HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:28:41 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: laffer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              15, 92 9:09 am

K=A*T pisze:
>>
>> Well, Laffer's curve looked suspiciously symmetrical.  So I
>> assume it was more of Caius's creation than Laffer.  If *I*


Symmetrical chart was mine, I draw it to demonstrate the Laffer effect
that raising taxes can make the income lower.

I'm not sure what the effective rate in the USA is, but here in Poland,
where I live and pay taxes, there are stiil many people who believe
that the ONLY way to escape the budget deficits is to RAISE taxes.

Thay raise taxes and observe the budget hole getting larger, then raise
taxes and so on.

I estimate that the effective rate in Poland is 80% and going up.


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:33:39 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: laffer
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              15, 92 9:09 am

K=A*T pisze:
>> If *I*
>> were to plot it I would have done it this way (see below).  Of
>> course the horizontal access in both curves is a bit skewed
>> towards higher percentages, unless Caius thinks that today's
>> (average, single) rate is at about 75%.
>>

>>
>>                                             _____
>>                                           /      -
>>                                       - /           |
>>                                    /                |
>> budget                         /                     |
>> income                     /            KAT Curve ==> |
>>  ^                      /                              |
>>  |                   / ______________    <==  Caius   |
>>  |                /----               -----   Curve     |
>>  |              /                           \           |
>>  |           / |                             |  \        |
>>  |         /   |                             |   \       |
>>  |       /     |                             |      \     |
>>  |     /       |                             |       \    |
>>  |   /         |                             |          \  |
>>  | /           |                             |           \ |
>>  --------------------------------------------------------------->
>>  0%          suggested                     today         100%  tax rate
>>


Your curve suggests that people are so lazy (or so honest) that they pay
all taxes unless they reach 80-90%.

I think (look at my curve shape) that people start "saving" much earlier.

I do NOT try to defend strictly symmetrical shape, but i think it is closer
to mine that to KAT's.


Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 11:15:50 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: lower taxes
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Slothrop" at Dec 9, 92 9:05 pm

Tyrone Slothrop pisze:
>>
>> From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
>> Subject:      Re: lower taxes
>>
>> If taxes are really low, why should they bother to look for all those
>> legal shelters. Why should they risk to do illegal things.
>>
>> -->how low is "really low"?  i will agree with you if it is, say,
>> 1%, or something.  but that sorta defeats the purpose, don't it?
>>
Yes, i think the taxes should be less than 10%, or even regressive (as
opposite to progressive).

Effective rates (that people really pay) are not much more higher.
Lowering official taxes would reduces much of our efforts.

Caius.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:23:50 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 70% Human

  actually, what I really object to is the
hypocrisy of those people who say "hey women
are making only $0.70 to the dollar" but
who ignore the fact that the latin american
worker and workers in other third world
countries are making even less.

  (btw, "pick at" is something people do to
scabs and sores and blisters.)

                    -Tim
From: RIGEORGE@VASSAR.BITNET (RICK GEORGE)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re: 2 things
Date: 15 Dec 92 11:31:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: RIGEORGE
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>Ron Brown, the head of the Democratic National Committee was chosen as
>Commerce Secretary by Bill Clinton.  By what I heard of Brown, I'm not
>that comfortable with  him being in this post.  It feels like a
>political appointment (obviously it is) that puts an important job
>(our infrastructure is a major area of concern and possibility) in the
>hands of someone less than well qualified for the role.
>
>   -Joe


From what I've read, Brown's confirmation hearings could be among the
most interesting to watch, because of his past wheelings and dealings.
The New York Times had a story over the weekend about how a company
that Brown heads was awarded a $200+ million contract to dispose of
New York City's garbage shortly before the Democrats chose New York
as the site for their convention.  He's represented foreign governments
in Washington, which is bound to produce some good stories at
hearing time.  Could be one to tape off C-SPAN.

I found the appointment to be a little embarrassing to Brown--as I
recall he was fairly open after the election about his desire to be
Attorney General or Secretary of State.  Secretary of Commerce is
nothing to sneeze at, but it is hardly at the level of Attorney
General or Secretary of State as far as prestige.

...Rick
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 18:57:00 EDT
From:         CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET
Subject:      RE: Uncl: Some replies...

Apparently, robert has some trouble recognizing replies to his own bovine fecal
material; he writes that a fetus IS a child, since it will BECOME one eventually
.  Hence the portion of my post about "elderly", "caskets of dust", and
"flowers".  If they'll become that eventually, then why not recognize that they
ARE those things?

