HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:09:59 GMT

In article <C1Fy16.Bxs@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.153216.10311@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> >In article <C17LIt.1AME@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
|> >>Would a sizable percentage of the GNP being sucked up by interest
|> >>charges to service the debt prove it to you?  Because that's exactly
|> >>what's happening.  Is $4 trillion biggies enough to prove it?
|> >
|> >Sizeable?  It isn't that big.  The interest on the debt is ~$300 billion
|> >a year.  The GNP is ~$5 trillion.
|> 
|> It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
|> are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
|> debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
|> the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.
|> 

To assume otherwise would require the assumption of an infinite number
and capacity of investors.  Think about it.

-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Perot's "United We Stand America" launched today
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 16:25:26 GMT

In article <1993Jan22.183014.10984@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <Jan19.091551.69858@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> millerm@CS.ColoState.EDU (mark miller) writes:
>>niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>
>>[stuff deleted]
>
>Yeah, it wasn't as if Democrats haven't been complaining about the
>deficit for years.
>
>>>What am *I* doing?  I'm (1) educating people about politics/economics/etc 
>>>(and *not* with 30-minute sound bites) and (2) motivating people to get
>>>involved in politics (and *not* by sending me money or buying my book)
>>>and (3) sending money to organizations that *stand* for things, rather
>>>than UWSA, which stands for "liberty, equality, fraternity," or
>>>something equally generic.
>
>>Well that's great!  I'm happy you're doing all those things.  By the
>>way, I would hardly call a 30-minute program a sound bite!  About
>>Perot's book.  Maybe someone can clear this up for me, but I remember
>
>I would.  Anyone who thinks they can learn economics in thirty minutes
>is awfully naive.  And yet Ross pretended he was teaching people what
>they needed to know.
>
30 minutes may not be enough time to tell us everything about economics, but
is a start, and more then any other candidate had done.  How long do you spend 
in a session educating people about politics/economics/etc.  

By the way, I missed your show.  When is it on?
It must have been right after the Democrats complaining about the deficit,
I missed that to.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 03:07:53 GMT

In article <1993Jan25.153216.10311@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
>In article <C17LIt.1AME@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>Would a sizable percentage of the GNP being sucked up by interest
>>charges to service the debt prove it to you?  Because that's exactly
>>what's happening.  Is $4 trillion biggies enough to prove it?
>
>Sizeable?  It isn't that big.  The interest on the debt is ~$300 billion
>a year.  The GNP is ~$5 trillion.

It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.

Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.

I feel silly pointing this out be to listen to the discussions on the net,
you would think that this was news to certain people.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: 28 Jan 93 16:36:28 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester (Rochester, NY)

In article <1993Jan27.210443.3644@wyvern.twuug.com> asoper@wyvern.twuug.com (Aubrey Soper) writes:
>an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne) writes:
>
>
>>In a previous article, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) says:
>
>>>It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
>>>are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
>>>debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
>>>the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.
>>>
>>>Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
>>>out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
>>>which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
>>>somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.
>>>
>
>After all the dollars are sent to Japan and Germany, etc, then what?
>-- 
>
>aubrey

They either spend or invest those dollars in the US, what else can they do with them?

-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:29:24 GMT

In article <C1GvEr.151w@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>
>	6.  Anyone who cares about the GNP is a fool.  It is the NNP
>	    (Net National Product) that counts.  Interest on the debt
>	    is not counted in the NNP, is it?
>
Ok, I know I am not an economist, but I enjoy this news group to provide
opinions, arguments, and information.  This is what "humble lovable" Ross
would want.

So what is NNP?  I know what GNP is, and I know that the US has switched 
to GDP for its statistics and so forth.  IS NNP anything like GDP?

Also, can we use GDP to compare to GNP when looking at historical data?

Does anyone have budget info that does not include social security, but does 
include "off budget items"  I would like to knwo how the debt compares to
historical data, but they switched to including ss into it.  What was done
with "off budget" items in the past?  

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.reform
From: caliban@cybernet.cse.fau.edu (James)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.pol
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 27 Jan 93 18:17:53 GMT
Organization: Cybernet BBS, Boca Raton, Florida

dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:

> In article <1k5cvt$43g@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott
> >
> >Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are 
> >so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
> >attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?
> >
> 
> We do, it's right there in the platform.
> 
True:  "We support the right of free persons to voluntarily
establish, associate in, or not associate in, labor unions.
An employer should have the right to recognize, or not to
recognize, a union as the collective bargaining agent of some,
or all, or its employees.

"We oppose government interferenece in bargaining . . . Therefore,
we urge repeal of the National Labor Relations Act, and all state
Right-to-Work Laws which prohibit employers from making voluntary
contracts with unions.  We oppose all government back-to-work
orders as the imposition of a form of forced labor."

