Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
Ellen Frank wrote: > Doug writes: > > >Ok, so what gave us the longest expansion in U.S. history, and a 42% > >rise in real GDP? > > > >Doug > > > I really don't know. But the conventional wisdom really > falls apart on close inspection. For example, real > interest rates were high compared with earlier > years (despite assertions that it was low interest rates > due to the Fed and the disappearing defiicit.). > > I mean, sometimes the economy just booms, right? > New technology, rapidly evolving so that businesses > keep investing in it. Rising productivity for a variety > of reasons (including weakened unions), so that > consumption could be fueled without killing > profitability. Funds moving in from the rest of the > world to boost stocks and generate this wealth > effect (which probably isn't that huge, but it > fostered growth in some sectors like home > building). I don't think there's nothing to this > new economy stuff. I just don't think Clinton's > policies had much to do with it. > > Ellen One thing, NOT the only thing, but one thing was the massive flow of capital into the U.S., which helped pump up the stock market, generate big capital gains, etc. (not just DFI, all capital inflow). I suspect that this was largely a matter of luck. The fact that Japan went into a recesssion just as we were coming out of one probably helped get things going. Every financial crisis in the 1990s made the US more attractive as an apparently save haven for international capital.
Re: RE: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
David Shemano wrote: > If crowding out is fallacious, and there is absolutely no link between > budget deficits and interest rates, what is one to think of the efficacy of > President Clinton's policies as a contributor to economic growth? That there was none. Much as I miss Clinton (even though he's not gone yet), the notion that his policies were responsible for the economic growth of the 1990s is silly. To oversimplify a just a bit, it pretty save to say that economic growth made the balance budget -> surplus possible, not vice versa.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
Ellen Frank wrote: > > > Let's say I get a $50,000 tax refund thanks to Dubya, with > which I buy shares in a bio-tech IPO. Remember that most of the money 'invested' in the stock market goes to buy existing stock, not new issues. > Once current income starts whirling around in the speculative > sector, it can stay there for a very long time. This is an issue that I've never seen addressed very clearly. Actually, I'm not sure I've ever really seen it addressed at all (except in the paper I'm working on, of course). If we consider the purchase of existing assets as speculative, then a large percent of savings enters the speculative whirl. It's not at all clear how that flow of wealth relates to Keynsian real sector models. Clearly, in the 1990s, a lot of that speculative investment eventually ended paying for some high living and a low unemployment rate. This is not really covered by the interaction between the financial and real sectors that Keynes wrote about. Barney
Re: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
Ellen Frank wrote: > >Since the surplus is currently being held as government bonds, I would > >expect a surplus-financed tax cut to raise interest rates. > > Why should this be so? Why is it all of a sudden conventional > wisdom that interest rates are determined by the federal > budget rather than by the Federal Reserve? Since this is my opinion, I doubt it's conventional wisdom (but I suppose there's a first time for everything). These two factors are not mutually exclusive. Of course the Fed has some control over interest rates, but pumping $100b into the bond market also has an effect. How fully the Fed can control interest rates is not really clear (at least not to me). It is clear that they often do not exercise the control that they do have, so other factors are important. > Just remember that > mortgage rates and the prime rate went up last year, even > as Clinton's Treasury was retiring over $100b in debt. Exactly. Without that $100b, presumably rates would have increased even more.
Re: Re: Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
Jim Devine wrote: > it's the government _debt_ to the people (i.e., the peoples' asset) that's > held as government bonds. The surplus leads to the reduction of this debt. This reduction is accomplished by using tax dollars, ie income, to buy bond on the open market. Ie the surplus (and the way it is currently being handled) effectively channels income into the bond market. > >I would expect a surplus-financed tax cut to raise interest rates. > why? cet. par., buying up government debt raises the price of government > bonds, notes, and bills, which _lowers_ interest rates. What a tax cut > might do is simply slow down the purchase of government debt instruments > and thus _slow down_ the fall in rates. This is a matter of degree. Reducing the flow of income/taxes into the bond markets exerts upward pressure on interests rates. Whether that effect will fully offset the factors lowering rates is not something us mere non-Fed governor-mortals can know. > Barney, your argument is very close to being an orthodox "crowding out" > argument, one which I think is fallacious. Not quite (although I can see why you'd say that). A 'normal' debt financed tax cut transforms savings into income, so if one buys into the textbook Keynesian story (which I do), you can get some bang for your buck. But with a tax cut from a surplus, income (formerly collected as taxes) simply stays income. In principle, this should help demand, but to lesser extent. However, since GW's tax cut will be highly regressive, the bang is further diminished. > there's also the issue of whether or not St. Alan can fine tune the > economy. I think he's simply been lucky (so far). No question about that. Barney
Implications of Surplus Tax Cut?
