HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: degroff@tricorder.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: economic skeptics
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:18:23 GMT
Distribution: usa

In article <ARG.92Apr6143113@huxley.bitstream.com>, arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman) writes:
others comments deleted...disagreement about feasibility of limited local
tests|> 
|> For macroeconomic policy, this is impossible.   The smallest division which
|> would  constitute   a fair test is  the   national level.  The  separate(!)
|> economies of the individual states  or metropolitan  areas are too  tightly
|> coupled in this country.
|> 
|> How can  you "do an  experiment" of low inflation  or competitive monies in
|> New York when New York is forbidden to coin money?  Would Congress agree to
|> exempt Florida  residents from paying most of  their federal income  tax to
|> "test" the  idea of a  smaller government?   Or exempt  Massachusetts banks
|> from some  federal banking regulations?   Moreover,  such "tests" would  be
|> meaningless since people, goods,  and capital can  move freely  between the
|> states, e.g., if one  state were  to eliminate SS  as a  "test", old people
|> would move out and young people would move in.
|> 
Yes, very hard not impossible consider "Enterprise and Zero Duty zones" 
which are special locals with varient tax rules as experiments to encourage
production or trade.   Voting with feet is exactly one of the significant
aspects to monitor in a test...being careful not to confound other factors...
there is a background flux of movement to bve subtracted. 
|> The bottom line is that in the case of macro-economic  policy, the economic
|> system is so complex that we cannot accurately model these  changes  to any
|> degree of reliability on a   smaller  scale  than national,  and  even  the
|> national level is  not much  of a controlled  test.  Our only valid working
|> models (since  you  insist  we have  them) are  ourselves!  To  continue to
|> insist that all new  national policies  be "tested"  on  a  local level  is
|> unrealistic.
|> --
|> Adam R. Grossman
|> arg@bitstream.com
Considering some of the most significant "national policies" of the past,
we see experiments of this kind  but unplanned...change the trade
restrictions and duties with Canada and Mexico, certain businesses
shift operations, (not so economic...restrict abortion by state,
poor become criminals, nonpoor go to states with less restrictions) 
  There are powerful incentives in regulation and taxaction 
"the power to tax is the power to destroy"!!!  Using it in a 
differential manner is feasible but will get large resistance under a
banner of "equal opportunity/equal load" in the US.   
  (at a more personal level, I resent considerably that some large
dividend paying companies get tax incentives that allow them to pay
no taxes, a strong argument NOT to do such experiments by area or
group is how it becomes a political manipulaition tool with input
(process control) primarily from special interested on the "we win"
side. Les
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 21:18:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnewsl.1992Apr14.211819.12112
Distribution: na
Organization: AT&T

For those interested in the "serious" economics of
airline deregulation and who are motivated to do
some reading or research, Prof. Steven Morrision of
Northeastern University in Boston has done a lot
of work in this area (books, articles), and is one
of the leading economists in the industrial economics
of the airline industry.

The general conclusion of Morrison's work is that
deregulation has lowered fares for air travel.  I 
suggested consulting some of his articles for the 
detailed analysis.

-- 
Jim Lacey          
my own opinions    
email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bwise@hemlock.mitre.org (Barry Wise)
Subject: Re: Get Back on Welfare Where You Belong!
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 12:24:03 GMT

In article <RJC.92Apr13200716@brodie.cstr.ed.ac.uk> rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk (Richard  
Caley) writes:

> How on earth did anyone get a `cosmetology' board and licenses for
> hairdressers set up? If the references to Washington and dollars were
> removed I'd assume this was an anti-Brussels joke, and a poor one
> because it is so unbelievable. 

Believe it or not, it's a health and safety issue (and when the gov's involved  
your neither healthy or safe).  Cosmetologists used to use (and still do I  
believe) some very harsh chemicals (bleaches, hair straighteners).  In  
untrained hands they can cause very bad chemical burns.  And they do use sharp  
objects next to people (scissors, razors).  Hence the desire to "license" to  
make sure they had been trained.  The requirement in Virginia used to be 2000  
hours of training, but I think they've lowered it to 1000 hrs. What's going on  
now is a battle with bureaucrats and essentially a guild trying to protect  
their turf.
--
Barry Wise
(bwise@hemlock.mitre.org)
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Tuesday, 7 Apr 1992 16:29:39 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: So what's your alternative to Social Security?
Distribution: usa
 <92095.162049DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <1992Apr6.170430.13512@zip.eecs.umich.edu>

