HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:39:11 -0500 
From: Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Major Enterprise and the Entrepreneurs (TM)

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 23-Nov-92 Major Enterprise and the En..
by Ed Ipser@solomon.technet 
> Kids, tune in next week for episode 28, "The Global-Warming Scam",
> where Major Enterprise saves responsible manufacturers from being
> extorted by the sinister Vice-President and his evil band of
> eco-crats.
But surely you do not mean Danny (the Veep at hand) ?  After all, a bird
in hand ... (not to repeat jokes about birds and Bushes).

Incidently, are these heart warming and morally uplifting ME posters etc
for sale, or does Mr. Ipser part with them from the goodness of his
heart fortified by the heady wine of libertarianism ?

cheers
From: c663712c@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The global recession will last until 2000
Date: 16 Nov 92 13:43:07 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Nov7.093234.8988@edinboro.edu>, s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:
> 
> 	With the talk I've just seen surfacing here about this new
> slow groth economy being "normal", I was wondering what everyones opinion is
> on this:
> 
> 	My thinking is that the world will experience ho-hum growth until
> 2000-2005.  There will be little that can be done to stop it.  The
> reasoning for this is simple:  Everyone wants to export their way
> out of the current world recession.
> 

        First of all Mr. Duffy, when did you become a global economist?
More imporantly, how did you figure out there was a global recession?
Was that by heads or tails?  

        The fact is that we are not in a global recession.  The U.S.
economy<contrary to popular belief> is growing around 3%. Japan, which
hasn't experienced the kind of growth they did over the last ten years,
is growing around 3% also.  China's economy is growing around 10% and
recently agreed on importing more from the U.S..  Germany's stock ex-
change<DAX> happens to strong due to the unification.  Europe overall
will be moving toward growth due to the Treaty of Maastrich, which
in case you didn't know plans to unify most of Europe with one common
currency and free trade also.  I must not also leave out NAFTA, which
is the North American Free Trade Agreement, which(in case you have
been living in a cave for the last 6 months) will promote free trade
and no tariffs between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. by 1996.

    What I am saying Mr. Duffy is that the world is FAR from a global
recession.  I am not trying to be argumentative- I just thought you
should have done a little reading before you posted.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher J. Conrady               
Edinboro University of Pennsylvania             Nixon in '96.
 
                                                He's tanned. He's rested.

                                                The guy was FRAMED.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 17 Nov 92 17:32:29 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
>of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
>the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
>and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
>the economy going that spending more money.
>

What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
equivalent? Under Reagan/Bush government expenditures for arms and
interest on the debt and on federal employees all rose sharply, while
the government did not buy much of value of the productive economy:
bridges, roads, educations, ... IMHO, if one goes on a spending binge
and emerges having purchased junk, one is in a significantly worse position
than someone who purchases valuable items.
 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 18 Nov 92 03:31:51 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <56351@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <23978@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>>They will sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers as long
>                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Is this market large enough to be profitable?

Oops.

Well, it is not exclusive.  Drug dealers do not discriminate on the basis
of innocence, class, or age.


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

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:00:47 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov19.231617.8530@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@amber.uchicago.edu writes:
>>
>> I hope it's not too late for him to reconsider his major:  Total
>> employment by computer professionals in the US has dropped in
>> *each* of the last 4 years (i.e., since BEFORE the recession began)
>> and overall more jobs have been lost in the computer industry than
>> in the auto industry during the same time (source: EE Times).   Right 
>> now THE ONLY source that I've found projecting even *modest* growth
>> in computer-related jobs is Megan Barkume of the BLS (a *government*
>> agency, for Mr. Hranicky's information), and Barkume made the same
>> projection five years ago and we saw how that turned out!
>>
>true for what is technically the "computer industry".   Since January
>of 1989 the "computer industry" has lost about 154,000 jobs.  This is
>more than the auto industry (as you say).  However, in 1991 (when
>it lost 15,000 jobs) most of the job loss was in administration,
>marketing, and support personnel.

>  The Labor department estimates 56% growth in computer programmers by
>  2005 and 80% growth in systems analysts in the same time frame. 

  But the BLS has been making wildly optimistic claims about employment
  for years.   The AEA has complained repeatedly about their methodology
  projections and results.   If you look at their projections for
  hardware engineers for the period of 1988-1992 and compare it to
  reality it illustrates their problems.   Megan Barkume, the economist
  at BLS responsible for these projections has a truly terrible track record.
  For an alternative view see Edward Yourdon's _Decline and Fall of the
  American Programmer_.

