HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:22:01 GMT

In article <d1Py03Asc2Tn00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>In article <184599@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>>You can't cheat a competitive market, for long. 
>
>  I don't know- the Japanese have been pretty good at doing just that since
>the 1970's, when Matsushita would offer secret refunds to U.S. retailers,
>such as Sears, after the products where declared at a price agreeable
>to U.S. Custom agents.  

It sounds like US Customs were trying to cheat the competitive market.
And, surprise surprise, they lost.  Score one for Paul.

>They were also successful at getting trucks classified 
>as cars.  When they are pressured to open some of their domestic markets like 
>beef for instance, they just bought up cattle farms in the U.S. and then would
>only buy from those Japanese-owned farms.  They have done the same for grapes.
>I could go on forever with real-life examples on how to "cheat a competitive
>market".

How is any of this "cheating"?

>    The point is, as I have said many times before, is that the U.S. is not
>structured to deal with this type of competition.  The Japanese government
>collaborates with their home companies.  

As if American car companies have nothing to do with import quotas and the
like...

>It's a game by their rules that they are winning, and while 
>we are all debating what constitutes dumping, more jobs and industries
>will be lost in '93 until some real policy changes are implemented.

And what policy changes do you propose?  Everything I've seen consists
of "Ask the Japanese not to work so hard" or "Make them raise their prices".
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 14:47:32 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <BzBpB7.6x7@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> mkohlhaa@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (mike) writes:
>  nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  
>  [stuff about unions deleted]
>
>  >The correct solution to having good working conditions and good
>  >worker treatment is to have an economy that's strong enough
>  >so it generates so many jobs that workers are always in demand.  
>  >
>  > ---peter
>
>  Isn't that what causes increased labor prices which leads to run-away
>inflation?

  I don't know why it would lead to "run away" inflation.
  Inflation is an increase in the money supply above and beyond
  the increase in productivity, i.e., "too much money chasing 
  after too few goods and services".  Assuming workers remain
  productive why should you get this outcome?   I means sure,
  their wages might go up, but happy, contented, motivated
  workers are productive workers.  

  The simple, empirical refutation to your argument is even
  easier:  In the computer industry there hasn't been inflation,
  there's been DISinflation:  the prices for computer products
  have been *plummetting* for decades!


---peter

Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:34:57 GMT
Distribution: na

ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:

|Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 12-Dec-92 Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANY..
|by Louis Schmittroth@aupair 
|| Where does the new Chairperson of the Council of Economic Advisers stand
|| on the issues of free American trade versus closed Japanese markets?  
|| What's her name -- Linda Tyson????

|Laura D'Andrea Tyson. She's on the faculty at Berkeley. It is difficult
|to characterize her thinking on trade easily. Check out her article
|"They Are Not Us" in the winter 1991 American Prospect. 

Thanks for the reference.  I'm not acquainted with the Journal, living
as I do in the bush in norhern Alberta, but I can likely get it.  I have
finished reading the Prestowitz book, "Trading  Places" and am now
working my way through Thrurow, "Head to Head."  One section in that is
taken from a article jointly authored with Laura Tyson.  They are saying
that the Bretton Woods - GATT era is over, since instead of one dominant
economy there will be three, Europe, Japan, and the US (Canada
included).  The summary paragraph is:

``The Europeans are going to write the rules for `managed trade' and
`quasi trading blocks' (See Chapter 3 [The House of Europe]).
Management agreements, such as those now governing semi-conductors, will
spread, and the countries within any one block, such as Canada withing
the American market, will get special trading privileges not given to
outsiders.  I will call them quasi trading blocks to distinguish them
from the trading blocks of the 1930s.  The quasi trading blocks of the
1990s will attempt to manage trade, but they not attempt to reduce or
eliminate it as the trading blocks of the 1930s did.''


|She argues for
|reciprocity in trade, above all. She's also big on public investments in
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|infrastructure and human capital. 

After reading Prestowitz I wonder if the Japanese will or can learn what
this means.  
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: OUR COUNTRY NEEDS YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!
From: robert@otago.ac.nz
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:50:17 +1300
Organization: University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

Hi there all...

I wonder if you could be of assistance to me.  Over here in the unfashionable
and uncharted backwaters of the world it can sometimes be hard to get one's
hands on macro data.  So, if anyone can supply me with addresses of sites which
have data sets (such as Summers and Heston, IMF, World Bank etc) available for
anonymous FTP I would be most grateful.

Thanks...

