HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Double-Digit Inflation - The Real Story
Originator: rja@mahogany126
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:30:30 CST


In article <1992Dec14.174745.3017@m5.harvard.edu>, borden@head-cfa.harvard.edu (Dave Borden) writes:
> A popular prediction among Republican "doomsayers" is that with a Democrat
> in office, we'll have double-digit inflation like we did under the last
> Democratic president, Jimmy Carter.  I've been doing some reading, and have
> discovered that the real story is somewhat different than the Republican
> die-hards would like us to believe.
> 
> The roots of the large inflation of the seventies date back to the Nixon
> administration.  Nixon, pressured by dwindling gold reserves, took the dollar
> off of the gold standard in 1971 and announced to the world, in effect, that
> the dollar was backed only by our word.  Having no commodity limiting the
> money supply, the printing presses started to roll, the money supply increased
> faster than was appropriate for our level of economic growth, and inflation
> began to rise.  Inflation rose constantly, peaking under Carter at over
> 13 percent in 1971.  The trend of an increasing rate of inflation was one
> which started in 1971 under Nixon and ended in 1979 under Carter.
> 
> Why did inflation drop?  In October 1979, during the Carter presidency, Paul
> Volcker, newly appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, stopped the
> printing presses.  Disinflation (slow-down in the rate of inflation) occured,
> and along with it the unfortunate but necessary temporary softening of the
> economy and increased unemployment which must accompany any lessening of
> inflation.

  "The cure for inflation is simple to state but hard to implement.  Just as 
  an excessive increase in the quantity of money is the one and only
  important cause of inflation, so a reduction in the rate of monetary
  growth is the one and only cure for inflation.  The problem is not one of
  knowing what to do.  That is easy enough.  Government must increase the
  quantity of money less rapidly.  The problem is to have the political 
  will to take the measures necessary."
                          Milton Friedman "Free to Choose", p 258.

> Hence, an examination of the facts shows that the root cause of seventies
> inflation was actions on the part of the Nixon administration, and that it
> was during the Carter administration that the necessary remedy for inflation
> was enacted.
> 
>     - Dave Borden
>       borden@m5.harvard.edu
-- 
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!)
Xref: sparky alt.politics.bush:14603 alt.president.clinton:1121
From: tleylan@pegasus.com (Tom Leylan)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.president.clinton
Subject: Re: Does Bush hate Xmas or What ?
Date: 16 Dec 92 08:11:49 GMT
Organization: Pegasus,  Honolulu

nancyg@banshee.bellcore.com (Nancy Griffeth) writes:

>>        AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD INCOME
>
>>        Lowest  Second  Third   Fourth  Highest  Top
>>        Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth   Fifth    5%
>>-----------------------------------------------------
>>1977    7,193   17,715  29,287  42,911  76,522  117,023
>>1980    6,836   17,015  28,077  41,364  73,752  110,213
>>1989    7,372   18,341  30,488  46,177  90,150  145,651
>>1990    7,195   18,030  29,781  44,901  87,137  138,756
>%change    0.0      1.8     1.7     4.6    13.9     18.6
>
>This supports the claim that the growth of the 80s was centered 
>on the already well-off.  Mr. Harp was quite right.

One can't make simplistic conclusions from charts and graphs forever or
it will never get "fixed".

Your chart shows raw numbers but what were the sources of those extra
dollars.

Suppose that it was an unusually great time to invest in businesses
i.e. starting your own, expanding or investing in the stock market.

You can't believe that the $15,000 wage earner should be given some
money because he didn't risk a percentage of his income in investments
can you ?

If the economic investment climate was favorable and those earning
below $20,000 didn't invest in America's economy it is hardly a surprise
that they show little more gained than what they received in additional
income.  It could easily be so little because the $20,000 wage earners
were different people and the need for their skills remained static.

Attempts to give everybody 18% across the board increases is kind of
dopey don't you think ?  Why stop there how about if everybody gets
100% increase every year...

It wasn't Reagan's policies or Bush's.  If slot machines pay back 98%
of every dollar and $20,000 wage earners play shot machines they are
down 2%, no magic in that.

tom
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:44:29 GMT

In article <BzF24q.19I@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> gtao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Greg ) writes:
>
>So, I suppose you support Dan Rather and his boyz for blinding the Marines
>on the beachs with their camera lights.  Suppose there had been snipers
>waiting for the USMC?  Nice to know that the media had properly illuminated
>our boys, eh? (DEFINATELY POOR JUDGEMENT ON THE PART OF THE PRESS)  
>
>
>*******************************************************************************
>* Gregory Tao                      | E-mail to:  gt38091@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu     * 
There was one theory that if snipers started firing that some of the
journalists would get hurt/killed giving them a lesson in reality.  Dan
Blather and his ilk might then start doing some things differently from that
point on.  I read this in a newspaper ediorial a while back.  The military
knew it would be difficult to keep them out of the staging area and decided to
let them take their chances with the marines on the beach.  An interesting
theory to say the least.

ray

Newsgroups: misc,alt.politics.bush
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 18:44:45 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.211244.22871@news.acns.nwu.edu> tjewald@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Timothy Ewald) writes:

>>5.	The Somolian country is desolate.
>
>Again, its the basically the same point made in 2.  Its not as desolate as
>you might think, and who says that a rebel group needs a jungle to be viable? 
>The Afghans, UNITA, French Resistance, etc. proved that non-jungle terrain is
>just fine.

