HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fester@island.COM (Mike Fester)
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Organization: /usr/local/rn/organization
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 16:25:36 GMT

In article <1993Jan26.194557.16426@cas.org> jac54@cas.org () writes:
>In article <1993Jan26.172037.2804@adobe.com> cjackson@adobe.com (Curtis Jackson) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan26.120132.21873@cas.org> jac54@cas.org () writes:
>
>	This is exactly what I was getting at.  Life is good for some
>	Americans in some parts of the country.  What about the poor
>	counties of Mississippi, what about the areas where the life
>	expectancy of African-American men is lower that of the
>	average Bangladeshi male?

Could you post those counties and their life expectancies. I have Bangladesh
listed as 54 years expected for males, US as 70+ for black males. (World
Almanac, 1993)

>	There are of course, no decent butchers, bakers, or brewers
>	anywhere else.  Why can't one get a decent French loaf anywhere
>	in the U.S.?  Simple enough, you can't get the right grain.  I

There are a couple of bakeries in SF that make excellent French bread,
according to our next-door neighbors (French, one from Calais, one from
Marseille).

>	used to live round the corner from a Thai grocery in Berlin
>	and about a block from the nearest Vietnamese restaurant.  I
>	also had access to a cheese counter offering over 1500 kinds
>	of cheese.  We didn't have the many Japanese in town now that
>	I think of it...

You should be careful here to compare metropolitan areas with metropolitan
areas. If you are comparing Berlin with San Francisco, in our little
10 block stretch of Clement, we have Korean, Chinese, French, Vietnamese,
German, Persian, etc, restuarants, groceries, etc, along with the book shops,
coffee shops, etc.

>>And, yes, Iowa is horrible, but America is so huge and diverse (despite
>>the raging on-slaught of generic television and fast food franchises)
>>that one can choose to live in some place almost, but not quite,
>>completely unlike Iowa, yet remain in the same country.
>
>	To put it another way, life is good, provided you can go where
>	the good life is.

Same is true in Europe.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - These opinions are not so much opinions, as pearls of wisdom. Any-
one disagreeing is obviously either a) a snivelling, whining, mentally-
deficient, weak-willed, inconsequential, namby-pamby tool of some vague but
conveniently defined conspiracy, or b) my wife.
From: spector@sumax.seattleu.edu (Mitchell Spector)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Date: 27 Jan 1993 13:39:23 -0800
Organization: Seattle University
NNTP-Posting-Host: sumax.seattleu.edu

In article <1993Jan25.201022.18348@Princeton.EDU> nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

>In December 1992, M1 had grown 15% over the previous 12 months (same
>source).  The actual increase was $125 billion and it was ALL currency.
>Federal Reserve Notes.  All of it.  Currency outstanding increased by
>50% in one year.

>Now I'm puzzled, because I simply do not understand what people are
>doing with all this currency.  Did we ship it all to Colombia?  Does
>half the country have a couple of thousand dollars stuffed (literally)
>under the mattress?  Are people that scared?  (I am, but I certainly
>don't get that impression from others while walking around.)

>Norbert
>nfs@cs.princeton.edu

   I've been curious about this also.  I'd have to go back and check the
figures, but as I recall, the increase is not all in currency; both
currency and demand deposits had increases of about 10-15% in the past
year.  Meanwhile, savings deposits had a much smaller increase (1% ?),
and M3 is at best staying constant (and perhaps actually dropping right
now).

   To a certain extent, people may be moving money from money market
funds to FDIC-insured institutions, since the money market funds no longer
offer higher interest rates.  But this provides no explanation for the
large increase in actual cash, which is especially strange if there really
is a downturn in the total money supply.

   So does anybody have any explanations for this?  And what are the
possible consequences?  (Is this a prelude to deflation?)
--
Mitchell Spector
E-mail: spector@seattleu.edu
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 26 Jan 93 02:29:57 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Jim Hranicky: Much of what you wrote makes sense, except the part about
"Inflation also causes interest rates to drop." It would seem that
a lender, seeing the drop in the interest he's getting back, would be
increasing the rate at which he charges interest. Likewise, the
borroweer would be willing to pay more interest in the future, since,
in the future, that money will be worth less than it would without
inflation.,..
From: ssoar@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Steven E Soar)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: inflation vs employment
Date: 27 Jan 93 22:22:04 GMT
Distribution: na