When times gets tough, everybody becomes a Keynesian, apparently even GW, who's now selling his tax cut as means of stimulating the economy and averting recession (not the rationale he was using six months ago). Except on issues of timing (eg Laura D'Andrea Tyson's comments) , no one seems to have questioned the notion that a tax cut would have a simulatory effect. However, we're looking at a tax cut financed from a surplus rather than via borrowing, something that's never happened before. The consequences may not be straightforward. Since the surplus is currently being held as government bonds, I would expect a surplus-financed tax cut to raise interest rates. It is interesting to consider whether the negative effects of higher interest rates would offset the increased demand generated by a tax cut. (It's also interesting to consider whether the savings rate will rise, now that investors are getting nervous.) Of course, if the Fed was really clever and had sufficient foresight, it could (in principle) adjust its interventions to compensate. But then if the Fed was clever, it'd have cut rates last fall. Any opinions on the subject? Barney Wagman
Re: government debt purchase
> In today's LA TIMES, there's a story about the US government's purchase of > its bonds (as part of the "paying down" of its debt). Because it can't > always do so (since sellers must be willing to sell and will often wait > until the bonds mature), the government needs somewhere to "park" its > dollars from the budget surplus until sellers are ready. Does anyone (Brad?) know how the government currently handles this? > the research. Even though Al Bore didn't invent the Internet, it was > government-sponsored basic research (including that by the Pentagon) that > formed the basis for the private research and development. The government's involvement in developing internet technology is considerably more recent than DARPANET. For example, the early version of Netscape were little more than souped up versions of Mosaic, which Netscape's founder wrote while working at NCSA (National Center for Supercomputer Applications) in Champaign.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: beginning of the end?
I wonder if a flight to liquidity is still on the table. Are wealth holders willing to hold currency? I tend to think not. What do weatlth holders consider safe instruments these days? (If I were a wealth holder, I'd be moving money into (internationally diversified) govt securities but of course I'm not.) I suspect that U.S. stocks are seen as the safest bet, mad as we think that is. I don't think that capital flows into the U.S. primarily reflects confidence in the value of the dollar per se (although of course that's part of it). Confidence in U.S. business, U.S. equity markets and the U.S. economy in general may be more important. Of course, these factor are inextricably intertwined with exchange rates (and the expectation thereof). But I'm not inclined to view the current situation in terms of fx. I tend to see the strong dollar as a nice indicator of capital flows, etc. In principle, a collapse of consumer demand (and borrowing) in the U.S. could trigger things. But is that in the cards? Yes, debt levels are high, but they've been high and growing for quite a while and no one (other than a few economists) seems to know care. Of course (as Michael has pointed out), if|when things go, high debts levels could make things pretty nasty. But I'm not sure that current levels of indebteness (either at the personal or national level) are unsustainable, until the international financial set find some other place to 'invest'. Barney, Maybe, but there can also be a generalized flight to liquidity -- but what does that mean in today's global financial system? I'm thinking back (OK, worst case scenario) to the opening years of the great depression, when there was a series of runs on national currencies. Currencies that wealth-holders fled to were not secure; they were the targets of subsequent runs. Is there some way to think about the pricking of the dollar bubble in the absence of resurgent confidence in some other currency? Peter
Re: Re: Re: Re: beginning of the end?
> though looking at the foreign-exchange value of the dollar is important, I > think that looking at aggregate demand is more important. There are two > polar alternatives: > > 1) the US trade deficit pulls up the rest of the world, allowing a > mutually-reinforcing demand-side boom amongst the capitalist nations > (especially the already-developed ones), upward harmonization of demand > growth. > > 2) the rest of the world's slow growth (higher interest rates in Europe, > etc.) pull the US down, so that demand growth harmonizes in the downward > direction. > > If the "race to the bottom" (the downward harmonization of wages relative > to labor productivity driven by intensified mobility of capital and, more > generally, the neoliberal revolution)[*] is to be taken seriously, the > first option is unlikely, since as wages fall relative to labor > productivity that hurts consumer demand relative to world potential output. > (The exception, of course, is when consumption is financed via debt > accumulation or inadequate saving, as in the US. But only a small sector of > the world can pull this kind of consumption boom off at any one time.) > > So I think that option #2 is more likely. > It seems likely that capital inflow (which exchange rates presumably reflect) is having an effect on U.S. aggregate demand, by jacking up stock prices and delivering massive capital gains to U.S. investor/consumers, as well as via more traditional channels. (Although I haven't seen any numbers on this, is seems a safe bet that the incomes of millions of retired people now depend on the stock market.) Rather than heading towards upwards or downward harmonization, perhaps we are in a relatively stable regime, where (non-direct) foreign investment transfers wealth to US asset holders, who then use that wealth to continue consuming imports, thus sustaining foreign output and the possibility of continued investment-based transfers to the U.S. Of course, such a regime requires continued confidence in the U.S. as a sink for world savings. Five years ago, I never would have imagined that such confidence could still be in effect, but apparently it is. I now tend to think that a shift of investment away from the U.S. will require not only a loss of confidence in the U.S., but also a alternative trendy investment locale. After the debacles in Russia, Mexico and Asia, I suspect that the financial 'community' is pretty skittish about investment outside the G7. Barney Wagman
Re: Re: beginning of the end?
