HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: American underclass
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:59:53 CDT


In eric@Turing.ORG (Eric Prestemon) writes:

>                       This idea may help in poverty stricken areas,
> but there is a lot of other methods the gov't can use. Like getting
> rid of the current welfare situation, where for every $ earned at work,
> 90-95 cents of welfare is lost. Pretty insane. (It used to be over $1)

Jack Kemp has talked alot about this too...

My question is, if the rate at which welfare is lost is reduced (say from
$.90/$1 to $.50/$1), does that raise the the amount that one can earn 
(while still receiving some welfare payments)?

For example (using hypothetical numbers), say a person needs to earn less 
than $4200/yr ($350/mo) to "qualify" for welfare, a person making $3000/yr
($250/mo) gets $1200/yr ($100/mo) in welfare (for total income of $4200), 
and they will loose $1 of benefits for every additional $1 of earnings.

So if the person gets a $1200 raise, there welfare is reduced by $1200,
leaving their total income at $4200.

Now say that the rate is changed so that they loose only $.50 for every
new dollar of benefit.  If the person gets a $1200 raise, welfare is reduced
by $600, giving a total income of $4800.  If they get a second $1200 raise,
the benefits are reduced another $600 (to $0), giving a total income of
$5400.

Does this mean that the amount of income that can be earned while still
"qualifying" for welfare has been increased from $4200 to $5400?  If
so how many people earning $4200-$5400 are now eligible for some
welfare benefits (and how much will that cost)?

The other way of making the new rate "balance" is to reduce the 
welfare payment.  For example, the person making $3000($250/mo) 
would get their welfare cut from $100/mo to $50/mo. 

I've heard Kemp say many time that he wants to change the rates,
yet never say that he wants to raise the "qualifying" amount or
cut the welfare payment.  Does anyone know what he wants to do?


-- 
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 sci.econ:7348 talk.politics.misc:43594
From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: American underclass
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 20:50:21 GMT


I have always wondered why the U.S, the richest country in the world in
terms of per capita GNP, is having such a hard time solving the problems
of homelessness, urban poverty, drugs, etc..


Of course, Democrats and Republicans yell and scream at each other for
ignoring and neglecting these problems. I am wondering whether people
know of *** good *** books addressing this problem.

I am ** not ** interested in unsubstantiated accusations.

I am interested in opinions on the following subjects:


(1) Is rent control is places like N.Y a large part of the problem in terms
of distorting the housing market?

(2) Do you think that either Clinton or Bush are *** serious *** about
addressing these problems?   

(3) Is there any way that these problems can be ameliorated without a large
tax increase?

Ishay 
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: need details on devaluating U.S. currency
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 01:32:06 GMT

breid@pyrhard2.eng.pyramid.com (Bill Reid) writes:

>Nixon signed what I think was called the Bretton-Woods agreement, which 
>allowed currencies to float freely on the world market.  Prior to that, 
>the value of the dollar (and the DM and yen, etc.) HAD been strictly 
>set to certain value by government decree.  (Bretton-Woods came about 
>as I remember because England was devaluing the pound every two 
>weeks or so, and it got to be ridiculous).  

For the record, Bretton-Woods was the treaty signed at the end of WW
II that established the International Monetary Fund and set up the
post war system of fixed exchange rates.  Nixon had not even achieved
his McCarthy era noteriety yet.

The decision of the Nixon administration, to completely abandon the
Bretton-Woods agreement, was taken unilaterally in 1971.  No formal
treaties were involved.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:45:48 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Sep1.010021.29903@leland.Stanford.EDU> jojo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joanne Spetz) writes:
>
>My understanding is that policy makers tend to not explicitly declare
>a value for human life, but that the implicit value they hold can be
>deduced by examining the policy choices they make.  The number I seem
>to remember is about 2 million dollars:  for example, an environmental

Sounds high.  Probably for the life of a voter or close relative of a voter.
I certainly would not vote for more than 1.5 megabucks per person, and
5 bucks for a judge, cop, lawyer, politician, etc.

>child or the adult?  Oregon tried to create an explicit valuation system
>based on public consensus (they held town meetings and conducted
>surveys) and found themselves under much hostile criticism.