> OTOH, there is also a libertarian belief (not, to the best of my knowlege,
> in the platform), that unions should be subject to the same anti-trust laws
> as any other business.  UAW and Teamsters would be just as subject to Justice
> Dept. action as ATT and IBM.  (Whether there should be anti-trust laws at
> all is another question, about which libertarians are split.)

As a hard-core libertarian, I'm opposed to any form of
government intervention into any part of people's lives,
whether economic or personal.  This includes "anti-trust"
laws, and anything else which imposes anyone's personal
beliefs or standards of behavior on the rest of society.
Force is only justifiable in retaliation to prior force.

By the way, for the first fifteen years of its existence,
the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was used in exactly this manner:
"But the new act was unexpectedly effective in one respect.
Contrary to its original intent, it was used to curb labor
unions or labor combinations which were deemed to be
restraining trade."  (Thomas A. Bailey, Department of History,
Stanford University)

Caliban
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 14:19:10 GMT

In article <1k5cvt$43g@agate.berkeley.edu> ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>
>Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are 
>so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
>attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?
>

We do, it's right there in the platform.

OTOH, there is also a libertarian belief (not, to the best of my knowlege,
in the platform), that unions should be subject to the same anti-trust laws
as any other business.  UAW and Teamsters would be just as subject to Justice
Dept. action as ATT and IBM.  (Whether there should be anti-trust laws at
all is another question, about which libertarians are split.)

The key to thinking Libertarian thinking about labour unions is to realize
that, to us, they're just another business.  

-- 
Dave Griffith, Information Resources, University of Chicago,
Department of Surgery                       dave@alex.bsd.uchicago.edu
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things bought
and sold are legislators.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: beers@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Jim Beers)
Subject: Re: Would that really be such a bad thing? Would it?
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 14:25:57 GMT

In article <C16HF1.1xwy@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>Maybe.  But if the nation collapses, I assert we will be in worse
>trouble -- and the States will NOT pick up the slack.  They too
>are run by politicians no more prescient than those in Washington.
>
See, right here is the problem.  We cannot just blame it on politicians.
It will happen on any level, if we continue the positive reinforcement.
The voters keep telling the politicians, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT!

Politicians are victims of there envirnment.  WE have created them.

UWSA want to change the envirnment.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: byrd@lucerne.rice.edu (Marc J Byrd)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Rice University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 14:06:52 GMT

In article <C1Fy16.Bxs@newsserver.technet.sg>, ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan25.153216.10311@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:
|> >In article <C17LIt.1AME@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
|> >>Would a sizable percentage of the GNP being sucked up by interest
|> >>charges to service the debt prove it to you?  Because that's exactly
|> >>what's happening.  Is $4 trillion biggies enough to prove it?
|> >
|> >Sizeable?  It isn't that big.  The interest on the debt is ~$300 billion
|> >a year.  The GNP is ~$5 trillion.
|> 
|> It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
|> are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
|> debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
|> the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.
|> 
|> Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
|> out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
|> which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
|> somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.
|> 
|> I feel silly pointing this out be to listen to the discussions on the net,
|> you would think that this was news to certain people.

You condescend by assuming those who backed Perot don't understand
where that money goes.  Let's look a little deeper than you seemed
to be willing to go:  Where does the interest on the national debt
go?   For one, it goes unequally to those with more money.  If one
does not have enough disposable income to invest in treasury bonds,
one cannot benefit from their interest.

Secondly, the interest outflow from this country of money, and the property
it represents, far outweigh the outflow due to the more publicized problem
of the trade deficit.


-- 
Marc J. Byrd - byrd@rice.edu       |  United We Stand. 
Rice University                    |  Whether or not you accept it, you are 
Dept of Elec & Comp Engr           |  responsible for the actions and 
XUV Holographic Microscope Project |  inactions of your government. 
Xref: sparky alt.politics.perot:5947 talk.politics.misc:70124 alt.activism:21463 alt.politics.usa.misc:979 alt.politics.reform:262 alt.politics.economics:259
From: ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 27 Jan 1993 07:18:21 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Statistics, U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: emily10.berkeley.edu



There aren't any laws that _force_ people to join labor unions,
however, unions often _negotiate_ contracts with employers that 
require employees to join a union.  Judging from the replies to this
question, it seems like the libertarians out there are suggesting
that unions and companies shouldn't be allowed to negotiate such 
contracts.  Having the government ban certain types of contracts
seems like a clear violation of libertarian tenets to me.

Note that if an employee is unhappy about being required to join a 
union, she doesn't have to work there--in the same way that she can
quit if she doesn like, say, the benefits package the company offers.

Now, since in 24 states, such contracts are _illegal_ (these are 
so-called 'right to work' states), how come libertarians never
attack these clear restrictions on the right to make contracts?

- Scott Susin

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: burgett@adobe.com (Michael Burgett)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Followup-To: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Organization: What?? Me organized??
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 18:24:23 GMT

David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu) wrote:
: In article <1993Jan27.210443.3644@wyvern.twuug.com> asoper@wyvern.twuug.com
(Aubrey Soper) writes:

[.... SNIP ....]

