HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:35:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <qeaf1bg@zola.esd.sgi.com> thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
>
>In article <Bv6KvK.6B@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>
>> > 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.
>
>In article <BvB6qr.L42@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:
>
>>  Ahh, the self-made-mam!   Mr. Yoder seems to think that if he were born
>>  with different genes, in a different time, in a different culture, that
>>  he would have reached the same conclusions about the world, or at least
>>  reached them in the same way.   Perhas he would care to provide some 
>>  evidence for this.
>
>An avoidance of the need to discuss any possible substance in the ideas
>themselves worthy of Marx himself - only more legible.


  The basic substance of ANY ideas is to be found in the epistemology
  underlying those ideas.   As a logical empiricist, I give significant
  credence to science.  And science tells us that genes+environment 
  are what make us and every living creature what we are.   Mr. Yoder
  seems to be claiming that he is, somehow, above all this.  He seems
  to think the conclusions he draws or the method by which he derives
  them are independent of all this.  He says that an "anti-free-will"
  position is "claptrap".  What does he base this on?   What POSSIBLE
  justification can he provide, given all his rationality and whatnot
  for the existence of free will?   We don't know any phenomenon in the 
  universe that's not either deterministic or subject to quantum Uncer-
  tainty.   Where does that leave room for free will?   This IS the
  substance of the discussion.


---peter


Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:08:07 GMT

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:
>>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.

The arrogance of this statement is so extreme that further discussion
is pointless. Have a nice day.

>
>--Brian
>

Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Free Will
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 19:57:44 GMT


A very good discussion of free will can be found in 'Volition
as Cognitive Self-Regulation', by Harry Binswanger, in
_Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes_, December 1991.

Those who claim not to have free will who mean for their claims
to be taken as knowledge encounter self-contradiction.  Free
will is an axiomatic concept in that it is impossible to deny
it without first accepting it as true.

I am willing to answer polite questions from those who go and
read Binswangers article, but... in another newsgroup or forum;
this one is inappropriate for further continuation of the thread.

Let's discuss economics.

--Jimbo
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7961 talk.politics.theory:4449
From: mem@mv.mv.com (Mark E. Mallett)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 6 Oct 92 08:21:14 GMT
Organization: MV Communications, Inc.

In article <1992Oct3.180933.23666@panix.com> gcf@panix.com (Gordon Fitch) writes:
>Instead of a Phil. 101 number on "Does Free Will Exist?", I'd
>like to see some discussion on to what extent one is free to
>make moral judgments in what we usually think of as human
>society.

I believe that there was once, living in what was later to become
England, a fellow named Pelagius who taught that having free will
superseded all notions of right and wrong.  Being a religious person,
he used this theory to deny the concept of original sin.  As I understand
it the Romans, exercising their own free will, got to him before he
could convince too many people, though.

Yes, that is a direct response.  Mostly I'd like to hear more about
Pelagius, since I've only read of him in passing.

-mm-
-- 
Mark E. Mallett  MV Communications, Inc./ PO Box 4963/ Manchester NH/ 03108
Bus. Phone: 603 429 2223    Home: 603 424 8129     BIX: mmallett
Internet: mem@mv.MV.COM  ( uucp: ...{decvax|harvard}!mv!mem )
Looking for news and mail in southern NH / northern MA?  Try MV!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: You can't be serious
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:45:48 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada

In article <9209242219.AA06712@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>(Paul W. Grimes) writes:
>>The federal deficit when compared to aggregate output is not relatively
>>large.  It is true that theory predicts higher interest rates will
>
>     ahem, yes, I've heard this one before too.  From some recent
>     reading, since you're one of those who bring up the % of debt
>     to GDP garbage.  Yes, after WWII, the percentage was higher.
>     And, after WWII, the U.S. had no internation competition. The
>     U.S. government cut spending.  The U.S. government cut taxes.
>
>     Tell me with a straight face.  Tell me that's gonna happen.
>
>
>>(assuming we are spending on productive capital).  We should be more
>>worry less about the SIZE of the debt.
>
>          I'm not worried about the size, chum.
>          I'm worried about the rate of growth graphs I made two years ago.

