HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GOLD STANDARD
Date: 29 Sep 92 17:53:39 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Cray Research, Inc.
Originator: rja@redwood


In article <1992Sep25.151357.4503@gasco.com>, fpf@aries.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584) writes:
> 
> If a gold standard is to limit the growth in the money supply, this implies
> a fixed, essentiallly unalterable relationship between paper currency and
> the commodity gold which it represents.  The result is a money supply
> which only increases with increases in the amount of gold available.  We
> can state, then, that, under this standard, the money supply is essentially
> fixed.

The problem with this Gold standard (or basket of comodities) discussion is
that it seems to ignore (or not recognize) the impact of the larger monetary 
aggrigates.  The "money supply" is more than just currency in circulation (M1).
A modern economy is dependent on "near money" (ie checking accounts, credit cards, 
etc) that is tremendously influenced by the financial system (banking laws, etc).
For example, changing the bank reserve requirements has a huge impact on the larger
monetary aggrigates (due to the money multiplier).

>         Now, according to the quantity theory of money,
> 
> 		MV=PQ
> Where M=stock of money
>       V=velocity or rate of circulation
>       P=vector of prices for the n outputs produced
>       Q=vector of quantities of the n outputs produced
> 
> If M is fixed, and V is also fixed or highly limited in its variability
> (relatively fixed V is taken as true by such as Friedman.), then with growth
> in output Q the price level P will tend to fall.

Plugging in some real numbers, M1 has been increasing at ~10% for the last
year.  That means either Q will increase 7% or inflation will increase.
(I don't know of any economist predincing a booming recovery or rapidly 
increasing inflation).  Using M2, which has been ~0% for the last year
means no inflation and no economic growth or sight economic growth with
deflation.  This is more in line with economic predictions.

>                                                   In practical terms, this
> means perpetually tight money, leading to higher interest rates, depressed
> investment and spending--in short, chronic recession.  The process by which
> prices fall is painful.  This is why Friedman calls for the money supply
> to be increased at the rate of growth in real output (or slightly faster).
> Its also why a return to an inflexible standard like gold is impractical.
> Commodity money standards simply strangle a modern, growing economy.
> 
> Francis P Ferguson
> fpf@gasco.com
-- 
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!)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:35:35 -0400 
From: Thomas Omar Smith <ts2a+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Is This Offer A SCAM?

Odds are real good its a scam.  It usually works like this:

They will send you the stuff, but you will have to pay ~$800 for it. 
But hey, they'll tell you, you're going to get a great prize.

Well, the prize will turn out to be either a cheap TV set or a cheap
vacation package.  Neither one will even come close to being worth the
$800 you paid.  And that's if they're honest.  A lot of other outfits
take the money and run.  Don't fall for it.

					Tom the non hacker
					Kemp in 96!
					"If patriotism is the last refuge
					of scoundrels,  Then environmentalism
					is the current refuge of totalitarians."
					Bob Jackson
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Quake Public Access
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 10:23:43 GMT

In article <1992Sep23.162439.3166@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>In article <1992Sep23.022646.6446@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>>brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder):
>>| What about the utility of anti-bigotry?  Tell me, if you walked into a 
>>| hotel and saw a sign reading "No Niggers Allowed", would you walk out?
>>| I would, and so would a lot of other people. Where does that leave the bigoted
>>| businessman?

>Your behavior today is conditioned by many years of struggle, 

That sounds like so much marxist/Skinnerian abti-free will claptrap.  I have the
beliefs I do because I can think and I have looked at the facts and I have
drawn certain conclusions.  I am not a helpless victim of historical
conditioning.  Are you?  If so, how do you know your conclusions are right?
Maybe they are just a consequence of destructive historical conditioning
beyond your control.  Right?

>prior to
>which the sort of hotel you describe was pretty much routine in this
>country, and not just in the South, either. Only now, after years of
>effort to recondition peoples' thought patterns 

So, it is not a process of reason which changes people's minds on issues like
this, it is subtle conditioning.  Nonsense.  What do you attribute this 
"conditioning" to?  Rational choices?  Historical necessity?  Arbitrary chance?
The manipulations of the ignorant masses by an enlightened elite?

>(part of which effort
>included anti-discrimination laws), has such overt discrimination become
>not only illegal but also socially unacceptable in the more informal
>sense.

Is the law a chicken or an egg?  How would those laws have been passed in
the first place if there weren't a lot of people who agreed that bigotry 
was wrong?

>Have you heard of the 'Cracker Barrel' restaurant chain?

I have only heard of it with regard to their anti-gay hiring policies.

>This outfit
>explicitly refuses employment to homosexuals, though they don't have
>signs in their windows saying so.

