HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bstarr@clyde.ics.uci.edu (Brian Joseph Starr)
Subject: Can anyone recommend some good Economics Books?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Organization: UC Irvine Department of ICS
Date: 19 Nov 92 21:48:33 GMT

Hi, I have a friend in Eastern Europe who says that good Economics books are
hard to find.  She wants to do a Thesis on one of 3 subjects:

1. Pricing Policies/Techniques.
2. Differentiating and Locating Supplies.
3. Banking Financial Flows.

You can imagine, these topics are of interest over there right now.  Anyone
know of some good books or other resources?  Like, are there any associations
with newsletters which I could subscribe to for her?  Any help would be greatly
appreciated!  You can answer me by E-Mail:  bstarr@bonnie.ics.uci.edu

Thanks in advance!

Brian
From: emmett@augustana.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: <None>
Date: 17 Nov 92 08:02:35 GMT
Article-I.D.: augustan.1992Nov17.010235.9739
Organization: Augustana University College, Camrose, aAlberta

The list of economists who support Clinton can be found in the
September-October issue of CHALLENGE magazine.  Since more were
still signing, the list probably now exceeds 150.

Ross
Emmett@augustana.ab.ca
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Organization: Quake Public Access
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:30:34 GMT

In article <dmeyers.722289433@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>The problem with a flat consumption tax is that it becomes a de facto
>regressive tax because more wealthy persons use a smaller proportion of
>their income to purchase consumables.  Ie. a more wealthy person can
>afford to put money away into savings or other investments, where
>presumably there wouldn't be that consumption tax assessed, whereas
>a poor person might use 100% of his income to pay rent and buy food.
>Suppose the wealthy person only used 80% of his income to buy consumables,
>then the wealthy person is effectively paying a lower percentage of
>his income in taxes.

Hold on now.  When a business spends some of the money it takes in on
improving it's efficiency (ie. investment), it isn't counted as net income.
The same should be true for individuals.  I don't get to "enjoy" the money
I spend on investments (and I might just lose it if I am unlucky), so
why should I be taxed on it?  Why should investments of any kind EVER be taxed?

That said, I think you need to justify why you think that coercive taxation
of any kind is justified.  By what right does the government claim the right
to take the money of anyone, even the rich, without their permission.  If you
want to advocate "fairness", you ought to answer that question first.

>This is not to say that I have a solution to propose which would
>be in fact just such a fair flat tax.  

Do you think that a voluntary tax would be fair?  Perhaps one which is a
2% sales tax which allows the transaction to be guaranteed by the courts
(sort of a user fee).  Of course this would be voluntary, but transactions
not subject to the fee would not be enforcable in case of disagreement.  Of
course the only way such a tax could be established is if the functions of
government were limited to those described in the constitution, but then again,
that's a good idea in the first place anyway.

>Unless, perhaps, we tax
>only certain classes of consumables, like not taxing purchases
>of food, for example.  This turns the problem around and makes it
>a more progressive acting flat tax.

>Maybe the better way would be a flat income tax with extremely few
>(or no) exemptions.  

That would be better than the "progressive" system we now have, but 
you really do need to have "exemptions" to account for the fact that 
people (and businesses) have business expenses.  For example, if you
buy $1,000,000 worth of widgets and sell them for $1,001,000, at a
flat 10% rate you'd have to pay $100,100 in taxes.  That's clearly 
crazy.

--Brian
--Brian

Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Keynes and holes in the ground.
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 23 Nov 92 12:22:42 CST


In article <1992Nov18.142933.5692@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 	"In _The General Theory_, for example, Keynes suggests that the
> Treasury should stuff old bottles with banknotes and bury them in abandoned
> coal mines, then lease the rights to the mines, and "leave it to private
> enterprise on well tried principles of laissez faire to dig the notes up
> again."  This would boost demand and elminate unemployment.  He added:
> 
> 		The analogy between this expedient and the gold mines of the
> 	real world is complete.  At periods when gold is available at suitable
> 	depths experience shows that the real wealth of the world increases
> 	rapidly; and when but little of it is available, our wealth suffers
> 	stagnation or decline.  Thus gold mines are of the greatest value and
> 	importance to civilization.  Just as wars have been the only form of
> 	large-scale loan expenditure which statesmen have thought justifiable,
> 	so gold mining is the only pretext for digging holes in the ground
> 	which has recommended itself to bankers as sound finance; and each of
> 	these activities has played its part in progress--failing something
> 	better."
> 
> 	(_The Seven Fat Years_, pp 188-9.  Robert Bartley.)