> As long as the dollar remains high, it indicates that the inflow of > external finance is continuing to sustain US consumption. When the dollar > drops (as it must, eventually), we are in a new era. I think Peter has it right. Until some other part of the world becomes more attractive to capital, the inflows will keep the US going. After all, the money has to go somewhere. US consumers show no signs of reducing borrowing (not with such low unemployment), so the dance goes on. Higher energy prices hurt (or are perceived to hurt) Europe and Japan more than the US, so oil prices aren't likely to have much effect on capital flows. I suspect it will take a major expansion somewhere in the world before things turn around. Barney Wagman
Re: Re: Gas prices
> Our resident enviro economist Jim Barrett says it is supply > problems in the U.S. -- failure to maintain refinery and pipeline > capacity. The regulatory component is about five cents to the > gallon. Certainly, but haven't gas prices risen in Europe as well? And haven't world crude prices been rising? Is there a recovery going on somewhere (hence increased demand)? Or has OPEC discipline increased (I mean prior to last week's meeting).
Re: housing
but the cumulative gain over the last two decades has been just 1.2 percentage points. Why would you look over the last two decades? The important changes occurred in the 90s. Changes in down payment requirements have been enormous. I don't know if the Clinton administration had a hand in this. I suspect it was a combination of banking deregulation and the fact the banking system has been awash with money and needs (profitable) places to put it. Barney Wagman
NEGATIVE net issuance of equity since 1994?
I happened to be perusing the FOF (March 2000) and came across something a bit surprising. Since 1994, the net value of stock issues in the U.S. has been negative. Of course this series was negative during the LBO mania of the late 1980s, but I wouldn't have expected that to be the case now. (I realize that IPO's are a small fraction of the market, but still.) Does this reflect some idyosyncracy of the Fed's accounting? If not, how do we account for this? -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
The term 'international political economy' is/was used by international political scientists like Susan Strange - their use of the the term is almost entirely unrelated to its use by Smith or Marxians or Buchanan (in case things weren't confusing enought). Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Current (heterodox) thinking on interest rates?
Perhaps someone could summarize (or supply citations on) current (heterodox) thinking on interest rate determination (in the U.S.). Seat of the pants empiricism suggests that everything just follows the discount rate but there's probably a better story. I'm woefully behind the times on this subject. Thanks, Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Sorry and statistics question
Rob Schaap wrote: And, btw, (following Joel Blau's post of the other day), is there a table of (actually comparable) comparative international unemployment statitics available on the Net? And are there other salient statistics around that are differently calculated in different (eg OECD) countries? Doug? Cheers, Rob. There's always the ERP (http://www.gpo.ucop.edu/catalog/erp99_appen_b.html) I don't know how comparable its series are. -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: ? Rentier's hoarding ?
> I'd say that instead of hoarding, what can happen today is that the > illiquidity premium goes up (relative to cash), so that the illiquid assets > have to pay more for tying up one's assets (as people get wary about > capital losses on such assets). In this case, most people's portfolios > would shift toward more liquid assets (T-bills rather than corporate stock). It would be interesting to know how the composition of the non-equity part of porfolios has been changing recently. > But even though it's possible (with cash advances and the like) to pay > Mastercard with Visa, eventually you have to pay with cash. The longer you > avoid paying, the more interest & fees you have to pay. ^ That's certainly true. But with revolving credit, consumers don't have to hold cash very long. And being caught up short is a less pressing problem. -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ? Rentier's hoarding ?
Ellen, I am properly chastised. Now, the question is, does anyone still hoard? There are plenty of virtually risk free, short term financial instruments. The municipal bond market seems pretty damn liquid these days. And for those of us of more modest means, there are interest bearing checking accounts. (Of course there are people, in my neigborhood as it happens, who can't afford bank accounts of all, but of course they have nothing to hoard.) More to the point, does the concept of liquidity preference still make any sense. Consumers certainly don't have to worry about liquidity - we have credit cards. Barney Ellen Frank wrote: Hey Barney! Shame on you! Speculative demand for money. General Theory, Ch 13. "the rate of interest and the price of bonds have to be fixed at the level at which the desire on the part of certain individuals to hold cash (because at that level they feel "bearish" on the future of bonds) is exactly equal to the amount of cash available for the speculative-motive." (p 171) "The concept of hoarding may be regarded as a first approximation to the concept of liquidity preference... the habit of overlooking the relation of the rate of interest to hoarding may be part of the explanation why interest has been regarded as the reward of not- spending whereas, in fact, it is the reward of not-hoarding." (p174) Now didn't Marx say that a miser is simply a capitalist gone mad? Ellen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >Ellen Frank wrote: > >> ... rentiers hoarding funds and businesses looking >> to expand. > >I don't remember this bit. Why would rentiers >want to hoard? > >-- >Barnet Wagman > >email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 4853 N. Winchester Ave., Apt #2. Chicago, IL 60640-4006 773-275-4084
Re: Re: U.S. Monetary Policy
Ellen Frank wrote: Doug writes: >Dunno, but there's a piece in the current Fortune claiming that Alan >G. really really wants the stock mania to stop, so rates may rise >more and more quickly than anyone ever knew. Hard to tell whether >this is well-leaked or just the reporter's speculation though. > Hey Doug - You know, I just don't beleive this stuff about the stock market. I mean, if the Fed wanted to burst the stock bubble, why not raise margin requirements? Why pussy-foot around with 1/4 point rate increases that the market keeps discounting in advance? There's not even good evidence or precedent for short-term rate increases correlating with lower stock prices. I think the Fed is using whatever lame excuse it can think up to raise interest rates, for pure distributive reasons. Ellen > The notion that Greenspan's target is the stock bubble is now all over the media and I see no reason to doubt it. I don't see any reason to the think that the Fed's consciously trying effect distribution at the present (besides, their core constituency seems to be doing awfully well). Whether it works is another matter. I suspect (based on nothing, really) that Greenspan is pushing through these 1/4 point increases because, really, that's all he can do. In principle, of course, he could take more drastic steps, but even these little rate hikes have been hard to justify, given macro conditions. Besides, do you really think the Fed would wants to risk triggering a recession when the economy is booming, and in an election year, yet? Barney -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
? Rentier's hoarding ? Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: U.S. Monetary Policy
Ellen Frank wrote: ... rentiers hoarding funds and businesses looking to expand. I don't remember this bit. Why would rentiers want to hoard? -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RE: Re: Boeing Strike Agreement Reached: Why?