So, are your saying that gays in general cannot find jobs because of that?
Certainly there are cases of silly discrimination out there, but it is far
from the norm as evidenced by the big deal being made by this particular
business.  Do you think that people who know about the Cracker Barrel policies
(and lots of people do) will choose to eat there?  As I see it, if the 
customers have a choice about whom to buy food from or be employed by, then the
owners should be allowed to choose whom they want to serve/hire.  I DON'T
think that such discrimination is wise, but since I believe in not forcing
others to act as I wish they would, I am willing to let them make their own 
choices and suffer the consequences of those stupid choices.

>Last I heard, their business is just great.

OK, and I bet it would be better if they didn't have that policy.  Don't you?
By the way, do you oppose the existence of gay bars?

--Brian
From: asp+@cs.cmu.edu (James Aspnes)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Pareto optimality highly overrated (was Re: Competition and Welfare:  an anecdote)
Keywords: Welfare theorem, perfect competition
Date: 29 Sep 92 21:03:17 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.BvCyHL.17J.1
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <thompson.716663945@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>...As background we had been discussing
>the two "Fundamental Theorems" of welfare economics, which basically
>say (1) Every competitive equilibrium is Pareto optimal; and (2) Every
>Pareto optimal allocation of resources can be achieved as a
>competitive equilibrium given some initial allocation of resources.
>These two theorems are the core of most rigorous arguments against
>government interference in the economy.
>
>[followed by story of academic economists ignoring them]

Unfortunately, Pareto optimality is not a very useful goal all by
itself.  For example, if I steal your car, and you can't afford to buy
it back, the situation is Pareto optimal (indeed, if I couldn't afford
to buy it from you in the first place we have merely passed from one
state of Pareto optimality to another).  But few people would argue
that recovery of stolen property is an improper governmental
interference in the economy.

An implicit assumption in arguments based on welfare economics is that
we actually care about the welfare of all participants.  However, it
doesn't take much thought to realize that most of us are perfectly
willing to harm large classes of people (e.g., car thieves) to help
out people we like better (e.g., car theft victims).  Similarly, many
people will happily make utilitarian trade-offs of one person's
"luxuries" for other persons' survival, especially if they can find a
way to view those luxuries as ill-gotten.  For these folks--- whether
their preferences are reasonable or not--- the Fundamental Theorems
are the right answers to the wrong questions.
From: richards@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Darrell H. Richardson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Date: 30 Sep 92 13:54:13 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard Company, Spokane, Wa.

Sounds wonderful! Why don't you go live in Brazil - An excellent example
of your suggestion.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7907 talk.politics.misc:48993
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: "Liberal" History Rewrite
Date: 1 Oct 92 22:40:48 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Sep28.224844.4391@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Sep25.215405.4977@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:

>> 
>> But Bill ... Ted Frank got it wrong, according to a previous post:
>>  
>> ------- 
>> From: Carrie            ceb@rechenau.unify.com  x6244
>>  
>> CHARLES Laffer has endorsed Clinton.  ARTHUR Laffer is the author of the
>> Laffer curve.
>> ---- 
>> 
>> Perhaps Ted Frank could clear this up by giving us a citation for this.
>> It was also claimed (by Ted?) that Milton Friedman "semi-endorsed" (whatever
>> that means) Bill Clinton, in an interview where he stated he would vote
>> for Bush. (Forbes 8/17). Hmmm. 
>
>	No, it is Arthur.  (Can't say about Chuck :).
>
>	The item should be appearing in local newspapers about now.
>
>        However, Arthur is going to vote for Clinton (not endorse) because he
>doesn't trust Bush.  A pretty common attitude.

	This has got to be the very epitome of wimp conservatism.

	Mr. Bush has gone out of his way to repudiate the budget deal,
in fact has repudiated it in such a way as to let Slick William and
the donkey herd off the hook where the deficit issue is concerned.
The wimp conservative crowd pressured him into promising to LOWER
taxes to stimulate the economy, a promise that more than half the 
public does not expect him to keep...and in return for this "twice-born"
concession to supply-side economics (the first incarnation being his
infamous "no new taxes" pledge), NOW we find that Mr. Bush can't even
BUY the wimp conservative vote anymore !! :)

	Mr. Laffer doesn't trust George Bush, huh ? Well, Bill Clinton
shouldn't trust his electoral fate to Mr. Laffer and people who 
think like him. My understanding is that Ross Perot is coming back in,
and I would not be surprised to hear that Arthur (Or Charles, whoever
HE is) Laffer has "announced" his support for Perot.


	Bill R.

	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."