Sigh.

Keynes was making fun of the Gold Standard, pointing out that mining gold 
creates no more wealth than digging up bottles with banknotes and that the
money supply should not be tied to the depth of gold.

> Brett

-- 
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: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 23 Nov 92 19:26:59 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <dmeyers.722512860@mal-s2> dmeyers@mal-s2.gatech.edu (Dave Meyers) writes:
>
>Why would a flat consumption tax prevent the government from increasing
>the money supply and effectivly raising prices and thus taxing
>savings?  It seems that given a flat consumption tax, the
Inflation causes interest rates to rise, so it has no effect on savings.
It might change investment allocations, and a change in the inflation
rate might cause temporary shifts.
 
>I see no reason to think that this would be any better or any
>worse under a flat income tax, which additionaly would not

A tax on consumption is a direct incentive to save.  A tax on income
that also taxes the nominal return on savings is a direct
disincentive to save.  Quite a difference.  Question is whether you
want to encourage saving or consumption.

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: hh15@ellis.uchicago.edu (he  huang)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Reply-To: hh15@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:21:04 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.183042.23658@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
:
: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 ?

	How about this:  Talking about each individual's life.
There's nothing wrong with having to buy houses not made by oneself,
food not grown by oneself, clothes not sewed by oneself, and so on,
but have the necessities of one's life dependent on selling things and
buying things to other such individuals that s/he does not control or
even necessarily share much with is a mistake.  If one can't build
stable, healthy autarkic lifestyle all by himself, ......

:
:-- paul

Harry
-- 
He Huang				     |   + +    \ _____ 
Dept. of Economics			     |  -----   -  0 |   
Univ. of Chicago			     |	 [*]    /    J  
hh15@ellis.uchicago.edu    (312) 288-1146    |  '   `
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:19:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Nov19.201929.12721
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers

In article <1992Nov18.082104.24909@midway.uchicago.edu> hh15@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Nov12.183042.23658@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:
>: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 ?
>
>	How about this:  Talking about each individual's life.
>There's nothing wrong with having to buy houses not made by oneself,
>food not grown by oneself, clothes not sewed by oneself, and so on,
>but have the necessities of one's life dependent on selling things and
>buying things to other such individuals that s/he does not control or
>even necessarily share much with is a mistake.  If one can't build
>stable, healthy autarkic lifestyle all by himself, ......

Presumably, there is some scale at which you believe self-sufficiency
is possible and perhaps even desirable. Perhaps you'd like to tell us
what that scale is ? A continent ? A planet ? A solar system ?

-- paul


-- 
hybrid rather than pure; compromising rather than clean; distorted
rather than straightforward; ambiguous rather than articulated;
both-and rather than either-or; the difficult unity of inclusion
rather than the easy unity of exclusion.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pklove@laurel.ocs.mq.edu.au ()
Subject: Population Data
Followup-To: pklove@mqmet.cic.mq.edu.au
Organization: Macquarie University, Australia.
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1992 22:56:34 GMT


Does anyone know if the United Nation's population data as published in
"World Population Prospects" is freely available anywhere via anonymous ftp?

Thanks,
Peter Love

e-mail: pklove@mqmet.cic.mq.edu.au

Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.politics.economics
From: cerulean@access.digex.com (Bill Christens-Barry)
Subject: need contact for Ira Magaziner
Summary: How do I contact Ira Magaziner
Keywords: email,phone number
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, Maryland USA
Distribution: USA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 02:55:28 GMT

As indicated above, I need an email address, phone number, or postal address
for Ira Magaziner.  Please email any info you have to me.  Thanks.