William Jones
(on behalf of Dr Robert Alexander, Dept of Economics, University of Otago,
Dunedin, New Zealand)
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: 19 Dec 92 00:10:30 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <BzGt3v.AIu@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec18.010103.16762@athena.mit.edu> cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>also -- have prices really gone down? or has computing power just
>>gone up?
>
>  Prices have gone down.  You could not have bought a functional
>  computer in 1970 for 2000 1992 dollars.   You could not have bought 
>  a functional Unix workstation in 1985 for 7000 1992 dollars.

In 2070 you won't be able to buy a functional UNIX workstation for
7000 1992 dollars either.

A PC can't do anything that you could not do with a calculator and
paper and pencil.  So the capital required to perform computations has
increased since no one can get by with those primitive tools now.
What this implies is that inflation has actually been woefully understated
all these years and civilization, such as it is,  will undoubtedly
collapse next October.  

Inflation is good for tires and balloons.

		:^)
	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: rboudrie@chpc.org (Rob Boudrie)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: Center For High Perf. Computing of WPI; Marlboro Ma
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 17:12:06 GMT

>Interesting that you should rail against Milken.  Do you realize what
>junk bonds are?  They are generally bonds issued by smaller companies
>who are riskier than large established companies.  The fact that
>the junk bond market existed was a boon to small businesses trying to
>get started.

Oh.  I thought junk bonds were a financing vehicle used for 
leveraged buyouts in which the aquirer pledged the aquiree as security
for some multiply suborninated, sub-junior, standby payment debentures;
paid themselves fat saralies, borkerage fees, etc; and then dismembered
the company on a "short term profit optimization" basis so they could
leave an empty shell behind as they sought out the next opportunity
to make a fortune through financial manipulation, rather than
product design, development and marketing.

But then maybe I'm wrong.

                                        rob b.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,talk.politics.misc,misc.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures Again? Won't Solve the Economic Problems
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 21:19:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1glcjkINNlgk@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:

>>> That's why there should be shorter hours laws - the people 
>>> who do the work are a precious resource and society needs to 
>>> defend them.

  Well, they're getting a lot less precious!    See the current issue
  of _Fortune_ (cover story) for a discussion of trends in labor.  
  More and more jobs are disappearing overseas -- all kinds: manu-
  facturing, design, and service.   Scary stuff.


>For example, I feel unions are an important right and that
>the law against the employer paying a worker's union dues
>so the worker can't be in a union is a violation of
>that right.

  I don't think an employer should either be required to pay an
  employers union dues or required NOT to pay them!

  By the same token I strongly object to anyone taking a job 
  being required to join or otherwise support a union.  A 
  friend of mine was hired at a unionized job recently.  He
  was told that technically he didn't *have* to join, but the 
  dues would still be deducted from his paycheck!


>>BTW, I'm exempt from the labor laws. I'm classed as an engineer.

  The job I referred to in the above story was a computer
  programming job.
                  
  My wife, who used to be a teacher, was also forced to join the 
  Mass. Teacher's Association against her will.   

  If I needed a job and the only one I could get was a union job 
  I would take it, but I doubt I would ever voluntarily join a
  union.   I've seen what they do:  a friend of mine used to work 
  at a major defense contractor in Massachusetts.   The techs that
  did wire-wrapping had a union contract to wrap so many posts
  a day.  If they happened to finish that many by 3:30 they would 
  hang out and *do nothing* until 5:00 quitting time!   My
  friend had a calculator with an AC adaptor.  He had to move his
  desk out from the wall a few inches to plug in the adaptor.
  He got called on the carpet for that by management since moving
  furniture is a union job and some union guy complained!

  The correct solution to having good working conditions and good
  worker treatment is to have an economy that's strong enough
  so it generates so many jobs that workers are always in demand.  
  During the 1980's when sotfware engineers and EE's were in
  demand their pay, working conditions, and job security were
  superb. 


---peter
From: jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:29:52 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

In article <1992Dec9.050929.29917@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <37853@uflorida.cis.ufl.edu> jfh@beach.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec1.055111.4573@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>>Ok, what about the elephants? 
>
>The passage in question didn't say "elephants" but the concept was the same.
>The attacks on Keynes were based on taking passages of his out of context.

The passage I am referring to is in "Economics and the Public Welfare", by`
Benjamin Anderson, and is a quote from Keynes himself to Anderson.

>>As I understand (admittedly I have not read any Keynes)
>
>I suggest you do before you criticize.

I've read enough criticisms of Keynes.