But did the hostility come from Oregonians or DC-critters, real people 
or politicians?  I discussed it with a few people and found no
hostility.

>How do people feel about such valuation?  My impression is that people
>find it to be morally repugnant.  However, one cannot avoid making

A number of netfolk have said the Oregon plan was not a good approach to
containing health care costs, but they did not specify alternatives.
The implicit alternative is long waiting lists, by which expensive 
procedures that provide little longevity are eliminated by letting the
patients die in line.  Explicit valuation would allow for rational
judgements and a better allocation of resources while those denied
megabuck operations would at least know where they stand.
It is the only method by which I would even consider believing the
Democrats (or Republicans) might control costs.

But I don't want to drag my life out in some disease-infested hospital
room, kept going by some machine.  Those who want to expose their
families to pathogens and futile expense in order to leech some
final sympathy might disagree.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 19:53:35 GMT

In article <seavn2i00WBKQ3vZ1H@andrew.cmu.edu>, ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
|> Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 26-Aug-92 Re: Clinton on Economics (t..
|> by Jim Howe@citi.umich.edu 
|> > How about a self-service ice machine?  It is a machine that takes
|> > water and produces ice.  Customers put money in the machine and
|> > get ice in return.  The 'labor' to produce the product (ice) was
|> > performed by the machine, not a person.  Wealth was created because
|> > a desireable commodity was produced which did not previously exist.
|> 
|> And where did the machine come from ? 

Who cares?  The point being made is that new wealth is produced
from a capital investment, i.e. the purchase of an ice machine.
The ice machine itself represents wealth produced by some other
entity.  The fact that A produced B and C uses B to produce D
does not mean that A is producing D.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 3 Sep 92 17:59:57 GMT
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52804@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Sep1.094859.3841@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>In article <52738@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>> In article <87453@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil) writes:
>>>>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly 
>>>>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>>>>for all types of governmental law.  Morality and related topics should solely
>>> 
>>> And some type of marxism-leninism similarly attempted to exclude morality
>>> from their programs which were ostensibly based on a "scientific"
>>> understanding of history. The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>>> science is equally convincing.
>>>  
>>	All you are doing with such lies is damaging your net.credability. 
>>Post the quotes where Libertarians attempt to pass off prejudice as science.
> 
> If anyone claims to be "stripping" politics of its moral content, they are
> claiming to be able to make objective and rational political judgements
> without reference to moral values. This is an attempt to pass off prejudice
> as science.

	What science?

	Libertarians simply state that one should not be able to impose their
morality upon the other in the name of "what is right".

	That's why they are opposed to victimless crimes like drug use and
pornography.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: ded@kps.UUCP (David Edwards /DP)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Milton Friedman...
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:55:45 GMT
Organization: Kuwait Petroleum, Stockholm, Sweden

In article <1992Aug31.142622.3826@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>
>	Cuba lived off of the xUSSR for it's entire existence.  Now that that
>particular sugar daddy is gone, you see the real Cuba.  No food.  No fuel.  A
>mimicing of the Khmer Rouge exodus from the cities in order to force more
>people to grow food.
>
>	It's quite sad.

Where should they get their fuel from under the current blockade? Why
is the US so insistent on destroying Castro's Cuba. While hardly a
perfect individual, his provoking attitude to America has unleashed a
scarcly understandable paranoia there.

I suppose with Castro gone, the US would buy back Cuba with massive 
"aid". That is the best way create individual freedom, is it not? 
Maybe it would become a 51-st state, like Hawaii. I'm sure that would 
be popularly supported. :-) 

While not a Socialist, I wonder what Cuba would look like if allowed 
to trade freely. You may say there is no blockade, but anybody doing 
business with America knows that it better not deal with Cuba. What 
I'm getting at is that you cannot explain away Cuba's failure on the 
failure of communism alone, since Eastern Europe's collapse never had 
the support of the populace (as opposed to George Bush:-) and Castro). 