Xref: sparky sci.econ:8792 alt.activism:19064 soc.culture.usa:8622 alt.amateur-comp:224 misc.misc:3854
From: tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa,alt.amateur-comp,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Last Minute Write-in Candidate for US President
Date: 21 Nov 92 06:19:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: u.1992Nov21.061952.28530
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95

stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:
>In article <adams.721935594@spssig> adams@spss.com (Steve Adams) writes:
>>Illinois has a solution for this already....if you write someone in, you
>>are supposed to list their address on the ballot with the vote....
>>
>>   Steve Adams        "Space-age cybernomad"       Fax:   (312) 329-3558
>
>Ron Daniels got several thousand votes in Illinois and I doubt any of them
>knew his address. Those votes did officially count. He was a write-in
>candidate (he was not on the ballot in Illinois).
>
>What are the instructions for writing in candidates on the Illinois ballot?
>Maybe they use such a tactic to discourage people from using the
>write-in vote, though they count the vote even if you don't include the
>address? Or is the address only for local (municipal) offices and part of
>a local, not state, law?

Note that the following is *NOT* legal advice.  I merely took advantage
of the resources available to law students to find the appropriate section
of the Illinois state laws, and then did a quick visual scan to try to
find the relevant sections.  If you actually need to know for sure how things
work in Illinois, ask an Illinois attorney or spend an afternoon at your
local law library.  I did *NOT* do a thorough search, nor did I look for
any court rulings interpreting the statutes that I found.

Anyway, it appears that you don't just write someone in in Illinois.  To
become a write-in candidate, the person must be registered before the
election (I believe you have until the Friday before the election to
register).  Registering seems to consist of just filing a notarized
affidavit with the proper official.  People can then write your name in
and it will be counted.

I would guess that Ron Daniels was so registered.

A quick look at a couple of other state's statutes seemed to reveal
similar procedures.

--Tim Smith
From: mjones@bk-kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 23 Nov 92 16:26:17 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Kingston NY


In article <_7F=5Y@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
> The fundamental question concerning public works projects is not
> whether they create things which are beneficial.  Clearly some
> things are.  The question is what is the opportunity cost of
> public works projects.  Could the money have been spent on
> other things which *also* would have benefitted the American
> people, and possibly benefitted them more.  Since the government
> has no incentive to control costs many (most?) government projects
> cost far more than they should....

And *why* doesn't the government have any incentive to control costs? The
mechanism is clearly there; if a usual consequence of wasting tax money was
being voted out of office, much less tax money would be wasted. Since this
is demonstrably not true and generating spending correlates much better with
being re-elected than almost anything else, there is much more incentive to
increase spending than to control costs. Which is to say, the system is
working just about the way any aware observer might expect it to.
This phenomenon has nothing to do with the opportunity cost or benefit
of public works projects. Defense spending does illustrate the phenomenon
better than social spending, usually, because large amounts of waste and
fraud are wrapped in the flag and/or "black budgets" in what has practically
become an American tradition. The only social program which has acheived
anything like that sort of immunity to criticism is Social Security. In
neither case has it served the country particularly well.

   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

The Programmer's Nemesis:
Experts theorize that, through evolution and inbreeding, programmers may
become a distinct subspecies of the human race.
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:08:08 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <56352@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>>I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
>>of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
>>the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
>>and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
>>the economy going that spending more money.
>>
> 
> What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
> equivalent? Under Reagan/Bush government expenditures for arms and
> interest on the debt and on federal employees all rose sharply, while
> the government did not buy much of value of the productive economy:
> bridges, roads, educations, ... IMHO, if one goes on a spending binge

	So, assuming your statments are true, we have yet more proof that the
deficits did not fuel the boom.

> and emerges having purchased junk, one is in a significantly worse position
> than someone who purchases valuable items.

	So we should not have seen an annual growth rate of 3.5% in the GDP,
right?

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 08:59:46 EST
From: <FJM1@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Products you only buy once

I am considering doing a study on products a consumer only buys once.  After
purchasing such a product, that consumer drops out of the market.  For example
whole life insurance, a college education (undergrad), a class ring, an
album.  I am also looking for ways to categorize these types of products.
For example, some one-time products are dated (concert tickets), while others
are not.
   My interest is a study about how companies would market such a product.
Obviously the primary consideration is on making the sale before any
competitors do.
    I have three questions:

        1) Is there any economic study that provides a theory for such a
           situation?

        2) What special considerations are necessary to construct a
           microeconomic model for this situation?  e.g., no multiple
           purchases, homogeneous product sold by all sellers (at least to
           begin with), the inclusion of time in the model because that
           provides an indication of when a consumer leaves the market....

        3) What other examples of products fitting this description exist.
           I include products that "almost" fit the criterion such as
           albums and books which people pretty much only buy once.
           Obviously there are exceptions.  But from a marketing perspective
           the probability of making a sale diminishes to zero (or about that)
           once the consumer makes the first purchase.