BTW - simply because my language skills enable me to glean some sort of
understanding of your posts does not exempt you from using the correct word.  I
mean, I COULD use the phrase FANATICAL CHRISTIAN CRUSADING KKK NAZI HOMOPHOBE
when I reference you, Robert, and some would "recognize" the phrase; wouldn't
you correct my use of that phrase?  Rectum and anus are two different things,
but in your case I guess I could see how they're the same.


-T.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Wed, 16 Dec 1992 13:01:37 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: prime theories

>> KAT "misremembers".  I said that I was unwilling to make that
>> agreement in a discussion with KAT because he has a history of turning
>> that into "so, you've agreed to ban handguns, so let's discuss that".
>> I refused because it's hard enough to keep the discussion out of
>> fantasyland.
>
>Maybe Andy could cite just one (1) case that I have done that.
>Otherwise maybe he should refrain from making such statements.

Andy did cite one case, a particularly relevant one.

>The question that I asked Andy regarding gun ban (long tome ago)
>was indeed very relevant.

Really?  My motivations are relevant?  How?  I've argued that gun
control doesn't reduce crime.  While whether or not my argument is
correct seems relevant, is it really relevant WHY I'm making it?  Do
my motivations affect the properties of gun control?  Or, does KAT
want to make a different argument about gun control, one that does not
depend on its properties?  Or, is it that he wants to argue about me?

I realize that KAT would like some ad hom ammunition, but I'm not
going to play that game.  He'll have to make up the basis for his
logical fallacies all by itself.

>One could be against gun ban even if it reduces crime on the
>basis of the second Amendment.  In order to save time, I tried
>to find the REAL reason why Andy was against gun ban/control.

I've stated my position wrt the second amendment, that it protects
individual RKBA, but we can, and should, change it if we don't like
that.  I've suggested that I'm basically a utilitarian.  Maybe I'm
not, maybe I'm lying, but that won't come up until KAT shows that I'm
taking a position that is inconsistent with being utilitarian.
However, that's irrelevant to the gun control discussion.

Suppose that I oppose gun control because of the 2nd amendment.  How
does my motivation affect the crime control properties of gun control?
My opposition may motivate me to point out the properties, but it
doesn't affect whether or not those arguments are true.  In other
words, the answer to KAT's question is irrelevant.

-andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:55:03 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Discrimination & government
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              Dec 17, 92 12:03 am

Doctor Pizz pisze:

>>     Yes, I agree that discrimination is wrong, but that private
>> businesses shouldn't be FORCED to be non-discriminatory.  However, if
>> government fundings, and programs were to be made unavailable to them,
>> that is fine.  In other words, government can punish businesses by
>> refusing to do busineess with them, or cutting off any governmental
>> assistance, but not treat them as criminals for running their own
>> affairs in a questionable manner.  Government should stay OUT of the
>> way businesses conduct themselves, unless the governmetn is a client,
>> and then they can simply switch to another company.

I am sorry, i cannot agree with you.

1) In free market economy govt should offer no assistance to any businesses.

2) The govt is spending OUR money to offer its services (protection from
   external and internal dangers) to us. So it is unwise to pay for
   contracts more, just because the beaurocrats consider the cheaper
   source BAD.

Caius



signoff
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caius ( =Grzegorz Albinowski )                  Internet : caius@ii.uj.edu.pl
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: EBEDGERT@SUADMIN.BITNET (Ellen.Edgerton)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Limiting Posts
Date: 15 Dec 92 17:58:06 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

The enormous-quote problem I have is that it makes me >want< to skip
over these posts.  I don't think that facilitates discussion very much,
do you?

It's simply a matter of self-control.  I can't tell people not to
include those huge boring repeating quotes in their posts; there
shouldn't be a >rule< per se.  I wish people would realize how godawful
annoying it is, though.

Ellen

PS- Another thing I don't understand really, and never have, in all of
my time of navigating the various nets and online services, is how
people feel >compelled< to argue with people whom they know aren't
going to come around to their point of view.  It's rather like
public masturbation, if you ask me.
From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Subject: Re:      Some replies...
Date: 16 Dec 1992 19:36 PST
Organization: University of Oregon
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <POLITICS%92121602521072@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>,       
  CLARK@EVMSVMS.BITNET writes...
>Does Dr Pizz mean that private companies can make ANY rules of
>conduct, as long as they're stated up-front?  So, the boss gets to
>have sex with employees during lunch, as long as those employees know
>this before signing on?  Employees have to kickback 20% of their
>salaries, under the table, to the management - as long as it's
>understood from the start?