The debt is and has been growing more quickly than the economy.
The longer that this trend continues, the harder it is to reverse.
I suspect that it is the failure of the current political configuration
to make any progress toward reversing the trend that heightens
pessimism.  The deficit (and by implication the debt and debt-to-GDP
ratio) has supposedly been high on the political agenda, and there
has not been long-term success.

The post-WWII period was notable for a high rate of growth in the
economy.  I do not see achieving such a rate as probable in
a near-enough term. 

With a high enough debt-load, the annual increase in interest charges
can exceed the annual increase in the rest of the economy (on a dollar
basis).
Professor Grimes, do you agree that such a level of debt would
indeed be worrisome?

Assuming that you would regard such a level of debt as worrisome,
I suggest that you check long-term interest rates and
long-term economic growth forecasts.  From that, derive a going-to-heck-
in-a-handbasket debt-to-GDP ratio.  Of course, as you approach
that point your growth may well
be less than the long-term forecasts, but we're avoiding
alarmism.  Let's use a value of 1.7.

Now, as I recall the U.S. GDP is about 6 trillion dollars and
the debt is about 4 trillion; the present debt-to-GDP
ratio is about 0.67.  The current deficit is about
400 billion.  Assuming a (nominal) GDP growth rate of 5%,
next year's debt-to-GDP ratio would be about 0.70.
The debt-to-GDP ratio is increasing.  Further, the dollar increase
in the debt (400 billion) exceeds the dollar increase of the
GDP in a healthy economy.

Playing with the numbers can make you really uptight.
With either a Bush or Clinton White House, I suspect that
you'll see a debt-to-GDP ratio of near 0.85 at fiscal year-end 
1996 (four more years of 10% rate of growth of the debt and
5% rate of growth of the GDP). 

Half-way to ruin.

-- 
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: DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
Date: 5 Oct 92 21:52:19 GMT
 <1992Oct5.085151.11751@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <92279.092606DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <1992Oct5.175155.17506@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
 <1992Oct05.194609.119481@watson.ibm.com>
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct05.194609.119481@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com
(Daniel E. Platt) says:

I've deleted seom earlier material>>>Dennis
>
>I agree.  However, the $3,000 bill on the average does not represent
>individual
>costs.  Some people take far more, and most people take less.
>
>Even so, there's no incentive (we all seem to agree to that).  The issue is
>how
>to encourage people to apply market forces...  Two ideas I've seen suggested
>(one I'd heard from a relative that I liked, and another on the net):
>
>        1)      Pay people money out front, and encourage medical institutions
>                to compete for the money by posting charges for procedures
>                up front (patients get to keep anything they saved; if they
>                spend too much, it comes out of their pockets);
>
>        2)      Making people pay for more of their health care up front.
>
>I like 1) because it could reduce the load on the government, and allow the
>debt to be paid off without reducing services (may actually increase
>services while decreasing charges).

The Rand Health Insurance Experiment clearly shows that almost all the
reduction in health expenditures occurs when you move from a system in which
coinsurance is reduced from 100% to 75%.  Increasing the amount paid out
out of pocket by raising the out-of-pocket portion paid through lower
very little effect on expenditures.  The effect that is does have is not
to reduce unnecessary care, but to reduce use of care by poorer persons.
Since the typical U.S. person, old and young, currently pays 20-25% of their
health care bill out-of-pocket, it's unlikely that your proposals would
have any significant impact on reducing health expenditures.

In addition, several recent studies in both physician and hospital markets
indicate that in the presence of quality uncertainty, consumers use price as
a proxy for quality.  Health care providers who advertise low prices would,
in all liklihood, go bankrupt. An enormous literature suggests that the
simple market models you are applying do not accurately predict behavior in
health care markets.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: dweddin@uoft02.utoledo.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: WHERE DO I GET DATA FILES????
Date: 2 Oct 92 11:46:12 EST
Organization: University of Toledo, Computer Services

i am doing my phd work in the area of financial forecasting.
my university has some tapes that have economic data such as
GNP, SP500, CPI, etc.