Afghans have something better than jungles and something Somolia has little
to none of, namely mountains.  Mountains everywhere and very high ones.
The Soviets could do little to disloge the Afghans freedom fighters from
their mountain strongholds.  

>Get your warm and fuzzy heart off the starvation for a moment, and get your
>mind on what our objectives are, and how we can accomplish them and get the
>hell outta there.  I'd wager that its not possible, and certainly not worth
>the risk.  Jeapardizing American lives so that we can all feel-good for the
>holidays --- smells like Military Industrial Complex Spirit...
>
>				property is theft,
>
>				slade the leveller

Well it's obvious not all of us are going to feel good for Christman by
stopping the death by hunger of more than 1000 people a day in Somolia.
I know I will and it seems you won't.  And these constant cliche's about
America always having ulterior motives is a very tired and worn out
chunk of rhetoric than nobody with any savy takes to heart anymore.  Only
those with constant axes to grind engage in such verbiage.

ray

ray
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: bill@cognet.ucla.edu (William M. Eldridge)
Subject: Somalian involvement
Organization: UCLA Cognitive Science Research Program
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:13:21 GMT

I think a large number of Clinton supporters agreed that we
should do something in Somalia, and except for the fact that
we're always manipulated by the press at least to some extent,
I think this is mostly a reflection of people wanting to do
something for people who are dying in large numbers because
of raiding and the lack of supplies, mostly food.  Granted,
almost every country in the world can be found to have military/
strategic significance, and Somalia being next to the Persian
Gulf goes along with this, but I don't remember the pro-military
factions as encouraging intervention - quite the opposite, so
I don't see this as a setup plot to build a new U.S. military
base in the mideast, though that result will probably happen
now, knowing the way things work.

For all I've screamed at Bush, I support him on this one, and
the day the troops arrived in Somalia, I sent money to Care,
which I wouldn't do earlier because it was going for food that
never arrived.

Now I hope Bush or Clinton FINALLY start doing something real
about Bosnia.

And I wish we'd quit being nice to China.
-- 
{{{{ bill eldridge           310-206-3960                x                }}}}
{{{{ bill@cognet.ucla.edu    310-206-3987 fax           xxx              }}}}
{{{{ ~more, ~better, ~faster [80's motto]                x              }}}}
{{{{ ~hot, ~toxic, and ~shallow [90's motto]                              }}}}
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Howard Black)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military showers
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 16:48:51 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <1992Dec18.223740.3812@walter.bellcore.com> fred@pamphlet.NoSubdomain.NoDomain (Fred Eichelman) writes:
>
>At the age of 12 I was sexually molested by a gay male while I was
>in the shower. Obviously he got turned on by me.
>
>I don't think that all gays would do that sort of behavior if
>given the chance. I do think that the percentage of gays that 
>would molest me if given the chance is higher than the percentage
>of heterosexuals that would sexually molest me if given the chance.
>
>What do you think?

    Since you are male, and more sexual abuse is perpetrated by males than
females, this is certainly true.  However, it is well-established that the
percentage of sexual abuse perpetrated by gays is *far less* than that by
hets, even in relative terms (taking into account the "10% gay" stat).  If
you were female, the chances of being molested by a het as opposed to a gay
person are near certainty).

>Perhaps the guy who molested me was really hetero? Would you want
>to make a bet on that?

    Could be...after all, look at all the Catholic (and other Xian) clergy
who are regularly busted for child molestation, and we *know* that those
career religious folks can't be gay ;-)

>I have no use for gays in the same public shower with me.

    No one's asking for you to use them.  Exactly what are you suggesting?

    [testamonial about gay friends deleted]

>I hate homophobia too!
>
>But that doesn't mean I want to shower with them. Not because I don't like
>them, but because of the risk involved. A lot of them are a lot bigger than
>me.

    Do you base all of your generalizations on a single incident?  I think
you would be much happier if you got a counselor, worked through your
understandably negative feelings about the childhood molestation, and
became free of your homophobia (if you don't want to shower with them
"because of the risk involved", that sounds like fear of gays, and if that
isn't homophobia, I don't know what is).