What Dr. Pizz forgets is that contracts are not automatically enforceable as
written.  First, contracts which are considered unconscionable when made are
voidable by the court.  See UCC 2-302, Restatement (Second) Contracts s 208. 
Also, "unilateral representations of an employer [do not] form[] part of the
contract of employment."  Guy v. Travenol Laboratories, 812 F.2d 911 (4th Cir.
1987).

Contracts which contradict public policy are also not permitted.  See Central
Adjustment Bureau v. Ingram, 678 S.W.2d 28 (Tenn. 1984), Goldberg v. Sanglier,
96 Wash.2d 874, 639 P.2d 1347 (1982), Graves v. Johnson, 179 Mass. 53, 60 N.E.
383 (1901).  The point is that an employer cannot automatically enforce a
condition of employment if it is not a reasonable part of the job or if it is
against the public policy (or the law).

>. . .
>Another question for the experts....are Chief Justices always chosen
>from the ranks of Associate Justices? I thought that the new appointee
>becomes the new Chief if it's the Chief who's retiring....

Usually the President gets to appoint whoever he (still) wants to, so long as
the Senate agrees.  For that reason, I think that most of the sitting justices
are long shots.

						Dan, ad nauseum
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:25:38 EST
From:         K=A*T <MEC038@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      A.B. Normal

I just heard on NPR that 8% of the US citizens are foreign
born.

Well, there we go....another abnormal group of people.

Let's see...what should we do?  Let's send them where they
are normal.  Interestingly in this case it is very easy
to find a place that these people are normal.

Now wouldn't it be real ironic -- in my case -- if we
did that.    :-)

--KAT, the egomaniac, whose real purpose of this post was to
       indicate that he listens to NPR.

p.s.  I hope I don't have to bring out my "idiometer" again.   :-)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 11:43:37 -0800
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject: RE: rush and the wwf

>>On the other hand, the Macho Man picks up his 300 pound opponent -
>>above his own head - for several seconds, and throws him down !!!
>>
>>Who are the REAL atheletes ?
>>
>>Which is the REAL sport ?
>
>so, um, you're saying wwf (wrestling, right?) is the real sport?????
>that 'cause the ref. made a bad call due to bad acting (cheating),
>football isn't a sport?

Umm, it isn't obvious that "bad" calls are cheating or even mistakes.
They might be part of the script and the apparent bogosity of the call
is a side-effect of "oops, they missed their marks, but we've got to
keep the show going".  (Then again, obvious "bad" calls also add to
the drama, so maybe everyone came off as scripted.)  Why the
assumption that football isn't "booked"?

Would "booking" matter to any of the other football fans on
POLITICS-L?  As long as you don't know what's going to happen, does it
really matter whether or not anyone else does?

What is "sport"?  How do we know that pro-football meets the criteria?
Do all of those criteria really matter, or would you be happy even if
they just faked compliance?

-andy
--
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 18:42:41 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

>From:         jimmy donal wales <jwales@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

Oh, right. That sounds familiar now.

>The other side of this discussion is apparently confused about the
>effect that a gold standard would ahve on this process.  I think that
>what he means to advocate is  FREE BANKING, rather than a GOLD
>STANDARD.

Oh, hey, free banking. I'm in favor of that. I think my bank has it.
Oh no, wait, that's free checking. Well, it must be pretty much
the same thing.

>>Too bad none of our list economists is a macro economist.
>
>But maybe one of them is a financial economist.

Ya never know.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:02:09 EST
From:         Jamie <PL436000@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: why gold

>From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>

>Who speaks about government still putting his hands into gold?

Well, O'Andy speaks of it, for example.

There are a couple of questions here.

First, how could there be a gold standard if the government didn't
put its hands into gold? I mean, the government would have to OWN
at least a huge fraction of the gold, wouldn't it?

Second, do you advocate a government-set price for gold, or not?
If you do not, then the price will not be constant, and in that
case it is not at all obvious that the money supply is constant
when the gold supply is constant (in ounces).

I'm going to stop talking about this subject now, though, because
Caius has not explained in what way the standard manipulations of
the money supply would change or be prevented if there were a gold
standard, and it appears that he isn't GOING to explain it.