What's N30? Lisa & Ian Murray wrote: Condit and Co. were pissed 'cause they got their asses kicked on N30 :-) Ian -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Boeing Strike Agreement Reached: Why?
The settlement that Boeing has (finally) offered appears to be a least a bit better than SPEEA's initial demands. That raises the question of why on earth Boeing triggered the strike and was so recalcitrant (as of a week ago, I'm told Boeing wasn't even negotiating). I suppose the conventional wisdom is that Boeing never imagined that SPEEA would actually go out. (As a former SPEEA member, I can see that.) But then why did they let the strike last so long? If I wanted to be mischievous, I'd be tempted to view the whole thing as a stock manipulation ploy. Any thoughts on Boeing's strategy? -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: U.S. Monetary Policy; Operation Twist?
Operation Twist? What does that refer to? Edwin Dickens wrote: The Treasury has purchased $2 billion in long term government bonds in the last month. It appears prepared to buy long bonds at an accelerating rate through November. And the Fed seems prepared to go along by trying to protect the dollar from the Treasury's purchases with a higher Federal funds rate. But since it's long term interst rates that are most important to domestic aggregate demand, the over-all effect should be quite stimulative. That's Operation Twist all over again. That's also the political business cycle at its best. Edwin (Tom) Dickens -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Brad on the air!
Haven't BOTH the mean and median savings rates declined over the last decade? Brad De Long wrote: Which is one big reason that average (instead of median) savings rates are pretty worthless as indicators of what's going on; the averages are overwhelmingly influenced by the rich... -- -- Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Query on Fed Flow of Funds data; is there documentation?
Is there any document or book that fully defines the items in the Fed's "Flow of Funds" data? The data itself is available on the Fed's web page but I haven't found anything that specifies how they define things. Thanks, Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PEN-L:10234] Query on CBOT
There was an interesting little piece related to this on NPR, earlier this year. They reported that while many midwestern farmers trade in the commodity markets, farmers do not use options as hedges per se (i.e. they do not take positions that hedge what they've actually planted). Instead, farmers tend to speculate in agricultural commodities. I don't have any details. Carrol Cox wrote: Someone recently posted me as follows. Could anyone answer her question. <to promote the exchange a hedge for farmers. What percentage of the billions that go through there are producers or consumers mitigating risk may be tracked somewhere. It would be interesting.>> (By "consumers" she means, e.g., General Mills managing its wheat needs.) Carrol --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chicago, IL 60622
Re: [PEN-L:9698] Gen. Equilibrium
Which part of this rather peculiar passage do you see as contrary to the Keynesian, pk story? What Keynes called 'classical' economics (which we call neo-classical) is primarily Marshallian, which is to say partial not general equilibrium analysis. I don't know if Walras' general equilibrium perspective had made inroads among the Brits of Keyne's era. Doug Henwood wrote: Mark Blaug writes in Economic Theory in Retrospect (5th ed., p. 290): "Utility theory was gradually deprived of all its bite and reduced from cardinal to ordinal utility and from ordinal utility to 'revealed preference'; cost theories of value were shown, not to be wrong, but only valid in special cases; and general equilbrium virtually disappeared by 1900, only to be revived in the 1930s by Hicks and Samuelson as 'everybody's economics'" This isn't the story you get from Keynes or modern post-Keynesians; what's up here? Doug --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [PEN-L:8841] So why the hike then?