In article <1992Apr6.170430.13512@zip.eecs.umich.edu>, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim
Howe) says:
>








>|>
>
>If the government is going to impose limits the government (or preferably
>independent research) should show that mis-investment is a significant
>problem.  Does it occur 1% of the time, 10%, 50%, etc.  I see no
>reason for the government to place limits if the problem is not
>significant.  Governmental restrictions are likely to be as much of
>a problem as the problem it attempts to fix.
>

Let's look at it this way.  If the government is going to require savings
of some level to be paid into Individual Savings Accounts (ISA), and,
will insure those who outlive their savings, for example by using the ISA
monies of those who die before retirement, then they have to place some
limits on the riskiness of investments.  If they don't I'm going to go
out and invest my IRA in as many schemes with high-risk, high return
investments i can find.  If I win I can spend my retirement living high
on the hog.  If not, the government will pick up the tab.  Since economics
argues that any rational investor would do this, the government has
two choices.  First, it could not insure those who outlive their
savings.  This scheme penalizes those persons who made bad investments,
who just lived longer then they thought they would, etc.  Most people that
I know feel that this is just too harsh.  The other alternative is that
the insuring agency (government) tries to limit risk-taking in investing
activities.  Only by doing this could the govt. insure that the system
remains actuarially sound.

Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:55:49 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.hac.com (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Apr9.233020.16418@odin.corp.sgi.com> thant@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman) writes:
 
>And what personal liberty actually means without private property
>is left as an exercise for the reader.

Complete elimination of private property while communal wealth exists 
is probably an imaginary condition.

However, Native Americans and various other tribal cultures
considered themselves more free before invaders established private
ownership of land and other resources.  In theory I see no reason
communal ownership of major assets must be antithetical to liberty,
but resolving the conflict might require a tribal culture that would
have serious costs as well as benefits.


	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Test from CAEN
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 11:38:53 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

Testing, again (sorry)
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:11:12 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr8.034323.3954@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>This is the essence of my argument. Whereas states, cities, corporations,
>and households have tended to use debt to pay for the purchase of other
>assets (e.g. bridges, roads, collesiums, capital equipment, houses, etc.)
>the federal government is issuing bonds to pay for welfare spending. It
>borrows and then gives the money away.
>

Then the essence of your argument is based on a factual error.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 10 Apr 92 22:48:24 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr10.175235.12007@athena.mit.edu> tyadav@athena.mit.edu (Tapesh Yadav) writes:
>In article <46349@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>
>>I don't want to offend anyone here, but rather than exercising one's
>>imagination, it is possible to go to a library and read a book or two.
>>Murray Bookchin has published quite a bit, "Remaking Society"
>
> Library has many more books/authors than Bookchin et al.
> One reads to know/learn/self examine what is truth and what is
> right. Reading the paragraph from Kropotkin you post, I have decided to
> never read Bookchin, Kropotkin and others you mention.
>

Well, bully for you. Stick to sci-fi and Ayn Rand. Don't hurt those delicate
brain cells.

> Humans have mind. And the potential to think. There comes a stage

Sometimes I doubt.

> You know, Bookchin etc. etc. can be wrong. They don't have to be right.

Truly? I'm shocked and dismayed.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: hgm@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Natural Rights (Was: Wage Slavery)
Date: 17 Apr 92 21:05:24 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <122628@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov 
(Kent J Crispin) writes:
> In article <1992Apr8.231656.7317@waikato.ac.nz> hgm@waikato.ac.nz writes:
> 
> 
>>On the basis of that kind of test, I take as my starting point that no one
>>person has any more natural rights than any other. You may disagree with this.
> 
> I quite agree -- I think everyone has 0 natural rights.
> 

O.K. Lets try your way. Here we are without any formalised social structure and
therefore in this model no rights. You want to plant your crop. You want to be
sure that if you do so you will benefit from your effort. You are bigger than
me but I have more friends. On what basis do you think we would come to an
agreement which would give you security for your crop?

>>Given equality of rights, I believe, there can be very few natural rights. 
> 
> 0, in my definition.  What do you mean by "natural"?
> 

I mean rights which everyone should have at birth and which no society should
be allowed to deprive them of without their consent. Recognising these
would mean that no laws of any society could be considered just, if they did not
create an environment in which people could expect to be better off than they
would be with only these 'natural' rights. A just society would be required to
be a pareto improvement on a theoretical base position in which individuals did
the best they could exercising only these 'natural rights'.