-- 
   ******************************************************************
     Howard Black                             cfthb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu
     Department of Chemistry                  Eastern Illinois Univ. 
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:24:27 GMT

On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
out with the following numbers:

47% Clinton
35% Bush
18% Perot

with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.

In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
on within the stated margin of error.

The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.

P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of
Americans believe handguns should be regulated.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,talk.politics.misc
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Those "nutty" Polls
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:34:58 GMT

In article <1992Dec19.072427.7179@netcom.com> nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd) writes:
>On the eve of the election, CNN's final tracking poll came
>out with the following numbers:
>
>47% Clinton
>35% Bush
>18% Perot
>
>with a margin of errot of +/- 3%.
>
>In other words, those "nutty" polls called the election dead
>on within the stated margin of error.
>
>The next time some idiot with what is apparently no background
>in statistics claims that polls are inaccurate, unscientific,
>bogus, etc--tell them to go away. Polls are actually VERY
>accurate, and are ignored at one's peril.
>
>P.S. According to some other "nutty" polls, 70% of Americans
>believe abortion should remain safe and legal, and 75% of

Of course you'll say a poll is accurate when your side appears to be
winning.  If your side was losing in the opinion polls,  I get the feeling
you'd be telling us how much the polls don't mean anything.

Polls can easily be doctored towards one side or another.

Polls, IMHO, are about just as worthless as TV ratings figures.


Simon

Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bob Novak, Incompetent Pundit
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:23:54 GMT

Hey, Bob--you're a fool!

First Mssr. Novak predicted that Clinton was out even before
the NH primary. Then he predicted that Clinton was out after
losing the NH primary. Then, throughout the campaign, he
made repeated predictions that Clinton was not a contender--
even, mysteriously, right after the Democratic Convention,
when Perot dropped out and the stats were Clinton 55% to Bush's
35% (a number that Bush, by the way, only raised 2.5 points
throughout the rest of his "campaign"). Finally, on the eve
of the election, Novak grudgingly predicted during a round-table
discussion with other pundits that Clinton would
"eke out" a victory by no more than 30 electoral votes, a number
that was only 170 votes short of the truth (an error of 700%);
for comparison, the smallest margin any other pundit predicted
during this discussion was 150 votes.

In short, Bob Novak is incompetent. Unfortunately, unlike
incompetent presidents, there doesn't seem to be anything we can
do about incompetent pundits except ignore them, which is what
I've started to do and urge everyone else to do as well. Maybe
the folks at CNN will finally wise up and get somebody in there
to replace him that has at least a marginal grip on reality.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Somalia
Organization: University of Rochester
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:37:10 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.230457.12951@Cadence.COM> charb@Cadence.COM (Sue Charbonneau) writes:
>In article <BywG9u.566@apollo.hp.com> goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com (Alex Goykhman) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec5.024143.18001@gallant.apple.com> kiddyr@gallant.apple.com (Ray Kiddy) writes:
>>
>>>caused. The lawlessness in Somalia is a reflection of the fundamental lawlessness
>>>of American society, the lawlessness that we export abroad...
>>
>>    One can't help but conlude that Somalia was a country of law until they
>>    began importing lawlessness from the U.S.

They probably imported too many of those violent movies made by the Hollywood
liberals.  You know, the ones that Clinton surrounded himself with in Los 
Angeles during the campaign and proclaimed that he and they would rebuild
American.  Heaven help us all.


>Yeah, where a couple hundred men
>can beat up one defenseless woman.

I noticed quite a few women beating on her too.  Just an objective comment.  

ray
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
Subject: Idiot conservatives concerned about military showering was: Re: Showering in the Military (Re: Gays in the Military..what nobody is talking about:)
Summary: freakin nazis
Date: 15 Dec 92 04:06:36 GMT
Followup-To: misc.test
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


This whole thread is pathetically stupid.  If homosexuals are to be
banned from the military on the basis of public showering, or public
living conditions,the same argument could be made for banning them from:

Grade School
High School
College
Public Pools
Gymnasiums
Hospitals (can't have gay male doctors showering together)
YM/WCA
Sports Clubs

and many other public places.

You hear right wingers whining about being called fascists all the
time...  This sort of thinking is the reason.

-Howard


-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
"Peace Symbol my ass! That's the oldest symbol of evil known to man!"
- Hagbard Celine
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...



-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey                       			   howard@netcom.com
"Peace Symbol my ass! That's the oldest symbol of evil known to man!"
- Hagbard Celine
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Macroeconomics 101
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:23:07 GMT

The Republicans are saying "I told you so" about the recent
uptick in the economy. They STILL don't get it: the reason
the economy is getting better is because they've been driven
from office, and their loss is everyone else's gain.