-- 
Bill R.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7821 talk.politics.theory:4359
From: prem@prem.lbl.gov (Shirdi R. Prem)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 28 Sep 92 17:40:07 GMT
Reply-To: prem@prem.lbl.gov (Shirdi R. Prem)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory
NNTP-Posting-Host: prem.lbl.gov

In article <1992Sep27.051145.1277@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>When the confidence of investors in the goodwill of the US government breaks,
>it will be precipitous.  Current statistical and economic models will no

	Conventional Wisdom in some circles has a rather more ominous 
	prediction.

	"Benevolent Superpower" is not a term that anyone can take seriously.
	There is a serious possibility that the United States will use its
	military clout to "restructure" its debt. Basically an "if you don't 
	want to be bombed, don't ask for your money back" situation....

	It may not be worded as such, but will be couched in rather more
	palatable phrases, in an attempt to sustain the image of fair-play.

	And as for fair-play, it sounds pretty hollow in the light of  
	....the permanent membership of the UN Security Council which seems 
	    to be only those countries that have nuclear weapons
	....the G-7 Techno-Cartel treaty, which attempts to keep technology
	    within the G-7
	....and so on.

	Such an action would have to be a last-ditch effort, and would
	certainly spell the end of credibility for any national debt, be it
	the US or other nations. And it would only come to pass a if the US 
	felt sufficiently confident of sustained military superiority in the 
	long term.

	Chances are it won't happen anytime soon, and I hope it never does.
	But right now, until someone else fills the shoes vacated by the USSR,
	there isn't much (militarily) to stop it from happening......

	Prem!
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7839 talk.politics.theory:4373
From: allens@yang.earlham.edu (Allen Smith)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libert
Date: 29 Sep 92 07:48:42 GMT
 <1992Sep23.162439.3166@kadsma.kodak.com> <Bv6KvK.6B@quake.sylmar.ca.us>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana

In article <Bv6KvK.6B@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
> In article <1992Sep23.162439.3166@kadsma.kodak.com> pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek) writes:
>>Have you heard of the 'Cracker Barrel' restaurant chain?
> 
> I have only heard of it with regard to their anti-gay hiring policies.
> 
>>This outfit
>>explicitly refuses employment to homosexuals, though they don't have
>>signs in their windows saying so.
> 
> So, are your saying that gays in general cannot find jobs because of that?
> Certainly there are cases of silly discrimination out there, but it is far
> from the norm as evidenced by the big deal being made by this particular
> business.  Do you think that people who know about the Cracker Barrel policies
> (and lots of people do) will choose to eat there?  As I see it, if the 
> customers have a choice about whom to buy food from or be employed by, then the
> owners should be allowed to choose whom they want to serve/hire.  I DON'T
> think that such discrimination is wise, but since I believe in not forcing
> others to act as I wish they would, I am willing to let them make their own 
> choices and suffer the consequences of those stupid choices.
> 
	I have some tendency to require businesses to _say_ that they're 
discriminating on some other basis than ability. Otherwise, they are 
suppressing the choice of the consumer (and the job applicant) not to go 
there. Admittedly, as you point out, egregrious cases get out anyway, but 
I'd prefer not to have to depend on that.
	-Allen
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,sci.philosophy.meta
From: gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch)
Subject: Free Will (was: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...)
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 04:33:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: mydog in exile
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory

Ah, a little digression from political theory.

Free will cannot be proven.  However, it seems to be far
simpler and more elegant to believe in it, than not.

If we hold with determinism, we have to believe in an
eternal universe which just happens to be here in its
enormous complexity; either that, or postulate a kind of
Magician who stands behind the scenes, winding up mechanical
birds and bees.  The determined can never choose to be
free.

If free will exists, however, the universe can simply will
itself into being (because, by definition, free will is
uncaused).  Subsequently, it can choose to appear to be
determined, or partly determined, just as the dog can play
dead.  A dead dog -- a determined universe -- cannot play at
all.

All of which has very little to do with the way in which
social reality is created, but it's nice to think about.
-- 
 )*(    Gordon Fitch    )*(    gcf@panix.com    )*(
( 1238 Blg. Grn. Sta.,  NY NY 10274 * 718.273.5556 )
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7906 talk.politics.misc:48985 alt.politics.clinton:8082
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.clinton
Subject: Economics and the election:where to find some good info
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Oct 92 14:31:13 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

	Anyone interested in economics and the current "debate" between Clinton
and Bush should pick up a copy of today's (Oct 1st) Wall Street Journal.  Read
the editorial by Bartley (about his book and other things) and the several
campaign related stories in section A.