>>A right must be something that can be delivered to all who are entitled to it at
>>any time that they choose to exercise it.

I believe this condition reduces the number of possible natural rights to the
extent that most cultural differences are eliminated. Most people if they
consider the choice of living in a world with no rights, no property rights, no
right to education, no right to health care, no right to work, or a society with
a few minimum rights  including a very limited property right would opt for the
latter. You can think of it as still being a social construct if you like.
Perhaps that is a good way of thinking of it. Perhaps what I am calling
'natural rights' are the highest COMMON factor of what we all feel we are
entitled to.

Note I am still talking about what we feel we are entitled to, rights. I think
values are something quite different. I value education (what am I saying?
Understand that if there is any truth at all in that statement it is only if
education is defined in the widest possible sense. It does not relate to
schools.) but that does not mean that I think society should be organised to
give you and your children a right to it and make me responsible for part of
the cost.

Helen Marsh
Xref: sparky sci.econ:3613 alt.activism:7384
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago
Date: Wednesday, 8 Apr 1992 12:28:50 CDT
From: Henry Young <U23379@uicvm.uic.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.activism
Subject: Budget proposals? - request

   I remember seeing some of the budget proposals (US) posted last year,
can someone send me a copy.  Likewise for any past years as well as the current
one would be appreciated.  I had a discussion this morning with someone
about the % spent on military and education and want to review the figures...

         Thanks,
                  - Henry




Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones)
Subject: Health Care (was Gaso
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 10:10:49 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-07-92 09:26
tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker) spouts the following ugly
yawp:

TU>No national health care system is going to take care of a major epidemic
TU>that costs $100K per patient.  That includes AIDS if it affects
TU>millions.  ($100K in 1992 dollars)  The downfall of any system
TU>in the US is that the "right to life" fascists and the geriatric lobby
TU>and the bleeding heart liberals will not allow a rational cost/benefit
TU>analysis.  Some people - newborn, young, middle-age, and old - who
TU>could theoretically be saved by ridiculously expensive procedures with
TU>a low success rate are going to have to be allowed to die unless they
TU>can pay the cost themselves.

The major problem here is category error, conceptualising an epidemic as
something that concerns its victims as individuals.  This is a useless
way of looking at epidemics, though of course the misery is suffered
individually.  Epidemics happen to groups.  Unorganised individual
responses to group events result in outcomes which are suboptimal for
the group and for most individuals in it.

In the case of an epidemic a rich person who survives it may feel that
they would have been better off if they had not had to pay for the care
of those around them.  This is an ugly fatuity after the event; it is a
dangerous stupidity while the event is in progress.

                                               -dlj.
---
   SLMR 2.0   The wealth of a people is the people.
   RM 1.60: Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cjkuo@locus.com (Chengi Jimmy Kuo)
Subject: Re: Chartism -- charlatans?
Organization: Locus Computing Corporation, Los Angeles, California
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 00:54:52 GMT

nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:

>Satya Prabhakar (satya@ssdc.honeywell.com)

>> 1. There was no consensus among the technicians
>> 2. About 70% of their predictions were off by more than 20%.
>> 3. A simple extrapolation (using regression,perhaps) came
>>    closer to actual prices than 50% of the technicians.
>>
>>So much for technical analysis.
>>
>>p.s. I recollected the experrimental setup from a book I read a while
>>ago. It may be a little off in the details. Another academic team
>>did the same for earnings forecasts by Wall Street security
>>analysts with identical results. So much for fundamental analysis. 

>  Yes, I've seen reports of similar studies to these and
>  they all seem to confirm my own anecdotal observations that
>  most stock picking methods are religious bunk.  

>  And yet there are still these nagging doubts:  Someone is
>  bound to ask, "What about Value Line?".  Over time they
>  do seem to have a pretty good record of categorizing 
>  stocks (i.e., their "1"'s in general do seem to outperform
>  their "5"'s.)  How do we account for this?  Self-fulfilling
>  prophecy (i.e., people see  a Value-Line "1" and buy it)?
>  I should also ask if it's really true -- I only know it
>  from word-of-mouth and Value Line adverts.  Or one might
>  ask about the extraordinary success of certain fund
>  managers like Peter Lynch who made the Fidelity Magellan
>  fund almost legendary in the 1980's.

>  Of course I should note that just because an individual
>  can get some kind of "gestalt" on the market and pick
>  winners does NOT mean that there's anything systematic
>  or algorithmic going on.   He may not be able to articulate
>  what he's doing.   But if it can be done AT ALL this should
>  cause us to doubt efficient market theory and similar dogma.

I happen to subscribe partially to the self-fulfilling prophesy
concept.  One of the problems I have with the studies is that it
never takes into effect the lemmings effect.  Usually, someone
such as Peter Lynch (Elaine Garzarelli, Granville, any other
person who has the spotlight for their period) is in control of
lots of money.  Two things happen.  Their money talks (influences
the market) and then others follow.

So, yes, there's a bit of self-fulfilling prophesy there.  It's just
that no one person maintains the spotlight for too long.  (Warhol's
15 minutes theory)

Jimmy Kuo
-- 
cjkuo@locus.com
"The correct answer to an either/or question is both!"
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians, slaves and company towns
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:00:38 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <122492@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
>In article <46196@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes,
>>but it seems that
>>"liberarians" are not honestly facing the role of the state in their proposed 
>>entreprenuers paradise.
>
>Were you quoting an earlier typo, or what? :-)  If it's "libertarians" I agree.

"Liberarianism" is a philosophy which holds
that public funding for libraries is a form of welfare, degrading to both
the book borrower and the public at large.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Leasing resources
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:17:39 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <46031@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>that there can be no liberty without strong property rights. It is
>
>One man's economic liberty is another one's actual despotism. The same
>courts which have found that the consitution requires market price
>recompense to those who find environmental regulations onerous have also 
>held that corporations may change their health insurance obligations to
>employees who have the temerity to get sick -- e.g. companies that find it

There is a subtle difference if the environmental regulation voids a
prior commitment by the government to allow a certain level of development.
And if the employer never specifically guaranteed a certain type of health
insurance.  One who advocates more government controls surely must
have respect for all the bureaucratic formalities of written deeds, contracts,
etc.  That is how government is supposed to function, after all - "laws,
not men".

	Of course the libertarians who argue on the basis of these
technicalities that some person or government has certain "rights" is
tacitly regarding bureaucratic forms as profound truth.

	From such paradoxes arise such anomalies as
	1. Jerry Brown as political outsider advocating stability.
	2. Bill Clinton as innovative thinker, unlike the old tax-and-
	   spend Democratic establishment.
	3. Ross Perot as one whom persons more liberal than Mussolini might
	   want for President.
	4. Paul Tsongas as favoring civil liberties.
	5. Mario Cuomo as fiscally responsible.
	6. President Bush and Vice President Quayle (2 anomalies)
	7. Japan as an ethical society.  (Somebody on the network said so!)

	George Tucker        tucker@kali.hac.com
		Just say NO to incumbents.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:12:22 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <9204052014.AA05137@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>  BTW, it is worth noting that marxist societies have not failed to
>  materialize for lack of trying (unlike libertarian ones).

I suppose we can infer from this that Marxism has been far more successful
than libertarianism?  THAT's an amusing thought.

>---peter
 

Kent


--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: met@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Subject: participants in index futures trading
Reply-To: met@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Organization: Computer Center, CUNY Graduate School, New York NY 10036
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 19:42:33 GMT

Hi! I would appreciate it very much if someone could enlighten the following
question:
"What do we know about the identity of major market participants trading
index futures, i.e. whether they are mutual funds or pension funds or.....,
based on academic/professional research?"
Thanks very much!
From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians, slaves and company towns
Date: 7 Apr 92 16:53:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: lll-wink.121937
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr07.142747.33901@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
>
>Actually, the issue involving the bank CAN be a factor.  My uncle
>(mother's sister's ex-husband) had a significant loan from multiple
>sources -- including my grandmother's bank.  She was put in the
>position of securing the debt.  My uncle seriously mismanaged his
>finances, and wasn't making interest payments.  If my grandmother
>didn't want to loose everything she had, she was forced to pay for
>*HIS* interest payments (this wasn't the actual terms of her securing
>the loan, but it was an agreement extracted by the bank later -- I
>suppose as a compromise to not loosing her colateral).  So, was that
>later agreement made under duress?

In an informal sense, as you describe it, probably.  In a legal sense, I don't
know.   The bank might be the white hat here -- thoughtfully negotiating a deal
when they could have foreclosed.  Since these kind of arrangements happen all
the time, the legal issues are probably open and shut, though the ethical
issues are murky to me.

>Dan

Kent

--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>