Look, economies go up because people believe in them, and down
when people are feeling concerned about the future. For the first
time in 12 years people have a genuine sense of hope, and, as
a result, this will probably be a record-breaking Christmas
retail season. People finally have a REASON to celebrate.

If Bush had won people would have been even more bummed out
than they'd been, and the economy would have gone even deeper
in the toilet.

The Republicans are right to take credit for the recent
improvement in the economy--but only because they LOST.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: nbh@netcom.com (N.B. Hedd)
Subject: Bush WANTED to lose
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 07:25:10 GMT

There's been a lot of punditry attempting to figure out why
Bush ran such a poor campaign. One possible explanation, of
course, is that he was as incompetent at running his campaign
as he was at running the country, and that his loss shouldn't
therefore be that surprising. But the other possibility, of
course, is that there is more to it than that.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Bush was, in fact,
the moderate Republican his longtime friends all claimed.
Suppose that this moderate Republican, out of blind ambition,
made a Faustian bargain with Reagan and the neo-fascist far-
right loon wing of the Republican party in order to become
Vice President and then President. Suppose, having made this
deal with the devil, Bush suddenly woke up sometime in the middle
of this year's Republican Convention to find that a large
group of small-minded compassionless bigoted fascists were
throwing a Nuremburg rally in his honor--EXCEPT HE WASN'T, IN
THE END, WILLING TO PLAY FUEHRER? What could he do to save
himself and the country? 

Lose the election.

And not just lose it, but lose it so hard and ugly that the
far-right was discredited within the Republican party and
sent back under the rocks from which it had slithered.

Did you notice how, in his acceptance speech, Bush actually
seemed RELIEVED? Hardly the way a person who'd wanted to win
would have acted. Perhaps, in the end, Bush returned to his
roots and, in an act of sacrifice, fell on his sword for the
good of his country. Perhaps he is, truly, a tragic figure:
trapped in a bad deal gone increasingly sour, unable for
years to find his way back, but triumphing in the end.

Or perhaps he just f*cked up.

P.S. The ultimate irony is that, had Bush been half as gracious
during his campaign as he was during his acceptance speech, he
might well still be President.
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------
Feinstein '94
Clinton/Gore '96
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush
From: sbooth@lonestar.utsa.edu (Simon E. Booth)
Subject: Re: Bob Dole, Sore Loser
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 23:23:03 GMT


(stupid tirade about Senator Dole deleted)

The person who posted the original tirade is a sore winner.

His party wins and yet they're still PO'ed about things.

Simon
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Trip on Space Ship 3.
From: mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin)
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:56:35 GMT

boesch@cs.washington.edu (Eric Boesch) writes:

>This is not good science.  Noise travels with great difficulty in thin
>air, and interstellar space is an almost perfect vacuum, so radio
>waves are almost immobile in space.  A radio wave in a perfect vacuum
>does not move at all; that is what is called a "stationary wave".  For
>a less extreme example, the first men on the moon heard a radio
>programme that researchers discovered had been last broadcast in 1925!
>The further away from Earth you go, the farther back in time you go.
>Followers of Einstein proved this by an experiment where they kept
>very accurate clocks at the top and at the bottom of a very tall
>building, and because of the differing distances of the clocks from
>the Earth's center, the clocks lost synchronization.  As an extreme
>case of this phenomenon, the light traveling from distant galaxies far
>away may be billions of years old!

Hey!  No fair cutting in on my a.r.k. Dr. Science (TM) franchise!
I even have a master's degree!

(The REAL reason why the clocks were out of synchronization has to
do with the Higgs particle.  As you may know, the quarks and leptons
from which matter is made get their masses from the Higgs particle.
The large number of Higgs particles in the vicinity of a body as
massive as the Earth is sufficient to gum up all the little wheels
and gears in those *very* sensitive clocks, thus making them run
slower.  But don't tell the Physics Cabal Police I told you, because
they want to perpetuate these silly rumors about General Relativity,
in between keeping Kibo from asking non-Allowed questions.)
-- 
Matt McIrvin
From: echeverr@scf.usc.edu (5150)
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Just thought you might like to know...
Date: 14 Dec 1992 19:55:35 -0800
Organization: <censored>
NNTP-Posting-Host: sal-sun199.usc.edu

In article <1992Dec15.030907.27571@nuscc.nus.sg> matmcinn@nuscc.nus.sg (Brett McInnes) writes:
>"Ouagadougou" is so spelt. And it isn't in Upper Volta, it's in Burkina
>Faso. Everybody knows that.
>But this place called "Los Angeles"...where the hell is that?
                                                 ^^^^

Exactly.

5150
someone graduate me, fast
Newsgroups: alt.religion.kibology