In article <1993Jan25.184133.6791@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
> 
> 	I think supply-siders demonstrated an aptitude for reducing both
> inflationand unemployment.
> 
I think the supply-siders demonstrated no such capacity.  Jobs and growth were
generated by >3T$ of deficit spending.  Inflation was controlled by painful
monetary policy by Volcker (a Carter appointee).  Even job growth during the Reagan
"miracle"years wasn't great.  RR generated 14M jobs in 8 years, while Carter
generated 11M in 4, even during OPEC oil shocks.  Bush created no net
private sector jobs at all.  Thanks to Darman's "computer chips or potato chips"
de-industrial policy, we now have more employees in government than in
manufacturing!
> 	We might as well wish for 3% unemplyment and 3% inflation.  But
> that will have to wait until Kemp gets elected :).
> 
> 	Seriously, though, I don't think it's an either/or proposition.
> 
You imply that the Phillips curve has somehow been repealed.  I don't think
you`ll find much agreement on this point.  Admittedly, Kemp would seem a big
improvemnt over the Repub's current batch of right-wing ideologues. He does bear
some responsibility for helping sell Laffer's half-baked tax scheme to Ronald
(Don't confuse me with the facts, I've got my pre-conceived notions) Reagan.
> > 
> > Is there an answer?
> 
> 	Stimulate the economy in the right places (ie, by making the creation
> of supply easy) while paying down the debt and controlling government spending. 
> The economic boost provided by the private sector will bring unemployment down
> while the fiscal policies of the government will keep the lid on inflation.
> 	In other words, let's see a repeat of 83-90 with better control of
> government spending.
> 

You mean doing all the Keynesian things government used to do before Reagan`s
supply-side legacy saddled us with 4T$ of debt, *immobilizing* government?
> Brett

steve soar
(my cute quote got laid off.)

Xref: sparky sci.econ:9910 soc.culture.usa:10207 soc.culture.japan:14413 soc.culture.british:19545 soc.culture.canada:10482
From: bigger@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Marcel Bigger)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 27 Jan 93 01:57:53 GMT
Article-I.D.: mentor.C1HpGI.GI8
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <rdavis.728008225@connie.de.convex.com> rdavis@convex.com (Ray Davis) writes:
>Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth) writes:
>
>>As for the availability of
>>different goods and services, I find it hard to believe that the range
>>of products available in the US is so much greater than those in any
>>other developed nation.
>
>Really it is.  You wouldn't believe how much more the selection
>and variety is in most areas of merchandise.  I know it's hard
>to believe, but if you grew up in the states and find yourself
>living elsewhere, you wonder how folks can put up with so little
>choice and such crap quality (in *some* cases - not all!).
>

I enjoy this discussion. I can be so bloody chavinistic.
My personal experience on the selection of merchandise between
the US and Switzerland is that the range of products available
in the US is greater; however, the range of QUALITY products is
about the same. And it seems that products and services with
a decent quality cost more in the US than in Switzerland.
Moreover, sometimes the US does not offer any products and services
of quality in some areas (e.g. transportation, banking, bread baking, ...)
as does Switzerland.

Cheers
Marcel W. Bigger

>On the minus side, us Amis have to put up with a buttload of
>competition between all these companies, which results in much
>too much advertisement [the `s' for your benefit B-)].  Aaaargh!
>Most of europe isn't plagued with the everpresent billboard in
>yer face.
>
>>From a personal point of view, I cannot think
>>of anything significant that I might want to obtain that I couldn't
>>obtain here in the UK.
>
>Well how could you if you don't know what you're missing, or you're
>not used to the selection?
>
>>>While most people know recent immigrants, I doubt it has much impact
>>>upon the self-image of the US.
>>
>>	That one I don't know.  Any USA-nians (sorry!) want to comment
>>on that?
>
>Sure.  Not to agree or dissagree with the foreperson's comments, I'd
>note that the density of immigrants to native born Americans is low
>enough to almost go unnoticed.  Think about it - the US is a huge
>place.  It doesn't have a bunch of other countries with vastly different
>cultures around it ('taint much difference in Canada except the language
>in Quebec, and Mexico is a wonderful place - but poor).  Why do you
>think USA-nians (don't be sorry!) are amazed that so many Europeans
>(Uk-nians not included) speak more than one language. [whoa! schwing!]
>
>> Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk
>
>What ever happened to the old castle?
>
>Ray
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Inflation
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 15:32:02 GMT

In article <2455@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
>
>Okay, Norbert, let's say that we live in an economy where there is a bank
>which is willing to pay 5% interest on money deposited. If anyone at
>all deposits money in that bank, his nominal wealth will increase by
>5% iunxx in one year, right?  Let's say someone else does not. The depositor
>now has 5% more nominal wealth to play with than the non-depositor,
>and is thus more able to compete in the market than he was before, whreas
>the non-edpositor hasn't changed, in terms of nominal wealth. The
>demand curve will shift, moving the quilibrium point, dragging prices
>up with it. This is what I "know".  Where have I strayed?

the 5% simply represents rent for the use of an item. as such, it is
no different than the rent you pay for your apartment, or the salary
a company pays an employee to "rent" him or her. i don't want to get into
equilibrium points etc., but i think the issue is that singling out
interest rates as inflationary is invalid because they are just another
form of compensation for use of an asset, no more than any other.
to claim that interest is inflationary would be to suggest that every
other activity which results in an increase in nominal wealth is.