Actually, I suspect that the markets would have reacted positively to whatever the Fed did. If the rates had not been raised, it would have been taken as an indication that the everything is wonderful. The fact that they did raise rates (a little) is viewed as an indication the Greeenspan is keeping things under control, so again, its copecetic (sic?). The point is that the conditions driving the stock market to new heights - whatever they are - have not abated. Anything the Fed says or does is likely to be viewed as validation of the upward spiral. That's the great thing about oracles - you can interpret their pronouncements anyway that's convenient. Excelsior, Barney Rob Schaap wrote: G'day Pen-pals, Er, what's going on? The Dow is up more than 5% for the week for no reason other that interest rates went up by as much as expected. One inference is that the 'neutral policy setting' signalled by Greenspan has been taken seriously - that his was a hopeless gesture aimed only at an inflation projection all the more likely to be pressed upwards by his own professed 'neutrality'. Well, maybe the structural problem with the current account ain't as big a problem as some might have thought, perhaps record US consumer-debt and record low US savings ain't a problem after all. But ain't anybody out there asking why, then, Alan 'Hidden Hand' Greenspan upped the rate in the first place? -- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] --
Re: [PEN-L:8697] Re: Re: the right-wing ascendancy
I seem to recall that sometime back in the 1970s, William F. Buckley (&| the National Review &| someone of that ilk) held a conference on reasserting conservative thought/ideology. The result was a rather specific program that included financing academic research and establishing conservative research institutions. (Could this have been the origin of the American Enteprise Institute?) Someone may have written a book on this - does that ring a bell with anyone? --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4409] Re: econometrics textboundary="------------633382320B18EC0892B3828D"
--633382320B18EC0892B3828D It's been quite a while since I taught econometrics, but Studenmund (sic?) used to be far and way the clearest undergraduate text available. Peter Dorman wrote: > I will be supervising an independent study next term and need to assign > an undergraduate econometrics text. Any recommendations for something > not too difficult, with exercises for the student to work on, etc? He > will be taking a "real" metrics course next year in grad school, so all > that's needed is the foundation. Thanks. > > Peter --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --633382320B18EC0892B3828D It's been quite a while since I taught econometrics, but Studenmund (sic?) used to be far and way the clearest undergraduate text available. Peter Dorman wrote: I will be supervising an independent study next term and need to assign an undergraduate econometrics text. Any recommendations for something not too difficult, with exercises for the student to work on, etc? He will be taking a "real" metrics course next year in grad school, so all that's needed is the foundation. Thanks. Peter --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- --633382320B18EC0892B3828D--
[PEN-L:2494] Re: Re: Orwell's rulesboundary="------------D2D496CB14A8B54E57156019"
--D2D496CB14A8B54E57156019 Even though his work is very formal, Jean-Pascal Benassy manages to write quite clearly. This is particularly impressive (and ironic) as he is a frenchman writing in english. (There are no translators listed in his books, so I presume that he writes in english.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > A few economists write well. Irving fisher was perhaps the clearest. > Milton Friedman, also. Galbraith, of course, is the most fun to read. > The rest of us are an abomination. > -- > Michael Perelman > Economics Department > California State University > Chico, CA 95929 > > Tel. 530-898-5321 > E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1361 N. Hoyne, 2nd floor Chicago, IL 60622 773-645-8369 -- --D2D496CB14A8B54E57156019 Even though his work is very formal, Jean-Pascal Benassy manages to write quite clearly. This is particularly impressive (and ironic) as he is a frenchman writing in english. (There are no translators listed in his books, so I presume that he writes in english.) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A few economists write well. Irving fisher was perhaps the clearest. Milton Friedman, also. Galbraith, of course, is the most fun to read. The rest of us are an abomination. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1361 N. Hoyne, 2nd floor Chicago, IL 60622 773-645-8369 -- --D2D496CB14A8B54E57156019--
[PEN-L:402] Re: Crash of '99?
A little comment on the conventional wisdom (in its various forms): It's a mistake to assume - as nearly all mainstream commentators do these days - that the U.S. stock market is a LEADING indicator. Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't. It wouldn't surprise me at all if world financial/economic woes yield further capital flight to the U.S. and a consequent stock market rebound, independent of what's happenning in the real U.S. economy. ________ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___
[PEN-L:199] Re: pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line
That would be great. (I'm very big on threads - among other advantagous,
using them let's me extinguish
a whole series of flames and counter-flames with one push of the delete key.)
Thanks
__
Barnet Wagman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
773-645-8369
2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor
Chicago, IL 60622
__
[PEN-L:186] pen-l format: removing the prefix from the subject line
Is it possible - without a lot of work - to remove the [PEN-L:xxx] prefix from the subject line? The prefix (actually just the message number) screws up Netscape's threading, which makes reading a series of related comments much less convenient. Does anyone else feel this way? Thanks, Barnet Wagman __ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-645-8369 2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor Chicago, IL 60622 __
Re: computers and productivity
"g-deficient" ? What's that?
Yours trying to stay abreast of all the buzzwords,
_______
Barnet Wagman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
773-645-8369
2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor
Chicago, IL 60622
__
Re: Exotic genocide in early America
It is well documented that around half the indigenous population of Mexico was
killed by diseases introduced (unintenionally) by Europeans. The case
of what is now the U.S. is less clear but probably similar. See _The Invasion
of America_ (I'm ashamed to say that I can't remember the author of
this excellent book). There may be more recent works on this subject,
but I haven't kept up.