  The June 1 1992 issue of EE Times showed flat growth for Q1 of 
  this year, again counter to BLS' predictions.


              
---peter


 

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Subject: alt.politics.economics
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:09:35 GMT

A group alt.politics.economics has been created.  It can be used for
political discussions, perhaps to make this group devoted more to
scientific discussions.

(I've not personally followed sci.econ but I've heard some complaints
about political discussions).

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest,misc.taxes,talk.politics.misc
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 21:48:58 GMT

demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>	Sorry, but there are no losses.  Someone does not knock on your door
>and ask for money.  Paper "losses" are only real if you actually sell at that
>point.  Most successful traders don't base their trades on paper.
>	I held my Sears stock.  It's double since then (17-35), so where are my
>"losses"?  (And I still haven't sold.)

>> Remember, all you have to do is sell and buy within five minutes.  Then

>	Do you buy stocks?  Have you ever gotten confirmation within five
>minutes?  If you don't wait for confirmation you could be in for a rude
>awakening the next day.

This is a case where options, puts, calls, warrants etc. can be
useful for ensuring that you hold onto your profits while taking
advantage of tax benefits. 

For example, suppose you have made a certain profit in a stock,
but don't want to sell it for another 2 months so that the gain
will be taxed as a long-term capital gain. However, you are
afraid that the stock might go down. You can create a "perfect
hedge" against your portfolio, so that whether the stock rises
or falls in price, you neither gain nor lose money.

-Larry Watanabe 	watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jfh@reef.cis.ufl.edu (James F. Hranicky)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 15 Nov 92 19:24:36 GMT
Organization: Univ. of Florida CIS Dept.

It seems to me that the best and "fairest" tax would be a flat tax on 
consumption (Federal sales tax). This would mean that people of all incomes
would pay the same amount of tax on the same good. (With exemptions on 
the necessities of life--food, etc.--but the same exemptions for all.)

Now, some people might call this regressive--the poor pay a larger percent
of their income than the rich--however, this would only be true if the 
"rich" lived as if they were poor. In the end, this would mean that
the "rich" would probably pay a larger dollar amount, but the same rate
for consumption. (Of course, I would like to see *Huge* cuts in the Fed
govt along the way, to insure that the rate would decline and be less of 
a burden as time goes on--also, the initial rate would bring as close to the
present tax system does in $$ as possible, then spending could be cut to 
ru a surplus until the debt was paid off.)

One benefit, offhand, would be to encourage savings--not penalizing people
for saving money. I think this is one of the reasons for Japan's strength
over the past few decades--*savings*.

Of course, until the Keynesian mentality that savings are bad and harmful
is excised, this probably wouldn't gain much popularity.

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


Xref: sparky sci.econ:8796 soc.culture.latin-america:4441 soc.culture.spain:4263
Organization: Wirtschaftsuniversitaet Wien, Vienna, Austria
Date: Friday, 20 Nov 1992 16:37:47 CET
From: Thomas Schweeger <9051413@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at>
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.culture.latin-america,soc.culture.spain
Subject: strategic management

Hello|

I am studying business administration in Vienna and:

I am looking for a book about a theory of strategic management, written by
a latin-american or spanish author, in order to present something extra-
ordinary at a seminar.

The language can be either English or Spanish (of course, German aswell).

Generally speaking it is possible for me to borrow almost every book from
libraries outside Austria.

Any recommendations?

Thank you in advance.

Thomas Schweeger

Please E-Mail to     9051413@awiwuw11.wu-wien.ac.at
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Date: 23 Nov 92 03:47:31 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <sf2OKl200iV1E9A54O@andrew.cmu.edu> nm20+@andrew.cmu.edu (Nolan McCarty) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 17-Nov-92 Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
>by victor yodaiken@chelm.cs 
>> In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
>> >I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
>> >of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
>> >the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
>> >and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
>> >the economy going that spending more money.
>> >
>>  
>> What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
>> equivalent? Under Reagan/Bush government expenditures for arms and
>
>    Try the original form of Keynesianism. In the General Theory, Keynes
>asserts that it does not matter what the government spends its money on.

Forgive me if I've misremembered, but wasn't that a claim that in the short
term government spending could speed up economic activity?  Did Keynes claim
that on a sustained basis the economy would grow if the goverment invested
in tulips or Sagaent York guns or whatever?

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 23 Nov 92 11:43:11 CST


In article <L2F=lS+@engin.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
>
> Some people have argued that the boom we had was a classic Keynesian
> boom, I assume that you disagree?  If so, there must have been something
> else that caused the economy to grow under Reagan and stop under
> Bush.  I will certainly agree that not all spending is equal.  I
> do not believe, however, that government can spend money 'better'
> than the private sector.  Government spending is inherently political
> and has no connection to return on investment.  The government
> won't go out of business if it invests improperly, a private business
> will.

The election seems to have put the Republicans "out of business" (the
White House), due to poor "return on investment" (GDP growth).

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:08:49 -0500 
From: Nolan McCarty <nm20+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 17-Nov-92 Re: A Supply Side Call to Arms
by victor yodaiken@chelm.cs 
> In article <0#F=S+-@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
> >I don't know, spending under Bush rose 28%.  Spending as a percentage
> >of GNP went from approx. 21% to over 25%.  Shouldn't we be seeing
> >the wonders of Keynesian deficit spending?  We've increased spending
> >and the economy has gone flat.  Seems like there is more to getting
> >the economy going that spending more money.
> >
>  
> What form of Keynsianism suggests that all government spending is
> equivalent? Under Reagan/Bush government expenditures for arms and

    Try the original form of Keynesianism. In the General Theory, Keynes
asserts that it does not matter what the government spends its money on.

Nolan McCarty

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bm665@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jay Robert Hauben)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.activism,soc.culture.usa,alt.amateur-comp,misc.misc
Subject: Re: Last Minute Write-in Candidate for US President
Date: 15 Nov 1992 17:08:51 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: bm665@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Jay Robert Hauben)
NNTP-Posting-Host: hela.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, tzs@carson.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) says:

>ag173@yfn.ysu.edu (Jay Hauben) writes:
>>
>>ATTENTION ALL NET.CITIZENS:
>>	Ronda Hauben has reluctantly agreed to run for the Presidency of the 
>>USA as a write-in candidate.
>
>Imagine if this worked:
>
>	All over the country, people write-in "Ronda Hauben".
>
>	"Ronda Hauben" wins!
>
>	And then hundreds of people named Ronda Hauben claim that
>	they have been elected!
>
>--Tim Smith
>

     Thank you for pointing out this possible bug in our 
experiment to improve the political process in the US.
 
     The write-in, on the surface, might seem more appropriate 
for more local an election. But Usenet News and internetworking 
may make the write-in a viable and especially democratic 
political form even for national elections. Therefore it is 
necessary that we get the bugs out of the process.
 
     Can anyone out there suggest a fix that will allow the 
genuine write-in candidate to be identified either on the write- 
in ballot or after the election or both?

     The American people have given the world the personal computer and
Usenet News. We surely are capable of creating a better political
process than the one we have just gone through.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Osha,and other regulations not enforced in Michigan(Was A Six Hour
Date: 19 Nov 92 20:46:21 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov16.091254.9140@edinboro.edu> s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:

>Let's not forget that many crashes were probably the result, directly or
>indirectly, of Mr. Reagan's firing of the air traffic contrtolers.

You've got to be kidding.  Do you have any evidence for your wild assertions,
or is anti-Reaganism sufficient proof.

What have been the big crashes over the last 12 years.

Let's see, there have been one or two in which an engine blew up or fell
off in mid air.  Definitely the fault of the air traffic controllers.  :*0

There have been a couple that crashed on take off do to ice on the wings.
Sounds like pilot error to me.

One that crashed because it ran out of fuel.  The pilot on that flight
never declared a fuel emergency.

There have been one or two in which the pilots crashed after flying
through thunderstorms.  Now this one at least could be evidence of
air traffic controller problems, if there was any evidence that the
controllers knew about the down drafts ahead of time.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:53:21 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <thompson.721708221@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

>>  You're poting from an economics department (brave man!) -- what do
>>  you think is going to happen in US employment for the rest of 
>>  the decade, and why?
>
>I'm not willing to bite on this one.  My replies to you are largely
>derived from a strong distrust of long term macroeconomic forecasts.

  This is very sensible.   I've been complaining on this and other
  newsgroups for a long time that what is needed is a genuine science
  of economics, although in all likelihood this would have to be
  based on a genuine science of psychology and I see neither on
  the horizon.

  Economists may protest that this is an unreasonable requirement 
  and that the usual demands that a science have such features as 
  predictive value, repeatability, testability, etc, cannot as a
  practical matter, apply to "social sciences".   They will protest 
  that the press has created unreasonable expectations of economics.

  But economists are perfectly happy to be employed in this role
  (forecasting) in their thousands by corporations, government 
  agencies, "think tanks", and by the press itself.  


  I'm describing the situation of the farmer trying to farm a small
  patch in a desert oasis.  And every year he sees the desert creeping
  in a little closer, his wells have to be dug a little deeper, his
  crops yield a little less, his children are a little hungrier.  
  He has no science that can tell him what the future will bring
  (and indeed none exists!) but he has the evidence of his senses.  
  He could be wrong, of course, and next year the rains may fall,
  and the desert may bloom bountifully once again.   Who can say?
  But given that no one CAN say with anything resembling scientific 
  confidence, the evidence of his senses are the best he has to go
  on.  
   
  

>                                                         I would
>prefer to characterize myself as a skeptic about the theoretical and
>empirical basis of any such forecasts.                  

  This is an honest and reasonable position.  The only problem
  with it -- and this does not reflect badly on you or your pos-
  ition -- is that decisions DO need to be made about long term
  issues by companies, individuals, and government policy makers.
  


---peter
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Osha,and other regulations not enforced in Michigan(Was A Six Hour
Date: 16 Nov 92 14:12:54 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

In article <BxBB3z.J7y@apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
> In article <geujWi_00Uh7A2F1Em@andrew.cmu.edu> jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb) writes:
>>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 25-Oct-92 Re:Osha,and other regulatio..
>>by Ronda Hauben@cleveland.F 
>>> The deregulatory fever in the U.S. -beginning under Carter with the 
>>> U.S. airlines industry - has resulted in fewer airlines - higher
>>> prices, more plane crashes, etc.
> 
>   This is absolute nonsense.  I'm a fairly frequent flier and I have
>   no doubt the prices *I* pay are lower than before deregulation.
>   As for plane crashes, I would *love* to see the documentation
>   on that one -- plane crashes and fatalities in the US have 
>   been dropping steadily since deregulation, despite the fact that
>   the volume of air traffic has increased dramatically during that
>   time.
> 
>   Methinks Ms. Hauben must be a nervous flier.
>               
> ---peter

Let's not forget that many crashes were probably the result, directly or
indirectly, of Mr. Reagan's firing of the air traffic contrtolers.

Shawn Duffy
Edinboro University of PA
USA
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest,misc.taxes,talk.politics.misc
From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: Taxes and stocks (mostly)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 21:34:12 GMT

I'll leave out most of Brett's errors (and one of mine: you have to
disgorge stocks for thirty days, apparentally, to have the taxes kick
in) to concentrate on the smoking gun.

In article <1992Nov17.171007.5661@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <1992Nov16.202148.24943@midway.uchicago.edu>, thf2@quads.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank) writes:
>>>	No, just that their numbers are within the noise ratio.  
>> 
>> But, Brett there was a *spike*.  It's clear that the numbers aren't within
>> the noise ratio.
>
>	Year:	Revenue from cap gains (millions):
>[...]
>	1979	$11,669
>	1980	$12,459
>	1981	$12,684
>	1982	$12,900
>	1983	$18,500
>	1984	$21,800
>	1985	$26,500
>	1986	$49,700_______rate increase here
>	1987	$32,900_______crash here
>	1988	$38,900
>	1989	$36,020

Can anyone look at those numbers and say that there wasn't a spike in 1986?

In twenty years, there isn't a one-year increase of more than 45%, then
suddenly there's an increase of 85% and that's not a spike?

>        You can argue that $50k is a spike *caused* by the rate hike, but you
>can't argue that the revenues have not declined since then.

Sure I can.  1987 is higher than 1985.  1988 and 1989 are each higher than
1987.  1986 is an anomaly caused by between $20 and $25 billion in people
taking advantage of tax breaks, and not useful in predicting trends.

Or do you expect a figure that's artifically high because of an exogenous
shock to remain artifically high when that shock is removed?
-- 
ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
Newsgroups: sci.econ