--
charles
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 26 Jan 93 09:48:43 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


   Jim Hranicky:  No, I was not referring to Keynes at all. This was my
point, that to say that "inflation was wrong" (or "is" wrong) 
presupposes that someone is responsible for inflation.  But I contend
that inflation can happen naturally.  Ignring the government for a moment
(a wise policy, in any case), we have secxxx several factors conspiring,
som,e towards an increase in price level, some against.  There is 
nothing which says that a priori (for you Latin snobs out there) that
a "healthy, productive economy" will experience deflation or price
constancy.
   
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nfs@elan (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Money Supply (Re: WELLLLL! IT'S DAY ONE)
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Princeton University
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1993 14:10:12 GMT

It's always embarrassing to follow up one's own article.

In article <1993Jan27.195957.14893@Princeton.EDU> nfs@elan (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>As for components of M1, though, there's a big difference.  Barron's
>shows:
>                              Travelers       Demand         NOWs &
>   Date        Currency1       checks2       deposits3     SuperNOWs
> --------------------------------------------------------------
-----
> 1991-DEC.       267.3           8.2           289.5         333.2
>... 
> 1992-DEC. p     392.5           8.6           338.9         280.5
>
>See the $100 billion difference in currency circulating in December
>1992?  Note that the Barron's components actually add up to the M1
>figures, and the entire M1 increase is accounted for by the (50%)
>increase in currency.
>
>Does anybody have the real numbers?

Having examined the series in back issues of Barron's, I think the
currency figures for Dec 1992 are mistaken (high by $100 billion).
The NOW figures are likely too low by $100 billion.  My apologies.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Subject: Re: Inflation
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 17:58:12 GMT

In article <2168@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
%
%You say that inflation is "100% a monetary phenomoenae".
%However, inflation may occur with an economy which has no money.
%How can inflation be purely a "mopn[D"monetary" thing?
%
 Academically, inflation is nothing other than the avg. price level rising.
 Sure, you can have other economic systems in place (informal economy, bartering,
 underground economic systems, etc), but inflation is (to the best of my knowledge
 and a few other people I know who know a helluva lot more than I do) always 
 measured by the currency of the country in which the inflation index (CPI-U, CPI-W, etc.)
 is being measured. 

 BTW-
 Usually those "other" economic systems (bartering and the like) occur at, and
 after the threshold when a currency starts feeling either "galloping" ( double-digit
 annually), or "hyper" (>50% per month) inflationary behavior... People just don't
 trust it. 

%(I'll pass on the textbooks- I already know all I need to about
%inflation, and besides, I have plenty of economics texts already!)

 ...A wise man.

--
Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 24 Jan 93 12:22:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


  The population of the United States is approx. 250 million.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:9795 soc.culture.usa:10014 soc.culture.japan:14098 soc.culture.british:19267 soc.culture.canada:10251
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.british,soc.culture.canada
Subject: Re: US as No. 1 (3 data books)
Date: 23 Jan 93 02:04:15 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Gerald: Is that French Canada or English Canada?
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 24 Jan 93 23:09:53 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


Radford Neal:  We are not talking about society being "hurt", we are talking
about inflation.  If interest generates inflation, all nominal dollars 
shrink in real value, whether they earn interest or not. The ones earning
interetst simply multiply. Both the principal and the interest, as nominal
money, are still worth less than before: the very definition of inflation.
What terminology do you object to, that i I use?
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Since no one is defending inflation, (was re: Inflation)
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:19:08 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <1k22avINNflg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Michael Wright) writes:

>|(Radford Neal:)
>|You also fail to explain why solving the problem of "sticky" wages
>|via inflation is preferable to solving it some other way. 
>
>I know of no other way to solve the sticky wage problem off hand, but
>certainly it is in each individual's interest to have sticky wages, so
>that efforts to end them would likely prove hopeless.

A few points in this regard:

   1) There are at least three interested parties in the "sticky wages"
      problem: The people presently employed at high wages, their
      employers, and the people presently unemployed.  Of these three,
      it is only the presently employed worker who benefits from 
      "sticky wages", the employer and the unemployed worker would
      both benefit from a decline in wages that allowed for more
      profit and more workers to be hired.

   2) Classical economics would predict that sticky wages should be
      eliminated by market forces.  If this doesn't happen, it should
      be possible to identify the factors that prevent it from happening,
      and perhaps eliminate them.  Actually, it may not be a case of
      governments doing something along these lines, but simply one
      of them NOT doing something that inhibits the process.  In the
      1930's, for example, the government exhorted companies to keep
      wage rates high, a clearly counterproductive excercise.

   3) I think we should be naturally suspicious of any attempt to solve
      a microeconomic problem by macroeconomic means.  The side effects
      are quite beyond the possibility of quantitative assessment, so
      it is entirely a matter of faith whether there is a net benefit.

Radford Neal
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: Inflation
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 04:10:17 GMT

In article <2306@blue.cis.pitt.edu> wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell) writes:
>
>Okay, Charles, the point I am trying to make is that inflation would
>occur even in a free market without government intervention (the perpetual
>bad guy), and even without money. Yes, inflation of prices means "prices
>go up", but that doesn;t tell us much. Why do they go up? It seems
>to be the contention of some here that inflation occurs because 1.
>the government does things to cause it, 2. because we use money, or 3.
>both. I am claiming that inflation would occur without either the government
>or money, as "natural" inflation will raise prices, due to the fact that
>if you sit on something, you waste its useful value. If you still do
>not understand, let me know, and I'll run through it again.

no need. i have no dispute that some inflation is natural. my only
point is that most of it is due to "the perpetual bad guy".

--
charles
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Robert.Vienneau@launchpad.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Test
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:34:25 GMT

This is only a test. I wrote a brilliant response in my discussion with
David Wright of Keynes, but you cannot read it because I lost it.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: wbdst+@pitt.edu (William B Dwinnell)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Inflation
Date: 22 Jan 93 23:36:01 GMT
Organization: University of Pittsburgh


To: Sung Hyun Kim

   Yes, you are correct when you make the important distinction between
the nebulous "overall prices", and some particular price. We may experience
inflation of the price of bread, and at the same time, experience
deflation of the price of computers (which is generally the case,
by the way).
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: Inflation
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:27:48 GMT

In article <1993Jan27.162223.29959@gasco.com> fpf@lyra.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584) writes:

>... Falling prices presents the producer with the 
>awkward situation of having produced a product which can only be sold
>at a price lower than the sum of the prices of the inputs that went
>into said product.  This is not good business.

I don't see this.  If the business is profitable, then in a environment 
with neither inflation or deflation it will sell the goods for *more*
than the cost of the inputs.  Only if the deflation rate exceeds the
prevailing rate of profit will there be a problem of the sort you outline.  
One would not expect such a high deflation rate to arise simply from keeping 
the supply of money fixed.

In fact, to stay in business, a firm need only be able to buy the raw
materials for the *next* cycle of production using the money obtained
from selling the goods produced in the *last* cycle.  It is quite
irrelevant whether the amount of money obtained from selling the last
cycle's goods is more or less than the amount spent on raw materials
in that cycle, except in so far as that might be an indication of the
prices for the next cycle.  This means that a business should be
able to continue operations even with large rates of deflation, though
for deflation rates exceeding the rate of profit in the firm it might 
be to the owners advantage to liquidate the firm in favour of just holding 
on to the money (or investing it in some other business where the rate 
of profit is more than the deflation rate).

    Radford Neal
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Michael Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Since no one is defending inflation, (was re: Inflation)
Date: 22 Jan 1993 00:58:10 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: si.ucsc.edu


In article <1993Jan21.211928.8356@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:

|how is [inflation] good? it is rather simplistic to just look at the increasing
|price of your house without also considering how the price of everything
|else is also increasing, and the fact that the bottom tier of house
|buyers is pushed out of the market.

Unanticipated inflation is, in general, a good thing: if wages are
sticky it gives you the opportunity to work if the real wage is
reduced, it makes you economize on money balances so you invest more,
it reduces debt and thereby makes it easier to invest, it gives a
signal that the economy is improving (which it may be for the
reasons above or not) and so boosts consumer confidence. Moderate inflation has
nearly always been associated with rising output.

Of course, high inflation, or too variable an inflation rate, makes it
impossible to judge the difference between real and nominal prices,
and so the whole economy can go down the tubes. Anticipating this
event also is disasterous.

-- 
"There is nothing in the marginal conditions that     
    distinguish a mountain from a mole hill"            
                      Kenneth Boulding                             

					All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
						david@cats.ucsc.edu.
Newsgroups: sci.econ