______
Barnet Wagman
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
773-645-8369
2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor
Chicago, IL 60622
__
Re: scale economies
Scale economies may not be the only 'technical' reason for larger firm size; in industries such as aerospace and software, development costs may favor large scale. In the past, production costs may have been much greater than development costs, but that is no longer necessarily the case. The extreme case, of course, is the software industry, where 'production' costs are virtually nothing, but where there are nevertheless advantages to size, not only for the market power it brings but also because of the need to amortize development costs. Aerospace is a somewhat less extreme case. As I recall, Boeing employs nearly as many engineers as production workers; most of the former are involved in development. I'd guess that development costs are significant in the auto industry as well. > Why is GM so damn big then? ______ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-645-8369 2118 W. Le Moyne St., 1st floor Chicago, IL 60622 __
Re: Goodbye ISDN: a cyber-earthquake?
Actually, if this technology works, it should also be able to support telephone service and cable TV transmissions. If so, a major re-shuffling of power in the telecommunications industries could be in the offing. I rarely get worked up about new technology in this industry, but this one may actually be important. Barnet Wagman Economics, U. of Northern B.C. __ Barnet Wagman [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-645-8369 1st floor 2118 W. Le Moyne St. Chicago, IL 60622 __
Re: Is listproc working okay?
Actually, I'd really appreciate NOT having 'PEN-' in the header. Without it, I can sort replies by subject, and keep a set of related replies together (the poor man's version of threaded messages). Actually, it's the message number that interfere's with sorting. Thanks, Barnet Wagman J Cullen wrote: > Also, if you get to tinkering with the list mechanics, how about putting > PEN-L back in the subject line? It helps me keep my email lists straight. > > Thanks, > > -- Jim Cullen
[PEN-L:12661] Re: ethnic terminology
In Canada, the term 'Native American' is never used, presumably because of the association between 'America' and U.S. The CBC (Canadian public radio) uses the the term 'Indigenous Peoples' most of the time; 'First Nations Peoples' seems to be the preferred term in official statements by, uh, First Nations organizations and academics (we have a programme in 'First Nations Studies'), at least in British Columbia. But I don't think that either of these terms have come into common usage. Barnet Wagman Economics U. of Northern B.C.
[PEN-L:12451] Re: M-FEM: Role of Prostitutes & Shoe-shiners union in Spain? (fwd)
In his book on the war, _In Homage to Catalonia_, George Orwell talked about shoe shiners (I imagine he called them bootblacks) as being strong supporters of anarchism and - I think - as being unionized. Barnet Wagman
[PEN-L:10675] Re: What's driving the unemployment rate?
More vulgar empiricism: Compared to last year, we've had both increased job growth and decreased workforce growth over the last three months. But Doug is correct - employment growth is the larger determinant of recent declines in the unemployment rate. I figure that the slowdown in workforce growth accounts for only around 12% of the decline the unemployment rate (since Feb). Barnet Wagman Economics Programme University of Northern British Columbia in Chicago (i.e. I'm on leave)
[PEN-L:10649] What's driving the unemployment rate?
Based on a (very) cursory look at (U.S.) employment stats from the last couple of months, it appears that the declining unemployment rate is being driven by the slow growth &| decline of the workforce, rather than by employment growth. Has anyone else noticed this? And is it unusual? I usually associate low unemployment with strong job growth. Have there been other episodes of the (official) unemployment rate being driven down by the workforce, rather than by job creation? It would be interesting see if the declining workforce growth correlates with an increase in the number of 'discouraged' workers. Unfortunately, the discouraged workers stats are not available from the BLS web site, so I haven't seen them. Does anyone have them for the last year or so? Barnet Wagman Economics Programme University of Northern British Columbia in Chicago (i.e. I'm on leave)
[PEN-L:10244] Query: readings on the (mis?) measurement of unemployment (U.S.)
I'd like to get up to speed on the measurement of unemployment in the U.S. In particular, I'm curious about whether we could be seeing a longish-run increase in the undermeasurement of unemployment. Obviously, the unemployment rate understates the problem on unemploy- ment, by not adjusting for underemployment and 'discouraged' workers. The question is whether this mis-mearsurement is getting worse. Any suggestions on what to read? Thanks, Barnet Wagman
[PEN-L:4100] Need help with SNA/OECD data on government spending by function
I'm trying to figure out how the OECD calculates its statistics on "Total Government Outlay by Function" for health, education and "Social Security and Welfare"; any advice and/or references to readings on the subject would be greatly appreciated. In its "National Accounts, Detailed Tables" (which I have on floppy but NOT in printed form), the OECD has data on government spending by function. Unfortunately this data is not available for all OECD countries. In particular, Canada (where I live these days) is missing. I need to construct series on Canadian government spending on health, education and welfare that are comparable to the OECD data available for other countries. So far, I haven't been able to figure out what is actually in the OECD series. These categories are part of the SNA, so in principle their composition should be described in the _System of national accounts 1993 / prepared under the auspices ...__. I find this document utterly opaque and haven't gotten anything useful out of it. I also haven't succeeded in contacting the OECD (they don't list a phone number or email address in their documentation). If you know anything about how these number are constructed (or where to find out), please let me know. Thanks, Barnet Wagman Economics Programme U. Northern B.C.
[PEN-L:3028] Re: Intnl Budget Deficits Data Request
Do not assume that OECD's deficit numbers match up with those from the IMF. It would probably be best to stick with the OECD numbers for all years you are looking at. Barnet Wagman Economics U. of Northern B.C.
[PEN-L:2761] Re: intermediate macro
Is this an intro text or an intermediate text? I used to use Colander's intermediate, which I thought was out of print. Thanks, Barnet Wagman Economics U. of Northern B.C. [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 5 Feb 1996, James Michael Craven wrote: > Note: > > Take a look at Colander's Economics 2nd Ed. Colander is big on the > Macro foundations of Micro--in contrast to the view of the Macro as > nothing more than the sum of the Micros. Colander deals with path > dependency, interdependence of AD/AS curves, etc. I use the Field > Guide to the U.S. Economy and Heilbroner's "The Nature and Logic of > Capitalism" as required supplementary texts. I'm only sorry that > Fusfeld's Principles of Political Economy is out of print and date. > > Jim Craven > *---** > * James Craven * "All things have inner meaning and * > * Dept of Economics* form and power." (Hopi) * > * Clark College* "In this world the unseen has power." * > * 1800 E. McLoughlin Blvd. * (Apache) * > * Vancouver, Wa. 98663 * "Be satisfied with needs instead of * > * (360) 992-2283 * wants." (Tenton Lakota) * > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * "The Great Spirit is always angry * > * * with men who shed innocent blood."* > * * (Iowa)* > * * "It is no longer good enough to cry * > * * peace, we must act peace, live peace, * > * * and live in peace."(Shenandoah) * > * * "A people without a history is like * > * the wind over buffalo grass."(Lakota) * > ** > * "There are many paths to a meaningful sense of the natural world." * > * (Blackfeet); "A shady lane breeds mud." (Hopi); * > * "Strive to be a person who is never absent from an important act." * > * (Osage); "Men in search of a myth will usually find one."(Pueblo) * > * "Life is not separate from death. It only looks that way." * > * (Blackfeet); "Some are smart but they are not wise."(Shoshone); * > * "The one who tells the stories rules the world." (Hopi); * > * "Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance." (Lakota); * > * "The only things that need the protection of men are the things of * > * men, not the things of the spirit." (Crow); "When the legends* > * die, the dreams end; there is no more greatness."( Shawnee ); * > * "I love a people who do not live for the love of money."(Dwamish) * > * "Stolen food never satisfies hunger." (Omaha); "Man's law changes * > * with his understanding of man. Only the laws of the spirit always * > * remain the same." (Crow); "It takes a whole village to raise a* > * child." (Omaha); "Everything the Power does, it does in a circle."* > * (Lakota); "Man has responsibility, not power."(Tuscarora) * > * "With all things and in all things, we are relatives." (Lakota) * > * MY EMPLOYER HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH MY PRIVATE/PROTECTED OPINION * >
[PEN-L:5360] Keynes is dead (Re. Next Recession
> Just to be a bit heretical amongst the heretics, but is the argument for
> Keynesian deficits very sound anymore in a global economy?
> If the US government deficit spends, doesn't a large proportion of the
> spending get sent overseas through imports, thus short-circuiting any
> multiplier effect?
When it comes to macro effects, globalization arguments should be taken
with a grain of salt (and maybe some aspirin). U.S. imports are on the
order of 15% of GDP. That's high historically (for the U.S.) but
whether it's high enough to make deficit spending ineffective is not at
all obvious.
Barnet Wagman
Economics Programme
U. of Northern British Columbia
[PEN-L:5328] Re. Next recession
I don't have the numbers at hand, but I believe that Canada has cut its
government spending much more drastically that the U.S. has to date.
Certainly, the budget that was passed this year (which includes an absolute
reduction in (real) federal spending) goes further than the U.S. has towards
macro-suicide. Of course, the effects of these cuts in macro (as opposed to
human) terms aren't apparent yet. But it won't be long.
Barnet Wagman
Economics Programme
U. of Northern British Columbia
[PEN-L:4545] The Reserve Army of Prison Labor?
Our local paper recently ran an interesting little AP article entitled
"Prison labor bosses meet for conference", about "... the first national
conference on prison industries."
According to AP, 80,000 U.S. prisoners are "employed" as workers in
prison industries that produce $1 billion of output a year.
I'd like to find out more about this, particularly about the history of
for-profit prison labor in the U.S.
If you have any information on the subject, or suggestions on readings,
data sources, etc., please let me know. (It would probably be best to
respond to me directly.)