the only problem, is that the tape only gives up its data about
half the time and nobody at our computer services can make it
work! ARG!

does anybody know of a FTP site where this data can be retrieved
without having to go through the aggrivation of getting it off
our tape?

please mail me directly since i'm not in here much.

thanks in advance!

don wedding
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7922 talk.politics.misc:49138
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Unemploment (Re: Presidential Debates)
Date: 2 Oct 92 17:44:53 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <BvG9o0.4KG@apollo.hp.com>, goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
> In article <1992Oct1.013141.22432@m2xenix.psg.com> michaels@m2xenix.psg.com (Michael Sandy) writes:
> >What is Bush doing?  If the main reason for avoiding the debates is
> >his disputes with the format, why did he wait so long to do anything
> >about it?  Is he trying to use time pressure to force Clinton to
> >accept whatever terms he chooses, or make it look like Clinton is
> >the one rejecting the debates?
> 
>     Most economists expected that the September's unemployment numbers
>     due on Friday were not going to be good for Bush.  Hence, Mr.Bush's
>     sudden change of heart may have stemmed from his handler's attempts
>     to divert the public opinion from the issue, and that is why Bush
>     steadfastly refuses to debate Clinton on 10/03.
> 
>     On the other hand, one shouldn't completely discount a possibility 
>     that BLS just came up with a new, creative way to count unemployed
>     (code-name the October Surprise).  As a result, the unemployment rate 
>     went down in September making it easier for Bush to participate
>     in the debates.

Do you mean the way that there were 57,000 fewer jobs last month, new claims
for unemployment has been up every week for the last 5 weeks, yet the
unemploment rate went *down* to 7.5%?

I'm still trying to figure out how fewer jobs and more unemploment claims
can result in lower unemployment.  Maybe I'll find out after November 3rd...

The country has 200,000 fewer jobs than 2 months ago while the unemployment
rate has dropped 0.2%.  

-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7831 talk.politics.theory:4366
From: thant@void.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 28 Sep 92 22:54:57 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA


In article <Bv6KvK.6B@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:

> > 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.

In article <BvB6qr.L42@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com writes:

>  Ahh, the self-made-mam!   Mr. Yoder seems to think that if he were born
>  with different genes, in a different time, in a different culture, that
>  he would have reached the same conclusions about the world, or at least
>  reached them in the same way.   Perhas he would care to provide some 
>  evidence for this.

An avoidance of the need to discuss any possible substance in the ideas
themselves worthy of Marx himself - only more legible.

thant
From: vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu (Vadim S. Kaplunovsky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Problems with Neo-Classical Economics
Date: 7 Oct 92 01:28:27 GMT

In article <thompson.717719660@hermes.socsci.umn.edu>  
thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
> .......
> 6.  ... the real question, namely whether or not the mechanisms
> by which free trade is _potentially_ suboptimal are empirically
> important enough to upset the general validity of the theory.
> 
> The assumptions made by Newtonian physics are also "wrong".
> Nevertheless, I have never observed an obvious violation of them in my
> daily life, and find it useful to plan my life as if they were true.
> If I were designing microelectronic circuits I might take a different
> view.

The neo-classical assumptions of perfect rationality and perfect
information are more like zero-friction approximation to the Newtonian
mechanics rather than the Newtonian approximation as such.
The zero-friction approximation has its uses and often gives you a more-or-less
correct result.  However, when pushed outside of its limits of validity,
it leads to absurd results like a "theorem" that moving your legs would
get you nowhere and that to *start* walking you need a rocket.
The neo-classical theorem (sorry, I forgot the name) that the initial
allocation of property does not affect the economic behavior seems to me
just as sound as the no-walking theorem of the no-friction mechanics.
(Not that the no-walking theorem is totally useless -- it helps to explaing
why it's so hard to walk on wet ice.  I presume that the initial-allocation-
independence theorem is also useful under some conditions, I just do not
know what kind of ice it needs.)

The real question, as Scott correctly sais, is not whether are economic
theories are exact or approximate, but whether the approximations are
empirically justifiable, and under what conditions.