: >
: >After all the dollars are sent to Japan and Germany, etc, then what?
: >-- 
: >
: >aubrey

: They either spend or invest those dollars in the US, what else can they 
: do with them?

I dunno, buy american companies, sell off physical assets, and transfer the
core technology/patents/research offshore??

-- 
burgett@adobe.com	| "No man's life, liberty, or property is safe 
Views expressed herein  |  while the legislature is in session."
belong to the author.	|  -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker, 1866.

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:36:05 GMT

In article <1k3rq2INN2ak@titan.ucs.umass.edu> quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters) writes:
>This supposed effect of government-debt on interest rate just isn't
>so.  The Fed pretty much has absolute control to set interest rates
>however it likes, and private rates follow pretty mechanically (except
>credit-cards, which remain sky-high no matter how other rates
>fluctuate... but that's a different thread).  What has a lot more
>effect on the money available in the US for private investment that US
>government debt is the decision of the Bundesbank to push its
>interest-rates to the ceiling.  The Fed is forced to follow suit, or
>else lose all foriegn investment.

The Fed has much less influence on interest rates at the long end.
Check the yield-curve; long-term real rates are at historically 
high levels.

-- 
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: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: 28 Jan 1993 00:20:43 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: an030@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Broward Horne)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu (David Oliver) says:

>In article <C1H838.1DFI@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:
>>But, you don't need historical data here, junior.  You need only
>>try to answer the question, "what happens when the proportion of
>>the total expenditures of the US Government for interest exceeds
>>any other budget item?"
>>
>
>Please enlighten me....what exactly DOES happen when the proportion of the total
>expenditure of the US Government for interest exceeds any other budget item?

    Deflationary Armaggedon.

>
>I am naive enough to think that there is no particular significance to this
>paricular point of interest requirements by the government....
>
>-David Oliver (doli@troi.cc.rochester.edu)
>

Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 06:01:50 GMT

ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:

>In article <1993Jan25.153216.10311@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:

>It seems to be an article of faith among the Perotians that interest payments
>are a drag on the economy; that when interest is payed on the national
>debt, it goes into a big black pit never to be seen again. Thus, the bigger
>the debt, and resulting interest payments, the bigger the cause for panic.

>Of course, the truth is far less dramatic. Interest payments are not taken
>out of the GNP any more than any other element of the budget. Every dollar
>which the federal government expends in interest payments is income which
>somebody holding treasury bonds earns. It is a transfer, nothing more.

But the problem is that all the debt floated by the government
increases interest rates, so that there is less money available
for investment (i.e. purchase of corporate bonds, stocks). 

When the interest rates are high, then stocks and bonds are
less attractive because government treasuries offer a better
risk/reward tradeoff. This makes it difficult for companies 
to raise capital or arrange financing. This is the situation
we are in now: banks are simply buying treasuries, and collecting
the difference between the short term interest rates and the
long term interest rates. Virtually no risk, no hassle 
about defaults, and good return.

Great for the banks, which have just about doubled their
profits this year, but not so good for the small businessman
trying to get a loan.

Oh well, maybe we'll save on the S & L bailout. The banks
and thrifts are making so much money I think they should
all be fine in a few more months.

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.economics
From: quilty@titan.ucs.umass.edu (Lulu of the lotus-eaters)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.perot,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.politics.reform
Subject: Re: This "Interest Rates are Sucking up the GNP" Thing
Date: 26 Jan 1993 12:25:51 -0500
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: titan.ucs.umass.edu

In article <C1GvEr.151w@austin.ibm.com> alan@auntbea.austin.ibm.com (Alan R. Weiss) writes:

>	2.  What have we got to SHOW for all this debt?  I mean, was
>	    it invested in "infrastructure" (i.e. new roads, schools,
>	    productive enterprises earning a profit, etc)?  No.
>	    It was consumed.  It may have kept some people alive for
>	    awhile, but it did not increase aggregate wealth.  It has
>	    been a rathole.

Why, what about all those thousands and thousand of nice shiny
missles, and not-so-shiny stealth bombers we got for our $3 trillion.
Money well spent. ^)
-- 
    _/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/ 
   _/_/      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~  _/_/ 
  _/_/  The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer...     _/_/ 
 _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them!  _/_/ 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.europe.misc
From: bobs@cgsvax.claremont.edu
Subject: Help: Looking for Agence Europe
Organization: The Claremont Graduate School
Date: 22 Jan 93 17:28:21 PST

Does anyone out there know if Agence Europe is available at any 
University on the West Coast?  Stanford, I was told, used to 
carry it but has discontinued its subscription.   If you have
any information on this, please let me know.

Thanks.  Bob Switky and the Claremont Graduate School.
Xref: sparky alt.politics.usa.misc:910 talk.politics.misc:69007