese screen manufacturers, the decision would effectively
>bring an end to the ITC's deliberations and any further action.   
>
>  U.S. manufacturers supporting an end to the duties include International
>Business Machines Corp., Apple Computer Inc., Compaq Computer Corp, and
>OIS Optical Imaging Systems Inc.
>
>  The companies argue that tariffs will drive up the price of U.S. computers
>and force them to move some of their production abroad where duties wouldn't
>be applied.   
>
>    3:44 PM

Two recollections from reading InfoWorld at the time this crap was put in
place:
	Apple Computer announced _at that time_ that this specific decision
     had finalized their decision to move their manufacturing off-shore.
     (PowerBooks, dependent on matrix screens, become untenable under this
	nonesense ruling: the imported screens are taxed heavily, but
	not the screens in off-shore assembled computers).

     Even InfoWorld commented editorially that it was INSANE to impose
      these punative tariffs on PC matrix screens and strangle the
	competitiveness of the multi-tens-of-billions-of-dollars
        PC market on behalf of a couple of Texas-based HIGH END-MILITARY
	EQUIPMENT oriented inefficient, incompetent US matrix screen
        manufacturers who did NOT sell to the PC market and whose
	revenue worth was a few-tens-of-MILLIONS (NOT BILLIONS) in
        inflated, government spec-matrix screens.

As far as I can see, the real winner under this back-fire tariff are
companies like Sony and Toshiba....Sony because Apple has to embrace them
as their off-shore manufacturer and Toshiba because their full-color
matrix laptops are priced real good compared to any US manufacturer
using their matrix screens and PAYING this tariff which adds literally
hundreds of dollars to this same computer configuations IF ASSEMBLED IN THE
USA.

Put this tariff fiasco in the same pigon hole as the multi-tens-of-billions
debacle on memory chips a few years ago.

Steve
---
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     In person:  Steve Modena     AB4EL                           |
|     On phone:   (919) 515-5328                                   |
|     At e-mail:  nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu                           | 
|                 samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu                |
|                 [ either email address is read each day ]        |
|     By snail:   Crop Sci Dept, Box 7620, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
         Lighten UP!  It's just a computer doing that to you.    (c)
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
         

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: heikkila@hkkk.fi (Jukka Heikkila)
Subject: Re: Computer Paradox
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 93 09:38:29 GMT
Organization: Helsinki School of Economics, Finland

In <1993Jan4.144434.18994@husc3.harvard.edu> dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu (Pawel Dobrowolski) writes:


>       HI FOLX!

>  Does anyone know of any recent books, papers, etc on the
>computer paradox  (The fact that no evidence exists to prove
>increase in efficiency as result of introducing computers to
>a business organization)?

>Thanx a lot,

>Pawel Dobrowolski
>dobrowol@husc8.harvard.edu

Here in Finland the issue was brought up by P. Strassman's book (I don't
have it here, but it dealt with information payoff), and Peter Weill's
dissertation (comparison of profits in job shops with and without computers). I'm working on the diffusion of the PCs into
organizations and have found two articles from IS-field
that may include useful pointers to literature:

1) Pentland B.T. (1989), "Use and Productivity in Personal Computing:
An Empirical test", in the Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Information Systems (ICIS), Boston, MA., pp. 211-222.

2) Isaac R.M., and Pingry D.E., (1991). "Managing J. Pierrepoint
Finch: Should he be given a PC", Information & Management, Vol. 21,
pp. 269-277.

My colleaques have also tried to find correlation of financial
performance with the state of IS-architecture. I think their article
is going to appear in MIS Quarterly this year (authors Kivijarvi H.
and Saarinen T.). 

jups
----
Newsgroups: sci.econ