        Frank Mulhern   Department of Marketing
                        Penn State 814-865-0232    FJM1 @ PSUVM
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest,misc.taxes,talk.politics.misc
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 15:57:51 GMT

It's probably a mistake to get into the middle of this slugfest, but here
goes anyway.

In article <1992Nov17.171007.5661@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.202148.24943@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>> What kind of adverse price change is there going to be in a five-minute
>> stretch?
>
>	Differences in price can be quite large.  You'd have to wait for
>confirmation of the sell before you bought, at the least...

Good grief.  Nowadays, you get confirmation in 30 seconds.  In 1985, you
just got your broker to write a sell ticket and a buy ticket contingent
on the execution of the sale.  They would go to the floor trader together
and he would execute them both.  Even in 1985, a floor trader could be
instructed to execute both tickets only at a sufficiently small spread
(e.g. do the sell and the buy only if the breakage is no more than 1/4).

>	Sorry, but there are no losses.  Someone does not knock on your door
>and ask for money.  Paper "losses" are only real if you actually sell at that
>point.  Most successful traders don't base their trades on paper.

Successful traders base all their trades on paper.  Successful TRADERS mark
their holdings to market every day; every day you operate as if you bought
at yesterday's close.  Yesterday's profit or loss means nothing today.

>It's even better when you realize that
>Clinton will either index capital gains for inflation or cut the rate.

Dream on.

>Selling and buying back immediately simply locks in whatever profit
>you have at that time.

And it raises your cost base.  It reduces future taxes at the cost of
today's taxes.  If you anticipate future taxes will be higher, then it
may make sense to pay ahead.

>	Maybe.  If Clinton lowers the rate, I win BIG.

Still dreaming ...

>> I'm sure there are a number of people in misc.invest who have the same
>> fallacious reasoning as you do.  That's how the rest of the world makes
>> its money in the market.
>
>        Heh.  So your portfolio is up how much this year?  Mines up 40% so far.

Don't start with numbers.  If numbers are the only guide to the truth,
what are you going to do when I say that I agree with Ted Frank and I
beat your 40% going away?  Does that make Ted Frank right?

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 20 Nov 92 03:23:28 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <BxMAIK.Jnq@cck.coventry.ac.uk> cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave) writes:
>In article <1992Nov11.224507.3505@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:

>>It all depends on what your concept of "fair" is. If you think the
>>rich should pay more taxes, but only get the same level of service,
>>that is one opinion (and is quite widely held).
>
>Remember that a pound to a poor person is worth more 'utils' than a pound
>to a rich person. So progresive income taxes are justified.
>-- 
>Dave                                                       cmh004@cck.cov.ac.uk


There seems to be some confusion about what "flat" and "progressive" taxes
are. A flat tax is a tax where each individual pays the same percentage of his
income. A progressive tax is where the rich pay increasing percentages of
their income.

As I said before, I think the flat consumption tax is the fairest--each 
individual pays the same base amount for a good the same price, yet the rich
will end up paying a higher dollar amount than the poor, unless they consume
the same amount or less of goods and services. This system also does not
tax savings, which is already taxed by our government's inflationary policies.

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)
From: Jeff@news.duke.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: NAFTA
Date: 23 Nov 92 04:07:34 GMT
Followup-To: jafarr@acpub.duke.edu
Organization: just me, myself, and I

Dear all-

For my senior seminar, I am examining the potential effects of NAFTA on various
sectors of the U.S. economy, as well as the economy as a whole.  A friend
recently suggested I post here to garner some input.

As I know virtually nothing about the specifics of the NAFTA proposal as of
today, I need your opinions on the effects of NAFTA in its present form on
the United States (both from the viewpoint of the economy as a whole and from
specific industries, such as textiles, service, agricultural, etc.), names of
people to contact (government agencies, professors, whomever), and suggestions on
the direction my project should take.  (I have talked with my professor about the
project and narrowed my thesis considerably, but I'd like your opinions without
exactly specifying what my thesis is.  I'm not comfortable with it, and still
have time to change if need be.)

I'd prefer if your thoughts were mailed directly to me, though I will keep up
with this newsgroup if y'all would like to talk about it.  Thanks for your help.

Jeff
Newsgroups: sci.econ