>>Keynes satirizing the gold standard was further evidence of his economic
>>ignorance. 
>
>I believe quite the contrary, unless you can explain why we should
>let miners and random exogenous shocks determine the level of the 
>money supply.

Any jolts that occured during nineteenth century for these reasons 
pale greatly in comparison to the jolt of the Great Depression, which
was caused by an increase in the quantity of money by the Federal Reserve,
and this is EXACTLY what Keynes offered as a solution to unemployment.

The largest shocks during the gold standard were the result of government
interference (the pyramiding of reserves a la the National Banking Act,
and the issue of $400 million in fiat currency to finance the Civil War.)

The most successful era in banking was the Scottish era of free banking, 
where there were no regulations, no legal tender laws, and a de facto
gold standard. The Scottish banks were the envy of those in England.

>>The New Deal was a complete
>>failure, too, but we are still stuck with all of its wonderful programs.
>
>"Complete" failure?  We're not in a Depression any more, are we?  Huey Long
>and Charles Coughlin and the Stalinists had their thunder stolen, didn't they?
>(The economy grew at a 8-13% clip throughout FDR's presidency, so don't give 
>me the "only because of WW2" argument.)

The New Deal made things worse. There was another collapse in 1937-8. If
the New Deal was so successful, why did this happen?

>>Thanks to Keynesianism, we, with our monolithic debt, may be on the verge
>>of a Depresion which will make the Great Depression of the 30's look like
>>a cakewalk.
>
>One might attribute the recent doubling of the debt/GNP in the 1980's to
>Reagan, rather than Keynes, but that would no doubt create a new thread.

Keynes advocated deficit spending, did he not?

>-- 
>ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
>standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
>the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637

Jim Hranicky (jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu)





Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Dumping
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:35:07 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Dec16.050512.25091@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>Getting back into the business is not a simple matter.  Suppose that the
>>US auto industry dies out and imported car prices rise to absurd
>>levels.
>
>Suppose Japanese auto makers lower their prices and US manufactures
>all go broke and Japanese auto makers raise their prices. What happens?
>We buy our cars from Germany and Italy and Korea and Taiwan and, heck,
>Britian and Mexico. What's the chance of Japan driving the *entire* world's
>auto industry under before running out of funds? Slim and getting ever
>slimmer as the number of industrial nations grows.

   Victor's example isn't *quite* as absurd as you make it sound.

   Imported car prices don't have to rise because of gouging by 
   foreign car makers of their monopolistically controlled US
   market.   

   They COULD rise simply because if more US industries go under
   we will not be exporting enough to create sufficient demand for
   US dollars.   Moreover, massive unemployment and a huge national
   debt could create social instabilities that could further lower
   the US dollar.    Given this, I could easily see a scenario where
   if the US car industry went under foreign car prices would rise
   dramatically.  

                                                   
> We don't need the US to compete in every market, we just need
> *somebody* to compete.

   We *do* need the US to compete if we want jobs, prosperity, 
   and social stability in the US.    You guys are still looking
   at all these things like they're single-variable problems!


---peter




Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Declining Intro Enrolments
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1992 21:10:46 GMT

In article <canright.724882079@convex.com> canright@convex.com (Robert Canright) writes:
>Having an interest in economics, now that I see how money is one of the
>most important factors in engineering projects, I asked a professional
>economist about a good intro textbook.  He told me not to waste my time &
>to go directly into micro & macro-economics textbooks.
>
>If the intro texts truly are a waste of time, maybe the classes are too.

I agree fully that the intro texts and classes are a waste of time.  Then
again, I aced my intermediate microeconomics without ever going to class.
There are a number of people (usually math-phobic) who simply cannot even
handle the basic concepts in an intro course thanks to our wonderful high
school education system.  Your friend the economist was probably making 
more of a judgment about your ability to handle the concepts than a judgment
about the value of an intro economics course. 
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: "Death of America"
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 22:33:29 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <canright.724701447@convex.com> canright@convex.com (Robert Canright) writes:
>Let's face it: Congress is addicted to deficit spending & is practicing
>denial.  Exponential increases in spending cannot continue forever.

  Why "Congress"?

  Did you see the recent poll on health-care?   What did it say 
  people wanted?  Prcatically everything: high quality, no restrictions,
  no waiting.   How much were they willing to pay?  No more than $20
  a week!

  Ditto on everything else:  Whenever there's a disaster or crisis, domestic
  or foreign, the voters love it when we send in the Marines or National
  Guard.  Cure for AIDS, cure for cancer, national parks, explore space,
  guaranteed college loans, help the pure, fix the environment, and a 
  zillion other things, they're all for it.  Try closing a military base
  or canceling a defense contract and they squeal like stuck pigs.
  Raise taxes?   Get real.  