Jamie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 17 Dec 1992 00:42:34 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the way dull tv ought to be
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

How can one clear himself of charges he hasn't been charged with?  You
give me citations to prove he is guilty.  In this country we assume
innocence until guilt is proven.  So, prove it.  And you might should
read his book, you might learn something and have fun doing it.

Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:33:52 MET
From:         Grzegorz Albinowski <caius@II.UJ.EDU.PL>
Subject:      Re: why gold
Comments: To: POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
              17, 92 4:02 pm

Jamie pisze:
>>
>> >Who speaks about government still putting his hands into gold?
>>
>> Well, O'Andy speaks of it, for example.
>>
>> There are a couple of questions here.
>>
>> First, how could there be a gold standard if the government didn't
>> put its hands into gold? I mean, the government would have to OWN
>> at least a huge fraction of the gold, wouldn't it?

No, the gov't will have gold from taxes ONLY, no more. Why do you think it
should have?

>> Second, do you advocate a government-set price for gold, or not?
>> If you do not, then the price will not be constant, and in that
>> case it is not at all obvious that the money supply is constant
>> when the gold supply is constant (in ounces).

The oz. (ounce of gold) *IS* the currency. The rates of other nations
currencies (not based on gold) are set on the free market.

>> Caius has not explained in what way the standard manipulations of
>> the money supply would change or be prevented if there were a gold
>> standard, and it appears that he isn't GOING to explain it.

I have sent many (i think too many) postings with explanations. If you don't
read POLITICS regularly, ask the LISTSERV for archives.


Caius
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:32:12 EST
From:         Doctor Pizz <jdt10@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re:
Comments: To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics <POLITICS@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu>

Michael,

     Again, I do not see where my statements are contradictory, and
again, I am not a Bible-reader.  I am commpletely NON-religious, and
do not believe any of it, so don't rail about my fundamentalist
arguments, since I am not a subscriber to biblical stuff.

     To reiterate my feelings about the law, I feel that people have
the right to do whatever they want to, without hurting anyone else, but
that doesn't mean a private business has to hire them.  Remember, the
key word here is PRIVATE.  If I own a company, I should be able to hire
whoever I waant to, and make rules governing conduct, etc, as long as
everything is stipulated out front.  Do you think the church should be
condemned for failure to allow priests to marry?  This is a similar
restriction, but they know the rules, and still want to work for them.
Nobody has the right to tell them how to run their own businesses.  How
about the Georgia law that forces any candidate for Governor to
publicly state that he accepts Jesus as his lord and saviour?  This I
think is wrong, as it is a public organization, however, if Jerry
Falwell wants to make all professors at his Liberty University free
from all extra-/pre-marital sex, then fine.  If Jimmy the Greek can be
fired for making the statements he did, or Marge Schott could be
suspended from baseball for her staatements, then clearly a business
can refuse to hire someone because he practices homosexual sex, as long
as the person is made aware of it in advance.  Granted, these rules can
sometimes be vague, and leave some things to the employer's discretion,
like Marge Schott and baseball, or Jimmy the Greek and CBS.  If an
individual signs a contract with a morals clause in it, then he should
be bound by it, and be prepared to be fired if questionable activity is
on his mind...

--Pizz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 13:43:42 EST
From:         Tim Johnson <ST402711@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Recent List History for Ramon

>Recently, Ramon, the list held an election for President.  I was the
>winner, so now I'm list president.  However, there do appear to be
>some anti-democratic forces around, a false-pretender to the Presidency,
>and other such rot.

  What a hoot.  What Jimbo isn't telling you is that
his own running mate voted against him, and for the
winners (the vote counter is one of the anti-democratic
forces, we must suppose).

  Gary is in charge of Vice, and I pick on -T.

  The Tall Guys won by a landslide  (in electoral college
votes, in which the popular winner on the list gets all
the list electoral votes)  a clear mandate.

  Jimbo hasn't been the same since.

                    -Tim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"POLITICS@OHSTVMA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 16:40:00 EST
From:         linda <SABOE@VUVAXCOM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: soon dears soon

>At least you >have< access to carols and booze.  I don't even have that.

oh gee, sorry ellen....want some of mine?

>Have a good weekend, all you liberals and conservatives out there in
>Netland!

same to you....type to you monday!
-linda

>Ellen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU