HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
Subject: Re: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
Date: 15 Oct 92 20:56:57 GMT
Reply-To: cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave)
Organization: RAND, Santa Monica CA

In article <thompson.719167540@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
|
|The only problem with this is that human capital is difficult to
|define in an empirically meaningful way.  Sure you can measure
|schooling, test scores, training, etc., but translating this into
|meaningful measures of "skill" or "knowledge" is a fuzzy science at
|best.
|
Measures of physical capital aren't all that good, either.  The same
semi-bald (OK, fuzzy) shortcuts work for both: efficiency units.


|Human capital theory has great explanatory power only because it
|introduces lots of important, but unobservable, variables into
|economic theory.  That is, it gives models lots of new degrees of
|freedom for fitting the data by allowing any lack of fit to be made up
|by unobserved "human capital endowments."
|
Explanatory power is not (should not be?) simply a matter of R squared or
Mallow's CP, etc.  An explanation is something that makes sense by itself.
Excluding unobserveables from theory doesn't really help (like:
preferences; rational behaviour; subjective rates of time preference; risk
aversion; etc. etc.)  Certainly , many of them have observeable surrogates,
but they are imperfect and don't fit real behaviour all that well.



|Human capital theory therefore _reduces_ the predictive content of
|economic models, while at the same time allowing better retrospective
|fits to the data.

Only for models that remain agnostic as to changes in unobserveables, and
limited to quantitative predictions.  Even good econometric models have to
invoke some kind of unobserveable.  How about Bayesian priors?  How about
the expanding field of model uncertainty?


|--
|T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
|Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
|University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY: perpetual pain and problems...
Keywords: social security
Date: 12 Oct 92 19:34:50 GMT


>> anyone who can make money is smart enough to manage that money
>> better than the government. Unfortunately that means getting rid
>> of social security. Any ideas?

>Change Social Security to a mandatory 401k system.  The "401k"
>part will mean that the money is actually invested in the person's
>name, without the government touching it.  The "mandatory" part 
>is for political reasons because the public wants a Social Security
>system (and any attempt for an optional system will be labled as cutting
>Social Security).
>Real savings & investment for retirement.  What a radical concept.  :-)

Russ, this sounds like a solid idea, but how would the transition from
the current system to a 401k investment system take place? Somehow 
the current level of spending on social security can not be allowed
to nosedive, yet people still in the midst of their earning years 
should be allowed to manage a portion of their long-term savings.

One possibility: My company's 401k plan gives us the choice of
3 mutual funds for our profit sharing income. Perhaps the choices
of funds could be dictated by the government for a certain portion
of the individual's investment. These funds could be *slow* growth
government t-bill and bond funds. This could give the government
a small portion of the capital it may need to fund social security.
(Too small yes, but better than nothing.) 

Of course this would only be increasing the deficit. And having the
government dictate anything goes completely against my libertarian
instincts, but I am trying to be slightly realistic. 

mark.

"All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies."
					-John Arbuthnot
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Japanese Economy
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:12:26 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA01614; Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:20:25 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA14131; Wed, 7 Oct 92 14:17:20 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 5162; Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:16:04 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5994; Wed, 07 Oct 92 15:16:04 MST
X-To: sci.econ.usenet



              Is anybody ...        there?

              Does anybody ...       care?

       Does anybody see the numbers I see?


       It's incredible.  The Japanese economy looks to be heading towards
    upwards of a ONE TRILLION dollar bank bailout.

       And I hear nothing.

       " Whoooops!   Honey, I bankrupted the world "
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Consumption tax vs income tax
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 7 Oct 92 00:40:22 EST
Followup-To: sci.econ
Distribution: world
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <tdboyce-061092163112@lloyd-at1.caltech.edu>, tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (tdboyce) writes:
> 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? 

	New Hampshire has no income or sales taxes.  It does, however, have
things like the "meal taxe", a tax assessed on all prepared food sales.

	New Hampshireites seem to like it.  They feel that those that consume
(heh heh) the most pay the most.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Deficit - can it be corrected?
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:22:19 GMT

In article <92279.092606DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.085151.11751@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, markr@mot.com (Mark)
>says:
>>
>>In article <1992Oct02.141437.160192@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com      l
>>(Danie
>>E. Platt) writes:
>>> . . . .
>>>If you go to a hospital, it becomes obvious why costs are so high.  There
>>>is no incentive to keep costs down.  People can go get health care at any
>>>institution regardless of the rates charged.  Most people never really
>>>have to look at their bills; that's all handled for them by the hospital,
>>>who bills the insurance companies directly.  Medical costs are hard to
>>>control because there is effectively no market.
>>
>>This one could be tackled this way : Allow only 90% of medical costs to be
>>insured, while 10% MUST be paid by the patient.  Of course, with a cap
>>of, say 20%, of ones income, so as not to bankrupt the patient, but to make
>>it painful enough that the patient will be inclined to seek out less expensive
>>medical care.
>
>This describes quite well the system we already have, except for the income
>cap.  The typical American worker with a family paid $720 towards his/her
>health insurance premiums in 1988.  Twenty-three percent had a deductible
>of $200 or more; 76% had a deductible of $100 or more.  Only 5% had no
>deductible.  86% had coinsurance of 20%, 5% had 15 percent, 6% had
>coinsurance of 10%.  The only difference is that out-of-pcoket limits were
>not adjusted for income.  49% had a maximum OOP expenses of $4,000 ore more;
>81% had a maximum OOP expenses of 2,000 ore more.

I would eliminate deductibles completely.  Deductibles create a situation
where the patient pays a smaller percentage of costs as the patients costs
go up.  I would prefer that the patient's percentage of costs remain the
same until a very high limit. (i.e. 20% of the patients income)

This would also be somewhat fairer.

>The system of cost-sharing you describe has already been set up.  As
>several economic studies show, most notably the Rand HIE, further cost
>sharing beyond this level will have minimal impact of health expenditures.

The current system of cost-sharing is NOT a complete system of cost sharing, there
are all sorts of exceptions.  Examples include, people who have seperate 
hospital and seperate medical plans (where the hospital plan may pay 95% with
the other 5% covered under OCC - other covered charges of the medical plan),
people with seperate drug plans, HMO membership where the patient pays only
$2 - $5 per visit and $2 - $5 per prescription, etc...

There are also people who are covered under more than one plan and can
split the expenses between plans.

Mark
From: v068mwnn@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (THE VISION)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: GNP/GDP - CANADA
Date: 9 Oct 92 18:58:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

I am looking for GNP/GDP data at current and constant prices for CANADA
for the period 1960 to 1990. Any help in this will be highly appreciated.

Thanks in advance,
-Jesse
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8029 alt.amateur-comp:83 soc.culture.usa:7692 alt.activism:17310
From: mcgredo@prism.CS.ORST.EDU (Don McGregor)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,soc.culture.usa,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:19:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: CS.1992Oct09.151926.8638
Organization: Oregon State University, Computer Science Dept.

In article <1992Oct9.134942.19343@news.ysu.edu> ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:
>
>The historical record indicates that a decrease in the number of hours 
>worked results in a proportional or more than proportional increase in
>productivity for several reasons.
>
If this were true, why wouldn't companies lower their hours without
the government requiring them to?  Why are they passing up a chance
to make money hand over fist compared to their competitors, who are
stupidly requiring their workers to put in a non-optimal number of
hours?

-- 
Don McGregor             | "I..I blame society.  Society made me  
mcgredo@prism.cs.orst.edu|  what I am."
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: curry@tc.fluke.COM (John Curry)
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Reply-To: curry@tc.fluke.COM (John Curry)
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:29:49 GMT

In <MATT.92Oct8122111@physics.berkeley.edu> matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern) writes:

>In article <1992Oct8.103450.1931@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:

>> A lot of us are making the mistake that Perot is running to hurt or help
>> one of the other candidates.  What we must realize is that he is in the
>> race to win it

>In the race to win it?  I don't think so.  There are many things about
>Perot that I don't admire, but I have enough respect for his
>intelligence to believe he knows perfectly well that he is not going
>to win this election.  Whatever his reasons for reentering this
>campaign, winning the election just isn't one of them.

>Voters ought to remember that too.  The next President is going to be
>either Bill Clinton or George Bush, and we might as well face reality
>and accept that fact.  If you choose, for whatever reason, to vote for
>Perot, then you are giving up your opportunity to influence the
>decision between those two candidates.

Maybe, just maybe I'm exercising my RIGHT to vote for whomever I
damn well please! To those that think I MUST vote either for an ass or
a behemoth are brain washed beyond all hopes.

>--
>Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
>(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
>austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
>matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!


John Curry
curry@tc.fluke.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: why won't companies . . .
Organization: The Rhode Island Internet Systems Cooperative Network
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 12:56:40 GMT

stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt) writes:

>a number of owners keep their restaurants 100% non-smoking because they
>found it was good for business.

And if I wanted to tailor my restaurant business to attract smokers only?
Such as offering free, as-many-as-you-can-smoke cigarettes while you're
eating supper?

Golly, I just wouldn't be able to try a radical experiment in competitiveness,
since the government has stuck its paw into how I am allowed to run my
company.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
--    UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd  /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: SOCIAL SECURITY: perpetual pain and problems...
Summary: social security has to change
Keywords: social security
Date: 10 Oct 92 19:36:21 GMT

Well, it was the 30's, and things were bad. Very bad.
Many older citizens of this great land were broke, or close
to broke, so the government decided to tax those who had
and give to those who had little or nothing. Not a bad 
idea for a short term fix in a time of crisis. But this
system soon became a substitute for normal investment.

Social security was a big pot to put your money into so that
you would have something to take out when you retired. Well
that might have worked had the government actually invested
the money put in, then managed that same money until the 
"lender" came calling around his 65th birthday. But the money
put in to social security today, goes out today, to those who
put their money in while they were earning - money which 
went to those who earned before them.

In a stable society with no population fluctuations this plan 
might work (well, at least work a little better). But now 
the population is getting older, and my generation is going 
to have to give a lot more to support my father's generation.
I do not blame my father's generation. They were just
citizens paying their taxes. But the government should
not have interfered when it did. It should have solved
the solution in the now (or "in the then", as the case 
is). They started a ball rolling which could not be stopped.

Social security does some good. It supported my mentally 
handicaped brother during a time of need. But what if Americans
could invest the income they normally spend on SS. What if
the government had more faith in the generations following
the depression. Enough faith to allow them to manage their
own futures - invest in their own businesses, buy stocks,
buy CD's, or heck, maybe even buy government bonds. 

Things must change. Government has to begin to allow us
to control our own futures, and we have to take the responsibility
of freedom, and be responsible for our own decisions. The
government should begin to allow outside parties, investment
firms, to manage some of the inflow from social security. Yet at
the same time they must pay those who put their faith in the 
system when they paid their taxes. Perhaps they could sell
the rights to manage this money. I know this idea has a million
flaws, but the current system has a million and one. Point is,
anyone who can make money is smart enough to manage that money
better than the government. Unfortunately that means getting rid
of social security. Any ideas?

mark.

"All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies."
					-John Arbuthnot

Xref: sparky sci.econ:8044 talk.politics.theory:4485
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Organization: Oracle Corporation, Redwood Shores CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 00:07:32 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.

In article <1b2omhINN69t@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
>In article <1992Sep27.051145.1277@oracle.us.oracle.com> kwee@oracle.uucp (Karl Wee) writes:
>>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...
>...
>>Vote for Ross Perot at least as a protest...
>
>Even as a potential Perot supporter, I'm acutely aware of the irony that
>emerges out of the juxtaposition of your two remarks.

I don't understand what "irony" there is.  If you look at my article as a
WHOLE, I'm clearly calling for balancing the budget to avoid an economic
and political fiasco which might result in a dictatorship.  Ross Perot is
the only candidate serious about the budget because he doesn't have 
please any special interest groups or political allies.  Even if he can't
be elected, send the other 2 political pros a message about this most
critical issue of the budget.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Becker won
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 13:57:48 GMT

Becker won the Nobel Prize.

Comments?

--Jimbo

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: wcsv2k@alfred.carleton.ca (Bill St. Arnaud)
Subject: Technopolis
Summary: Technopolis
Organization: Carleton University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 13:50:24 GMT

Wanted information on technopolis concept.
Please e-mail to wcsngl@ccs.carleton.ca

CC:
Bill St. Arnaud                         Internet: wcsv2k@ccs.carleton.ca
VISION 2000 INC.                        X.400: C=CA; A=TELECOM.CANADA;
203-294 Albert St.                             O=VISION2000; DDA:ID=V2K.EMS
Ottawa CANADA                           Voice: +1 613 567-2000  
K1P 6E6                                 Fax:   +1 613 567-4730

=============================================================================
VISION 2000 INC:  A Department of Communications and industry initiative to
foster and accelerate the development of personal communications in Canada.
=============================================================================

Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:45:40 GMT

<DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:

>In article <1992Oct14.034506.24007@news.ysu.edu>, ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda
>Hauben) says:

[ Interpretation of Human Capital theory deleted. ]

>??????????? I don't know where you got any of that, but I've never
>heard any of it before today.  The theory is simply that investments
>in training, education, etc. are just like investments in physical
>capital in the sense that those making the investments will consider
>the costs and benefits of making the investment.  While it sounds
>pretty basic, it has enormous implications and explanatory power.
>To my knowledge it certainly is not anti-automation.

The only problem with this is that human capital is difficult to
define in an empirically meaningful way.  Sure you can measure
schooling, test scores, training, etc., but translating this into
meaningful measures of "skill" or "knowledge" is a fuzzy science at
best.

Human capital theory has great explanatory power only because it
introduces lots of important, but unobservable, variables into
economic theory.  That is, it gives models lots of new degrees of
freedom for fitting the data by allowing any lack of fit to be made up
by unobserved "human capital endowments."

Human capital theory therefore _reduces_ the predictive content of
economic models, while at the same time allowing better retrospective
fits to the data.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
From: ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Regulation/Deregulation
Date: 16 Oct 92 09:23:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.gerjdte00iUzQ2j6cC
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 16-Oct-92 Re: Regulation/Deregulation by
Stupendous Man@desire.wr 
> In article <1992Oct15.152318.11256@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>, Dr. Norman J.
LaFave <la
> fave@ial4.jsc.nasa.gov> writes:
> > In article <1992Oct15.004824.4823@desire.wright.edu> Stupendous Man,
> > demon@desire.wright.edu writes:
> >>      The recession has one primary cause: higher taxes.
> > 
> > This is a gross over-simplification. Anyone who has studied macroeconomics
> > knows that it is never as simple as this.
> > 
>  
>         Dr., note the use of the phrase "one primary cause".  I'm sure
>anyone who has studied English understands what that means.

I'm also sure anyone who understands rhetoric recognizes an ad hominem attack
meant to distract readers. Try defending this claim about higher taxes
being the main cause of the recession with some data or research. Saying
it over and over again doesn't make it self-evident.  

Steve   
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8013 talk.politics.theory:4468
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Date: 9 Oct 1992 01:26:55 GMT
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.89.7.4

In article <9298@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>I guess it all depends on what congress and the president do.  If they
>continue to run a deficit, no one will lend to them, so they will have
>to inflate away the deficit.  Leading quite possibly to the collapse of
>the current constitution.  Result would be similar to Germany, circa
>1930's.

I don't agree.  The result would be similar to the US in 1787 with the collapse
of the Confederacy.  Namely, we will, in a bottom up process, by our own
ingenuity, compromising spirit, come up with something even better, under the
pretense of calling a convention to "fix" the current system.

>If they decide to raise taxes to cover the deficit, the economy grinds to
>a halt.  The result, pretty similar to above.

There again, if you go by history, the result will be that we will throw off
the government in a revolution, and set up a provisional government which, 6
years later, will fail and will be replaceed by a new type of political system
which will serve us well for 200 years, before it too collapses under the
weight of an unbearable financial burden borne of excessive militarism.  Then
it too will be thrown off in a revolution which will lead to the installation
of an even yet better political system which will last yet another 200 years
and so on and so on...

Eventually, sometime in the 253rd Century, after the 118th government fails,
the 119th will be so perfect that we won't even know it's there and everything
will become a Utopia.
Newsgroups: sci.econ