  Don't blame Congress -- they're following the dictates of the
  voters -- just try running for Congress on a platform of CUTTING 
  local porkbarrel projects and see how far you get!  


---peter


  
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.legal
From: raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael)
Subject: Re: "Dumping"
Organization: FXD/Telerate, Mountain View, CA
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 06:05:31 GMT

fulk@cs.rochester.edu (Mark Fulk) writes:

>Notice that Japan:

>A) has very limited land area, for a substantial population.
>B) consists 70% of non-arable mountains.
>C) has no mineral resources worth mentioning.
>D) is not self-sufficient in food, except for rice, which costs
>   several times the world price there.
>E) contains many of the world's most successful manufacturing firms.
>F) places numerous barriers in the way of foreign competition.
>G) owns much of the world's debt.

I agree with most of the above.

>The US:

>A) has enormous land area for a large population.
>B) has so much arable land that most of it is out of production,
>   and what's left can still feed the world.
>C) has probably the world's greatest store of mineral resources in
>   one country.
>D) feeds a substantial part of the world.
>E) used to contain the world's most successful manufacturing firms.
>F) places few or no barriers in the way of foreign competition.
>G) owes much of the world's debt.

Hmm. I might have put it slightly differently....

The US:
A) has enormous land area for a large population.
B) has so much bureaucratic misregulation that much of its arable land
   is kept out of production in order to artificially inflate the cost of
   food. Agricultural policies keep a few big inefficient agribusinesses
   afloat while it impoverishes the populace through high taxes and high
   food prices at the same time as it discourages efficient farming,
   destroys cropland, and drives the unsubsidized farmers out of business.
   The inevitable result of current policy will eventually be an entirely 
   nationalized, entirely unproductive farming industry.
C) has a lot of mineral resources in one country.
D) feeds a substantial part of the world, at a huge economic loss. Every year
   between 1983 and 1987, the total cost to U.S. consumers and taxpayers of
   welfare to farmers equalled or exceeded total farm income.
E) contains many of the world's most successful manufacturing firms.
F) places numerous barriers in the way of foreign competition.
G) owns much of the world's debt. (in the same sense that Japan does.
   Remember: Japan has a net national debt.)

So what's your point?

>Gee, I wonder when the Japanese are going to notice how much those
>trade barriers are hurting them :-).

The same time we notice how ours are hurting us. What makes you think we
place "few or no barriers in the way of foreign competition?" That's a
myth.

>-- 
>Mark A. Fulk			University of Rochester
>Computer Science Department	fulk@cs.rochester.edu

Glen Raphael
raphael@fx.com
From: louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: GM Plant Closures and Economic Problems
Date: 16 Dec 92 17:41:07 GMT

mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen) writes:


>In the US case, the bigger problem was the post-war (WWII) protectionism
>of other countries which subsidized the process of taking money out of
>the US and paying it to workers in foreign countries.  

AT the time this was US policy, and the correct one.  The US had all the
technology, all the factories (You should have see the Japanese
factories in 1946 as I did, or the German factories -- there wern't any)
and could afford, nay, could not afford not to open up the American
market to VW, Sony, and the like, while not doing anything about closed
markets in Japan and Germany.  It worked.  But it is no longer a viable
strategy for American prosperity.  The Russian Bear is gone.  I see by
the news that Yeltsin flew off with Helmut Kohl to a private dacha for
a conference on trade and economic reforms.

>Then we printed
>more money to keep up the available cash in the US.  We still pursue
>a policy that protects the Japanese and the European manufacturer by
>allowing him free access to our markets without demanding similar
>access to Japanese and European markets.  As are economy deteriorates,
>we create money (deficit spending) to "entitle" those out of work and
>to pay people in "created" jobs.

Well, I think your chronology is a bit off.  The US didn't have to print
money (create trade defiicts) until the Reagan era if remeber right.

>We need to call in the loans (demand trade surpluses until our investment
>in other countries is repaid), streamline government (eliminate some
>programs and make the others more efficient), and only spend what we
>have.

Absolutely right!  The US must mangae it's trade, not cut if off.
But please, do it with purpose, coordination, and intelligence.

>-- 
>These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
>occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
--
Louis Schmittroth louis@cs.athabascau.ca
NW 1/4 18 67 21 W4 Alberta.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