	I recommend it very highly.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (tdboyce)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Consumption tax vs income tax
Followup-To: sci.econ
Date: 6 Oct 1992 23:38:37 GMT
Organization: caltech
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 131.215.139.52

Does anyone know which and/or how many states still have not implimented a
state income tax? I have heard that there are still a handful left. How
well are their state economies doing? Any recent converts away from state
income taxes to consumption taxes?

At the national level some economists have suggested that the federal
income tax be abolished in favor of some sort of consumption tax. What are
the pros and cons of this approach? Does state level testing of this idea
give an accurate picture of how well it would work at the federal level? 

Tom
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:08:34 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <qff6e1g@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <BvCq78.Gzq@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:
>
>[...]
>
>>   The bottom line is this: Mr. Yoder has made a positive assertion
>>   that free will exists.   In logic the onus is on the one making 
>>   positive assertion to support it.  I'm under no logical obligation
>>   to try to "disprove" free will; my role in this is merely to point
>>   out that there is no apparent mechanism to account for it in the
>>   universe as I am aware of it, and to demand that Mr. Yoder either
>>   produce (or at least suggest) one, or stop talking nonsesne.
>

>In other words, determinism is logically useless in describing
>human behavior.  One might not be able to prove the existence of
>free-will (as if that wasn't itself a contradiction in terms)

  Why is it a contradiction?


>  but free-will is unavoidable as an operating premise.

  Only as a semantic shorthand.  If I say, "I intend to vote
  Marrou/Lord this November as a protest", the implication
  is, ". . . as if I have free will".  But Yoder went over 
  the line of this pragmat to actually claim that he DID have
  free will.  He made the claim that he was above cultural and
  genetic conditioning.   And that flies in the face of science.

  An analogy:  We say "the sun rises".  This is a perfectly 
  reasonable expression that describes the way it appears to 
  us on a daily basis and using a "sunrise"/"sunset" model as
  a pragmat works perfectly well for ordinary daily activities
  that involve referense to the sun or its position in the sky.
  But the moment we're forced to regard the sun in some more
  precise manner, as in astronomical study, it breaks down and
  we are required to confront the actual mechanics of the 
  Earth's rotation.


---peter
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 30 Sep 92 16:22:06 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <BvD57I.JG2@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>I responded that I can look at the facts and think for myself and reach my 
>own conclusions by a process of reason.  Would you say that you personally

And we are all deeply impressed with the results. Of our own free will, of
course.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7803 talk.politics.theory:4353
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Reply-To: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Belmont, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 05:11:45 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by an unauthenticated user
              at Oracle Corporation.  The opinions expressed are those
              of the user and not necessarily those of Oracle.

When the confidence of investors in the goodwill of the US government breaks,
it will be precipitous.  Current statistical and economic models will no
longer be useful since they are based on certain assumptions which will no
longer hold, like the power of government and certain social and economic
fabrics which will be broken when people get into panic mode.

For example, I will not want to buy government bonds.  Pretty soon it will be
any bonds, for fear of inflation.  Pretty soon people will know that even
cash is worthless, since the only way out for the government is inflation.
There will be panic buying --> hyperinflation.  Living standards will plummet
to subsistance level.  If the government doesn't take drastic steps to enforce
property rights, (and I don't think that will be possible at all without
removing most of the current due process) there'll be a break down of
law and order, and even the things I buy won't be mine....

My point is not that things will happen this way, but that they will be beyond
any academic speculation.

The root of the problem is that government will be seen to be breaking a most
fundamental rule of behavior: "pay back what you owe." When this is broken,
the law of chaos dictates that anything else can become unpredictable.  The
most important trust will be no more.

If I were to guess what WILL happen, I think most people in this country are
still capable of sustaining a more orderly society than this total chaos.
However, they won't know HOW to get from this total chaos back to some kind
of order that at least will sustain life.

People will be sick and tired of attempts to patch up the existing system.
The amount of anger will be uncalculable.  The only outcome I can see is some
kind of a dictatorship, trumpeting a complete break from the past, that
claims to represent our commonly held fundamental values, and NOTHING BUT
those.  Since democracy will have put us into the fiscal mess and democracy
will still be arguing which way to go EVEN NOW, the only solution if you want
to stay alive is to get rid of it and do SOMETHING NOW.

It will be a lowering of the stature of our society into one that considers
democracy a luxury compared to the utter necessity for some kind of order.  But
who do we have to blame for that?

Vote for Ross Perot at least as a protest, because compared to the federal
deficit, the things that either Clinton or Bush is talking about are completely
trivial.  In terms of this most urgent of all problems, both of these are
consummate politicians of the familiar type no matter how much change they
talk about.
Newsgroups: sci.econ