Thanks,
Barnet Wagman
Economics Programme
University of Northern
British Columbia
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: fed policies
Although I have absolutely no numbers to back this up, I suspect that the recovery (such as it was) was spent before the Fed raised rates. The role of low rates in the recovery has, I believe, been drastically overrated. Rates were down long before any recovery was apparent. (Of course early in the recession, banks cut credit to smaller businesses; low rates can't do anything if they go along with tightly rationed credit.) As I understand it, the Fed has historically set policies that favored the financial sector over industry. So Greenspan taking the first opportunity to raise rates should not be a surprise, and need not imply a change in the balance of power between finance and industrial capital. The real story in the recovery (and its imminent demise) may be the effects of massive cuts in real Federal spending swamping a 'normal' business cycle upswing. Barney Wagman
In defense of the 'esoteric' (from the sidelines)
Personally, I haven't read any of the recent discussion of the LTV (or of GE either for that matter). It's not at the top of my mental queue these days (and like everyone else, I'm short of time). BUT that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be on pen-l; on the contrary, there should be a place where these kinds of issues can be discussed, and it seems to me that pen-l is that place. There are LOTS of things on pen-l that I delete without reading; that's the nature of electronic bulletin boards. The advantage of this media (and of the Net in general) is that we get the choice of lot of stuff -- the disadvantage is that we need edit more than ever. Certainly, it would be nice if we could have our discussions structured in 'strings'. That requires upping pen-l technology considerably; I doubt that any of us are in a position to support that (I'm certainly not). I'm perfectly happy to get all kinds of stuff (and to use the delete key mercilessly). I'd rather have the opportunity to choose myself, as opposed to having us fragmented into many tiny groups. Viva le status quo Barney Wagman
Re: the real interest rate
The Fed is talking about issuing inflation indexed bonds. I have no idea why private sector lenders dhave not done so. Perhaps they think that they can forecast inflation, and out ahead on the deal. Barney Wagman
Re: natural unemployment
This would also explain the economic failure of the former Soviet republics; obviously they suffer from excess ethnic diversity.
Re: The New World Order/Running Shoes of Capitalism
Ah, but there is only one Michael Jordan, and presumably his contract with Nike is exclusive. Economics has always underestimated the importance of advertising and marketing in defining preferences and stimulating demand. One of the great 'triumphs' of American business over the last decade has beenn its success in utilizing popular culture, icons and heroes, including some very unlikely candidates. Whou would ever have imagined, back in the early 80s, that rap could be used in adverstising? Barney Wagman
Re: The New World Order/Running Shoes of Capitalism
Ah, but there is only one Michael Jordan, and presumably his contract with Nike is exclusive. Economics has always underestimated the importance of advertising and marketing in defining preferences and stimulating demand. One of the great 'triumphs' of American business over the last decade has beenn its success in utilizing popular culture, icons and heroes, including some very unlikely candidates. Whou would ever have imagined, back in the early 80s, that rap could be used in adverstising? Barney Wagman
Re: Doug Orr's Internet Comment's
The Net's popularity and success (in linking many people and distributing information) resulted from the fact that it was paid for by the government, and made available to academics essentially for free. It is NOT at all obvious that a 'for-profit' network would be as widely used. Existing private sector networks are to expensive for many people; even Compuserve has an hourly rate that I find prohibitive. One danger in the commericalization of the Internet is that pricing may effectively restrict its use to businesses and the well-funded elite of researchers. That certainly has been the case with other private information services. A computer network is characterized by almost unimaginable economies of scale. Futhermore, the utility of the Internet depends, in large part, on having a large number of people using it on a regular basis. In other words, there are very good reasons to treat the Net as a public good, and to keep its provision and funding in the hands of the government. I'm sick of the "information superhighway" metaphor, but in this situation it it apt. Privatizing our system of roads and highways would be a disaster; privatizing the Net would be a disaster as well. Barney Wagman Stockton College Pomona, NJ
Re: Doug Orr's Internet Comment's
The Net's popularity and success (in linking many people and distributing information) resulted from the fact that it was paid for by the government, and made available to academics essentially for free. It is NOT at all obvious that a 'for-profit' network would be as widely used. Existing private sector networks are to expensive for many people; even Compuserve has an hourly rate that I find prohibitive. One danger in the commericalization of the Internet is that pricing may effectively restrict its use to businesses and the well-funded elite of researchers. That certainly has been the case with other private information services. A computer network is characterized by almost unimaginable economies of scale. Futhermore, the utility of the Internet depends, in large part, on having a large number of people using it on a regular basis. In other words, there are very good reasons to treat the Net as a public good, and to keep its provision and funding in the hands of the government. I'm sick of the "information superhighway" metaphor, but in this situation it it apt. Privatizing our system of roads and highways would be a disaster; privatizing the Net would be a disaster as well. Barney Wagman Stockton College Pomona, NJ
Query: OMB Health Care Study?
I've heard that some government agency, possibly the OMB, did a study of health care alternatives that was very favorable to a Canadian style single payer system. If you've heard of it and have a citation, please let me know. Thanks, Barney Wagman
Query: OMB Health Care Study?
I've heard that some government agency, possibly the OMB, did a study of health care alternatives that was very favorable to a Canadian style single payer system. If you've heard of it and have a citation, please let me know. Thanks, Barney Wagman