--
**********************************************************************
Vadim S. Kaplunovsky               | vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu
Assistant Professor of Physics,    | ---------------------------------
University of Texas at Austin.     | Standard disclaimer apply.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: A NEW WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 19:14:48 GMT

In article <BvI7un.LpB@gdls.CSCTMD.COM> mccabe@gdls.CSCTMD.COM (Harold McCabe) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.180124.28457@ole.cdac.com>, ssave@ole.cdac.com (The Devil Reincarnate) writes:
>> In article <30380002@hpspkla.spk.hp.com> richards@hpspkla.spk.hp.com (Darrell H. Richardson) writes:

>> Inflation in a country like USA will skyrocket to hyperinflation
>> in a matter of months if the Govt. started to print more money.

>I am concerned about many references (both here and on misc.invest) to the
>US Federal government `printing more money' because according to my
>limited understanding, `print more money' is not an easy thing to do.

One of the ways the Federal Reserve makes money "easy" is to buy up govern-
ment loans.  Since it "creates" the money to do this, it is in effect "printing
money".  The result of buying back notes is that banks have more money to
lend.  The lender's then use that money to buy things and prices go up--
thus inflation.  The effect on the debt is that inflation makes the debt
payable in "cheaper" dollars.  Of course inflation also causes interest
rates to rise, which increases the governments cost of financing the debt.
There are thus counterflows which are not necessarily easy to calculate
ahead of time.

One of the reasons that the present increase in money is not necessarily
showing up in M2, is that there is a recession.  People are very reluctant
to invest (in goods and services) and thus, even though money is "easy"
people are reluctant to spend in recessionary times.  This is one thing
that happened in the 30's, although interest rates were essentially zero,
people didn't want to spend money and the economy remained low until WW II.

The realistic method of cutting the debt is to cut spending.  We've been
on an inflation "binge" since the late 60's and the present federal debt
is about 4 times the federal income (I don't use the ratio of federal
debt to GNP because the GNP is not the government's money).

Newsgroups: sci.econ,comp.ai.neural-nets
From: bgoffe@seq.uncwil.edu (Bill Goffe)
Subject: Papers using Neural Nets in Economics?
Organization: Univ. of North Carolina @ Wilmington
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 15:05:52 GMT

Well, the header says it all. I've got a paper in progress
on neural nets and want to make sure I've got all their
uses in economics. So far, I'm familar w/ Gallant and his
coworkers' work. Any pointers to any other relevant literature
would be most appreicated. If interested, I'll be glad to
send those interested a copy of the paper when it's done.

Bill Goffe
Dept. of Economics and Finance
University of North Carolina at Wilmington
bgoffe@seq.uncwil.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:51:31 GMT

In article <BvB78F.Lo0@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>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
>>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.

>   There are many ways things can go wrong.  This is one of them but
>   a 1930's style depression is another, a totalitarian regime is yet
>   another.
	
>   One scenario I have seen few people mention is high, but not hyper,
>   inflation.  Plenty of nations have survived a decade or so of inflation
>   in the 7-11% range.   They pay off their national debts in cheaper
>   currency,

One of the problems with this is that we've being doing this for more than
25 years (since Johnson thought we could pay for guns and butter and not
raise taxes).  Our debt has now become astronomical, even though we've gone
through several long Republican administrations which should have known
better.

Although debt in itself is not bad, the bad part of the last 25 years is that
government has tried lots of programs (tried, meaning they didn't know if they
would work) most of which didn't improve the situation.  Unfortunately, we're
still paying for these attempts at solving problems.

The problems themselves are not trivial, nor should they be ignored, but the
attempts by government to solve problems has not been particularly successful.

As an example in Health Care, we have at least 30 or 40 million uninsured or
underinsured people.  There is a resistance to suggest that the government 
spend our money to solve this problem--not because we shouldn't solve the
problem, but that the cost would be astronomical.  At the present time, the
Federal government spends about 4 or 5 times what most corporations spend on
health care.  Increasing this would probably cost Several hundred billion
dollars--and would probably still not cover more than half of the uncovered
people.  It's time for change--and change will be painful.

Charlie
Newsgroups: sci.econ