David Edwards
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Allow me to introduce PISS weapons technology
	P - propulsion, plasma fusion, magnetohydrodynamic propulsion
	I - intelligence - all-optical computers, optical neural nets
	S - sensor - laser radar
	S - strike - directed energy weapons
and if that doesn't work we piss on 'em.
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:10:34 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug31.141345.3824@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> Incorrect. The claim is that "libertarianism is crabbed and mean-sprited".
>
>	For which there is no proof.
>
>> Nothing is claimed about whether or not individual "libertarians" are
>> "cold-hearted". And there is no claim that the mean-spiritedness and 
>> intellectual poverty of "libertarianism" implies in any way that it is
>> a "false" theory, merely that it is a repugnant one.
>
>	Very Chomsky-esque of you.
>

I am deeply flattered.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: Re: Poverty Over-estimated in America ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:40:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep3.202746.18500@tandem.com> kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose) writes:
>In today's Wall Street Journal, an article entitled
>"America's Poverty Myth" by Robert Rector
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
heritage foundation: right wing think tank

>appeared on the Editorial Page (Sept. 3, 1992 issue).
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~ excerpts follow  ~~~~~~~~~
>
>"There are two important mistakes in the way the Census
>Bureau measures how many American households fall below the
...

this afternoon, on cspan, there was a hearing in which rector
appeared. sen. sarbanes (an economist) presided, and rector had to face
a group of economists not from the heritage foundation.

he didn't win anything. watch c-span for a repeat.
-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 2 Sep 1992 22:09:03 GMT
Organization: Strawmen of Oz
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu

In article <BtyFDB.3pu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>
>I think the other participants here are clever enough to see through
>your smoke-screens.
>

We're certainly clever enough to dismiss your sophomoric point-system.
Don't bother to respond, I'll dock myself 15 points for participating
in a meta-discussion and save you the trouble.
-----
    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

What if we all became Libertarians and wrote a mutually binding
document called the Constitution of the United States of America
to set up a dynamic system of checks and balances to safeguard our
inalienable rights?
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Thomas Jefferson
Date: 31 Aug 92 21:10:28 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <2094@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>
>
>  Thomas Jefferson was a libertarian! Yes he advocated an 'agrarian
>ideal`, however the burgeoning manufacturing sector had not yet
>begun to explode during his presidency. It is entirely possible
>that he did not forsee the explosion of technology and the resulting
>benefits to mankind. 

It seems entirely possible that you have never read anyhting at all
by Jefferson. Not only was TJ a great advocate of science and technology,
but he was a "libertarian" in much the same way the Martin Luther King
was a segregationist.

>   Jefferson was not anti-business though (although some would
>consider eradicating protective business tariffs as anti-business,
>I see it as pro-freedom). During his presidency he considerably

Jefferson switched his position on this issue and came down firmly on the
side of protectionism.

>downsized government. He shrunk the military and got rid of the

The purchase of Lousiana and the war in tripoli ?

>How can anyone say that this man did not believe in personal
>freedom and small government?

Personal freedom +small government != "libertarianism"


>
>>From Jefferson's 2nd inaugural address:
>
>" At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or
>ill. The suppression of unnnecessary offices, of useless
>establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal
>taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to
>their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary
>vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from
>reaching successively every article of produce and property."
>
>other quotes:
>   "That government is best which governs least."
>
>
>Jeff


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Human Rights...
Date: 3 Sep 92 12:35:09 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep2.212653.28275@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>If you really dont like fascism, you need to realize that by empowering
>the govt (whether for "good" causes of the right or of the left) you are
>contributing to the growth of a potentially fascist state.  "Soak
>the rich!" springs forth from the same part of the human psyche as
>"Kill the Jews!"

Your psychological pronouncements are as well founded as your earlier claim
that property rights were founded on biological principles. One can argue,
with similar deep insight that "Get off of my land" springs from the same
part of the human psyche as "Those people are my property."

>
>That is why libertarians adhere to the narrow concept of negative liberties
>and the minimal state, whether we believe that these rights are natural
>in origin, or whether we believe that these rights are societal in origin.


Not everyone believes that the "libertarian" principles result in a smaller
state or stronger human rights. Certainly, the libertarian-socialists  such
as Bakunin, Goldman, and Kroptotkin argued that private property and state
violence were two sides of the same coin. And certainly, when pressed
"libertarians" will either argue for some sort of neo-fedudalism where
state power is divided among competing gangs or will admit to the
necessity of a vast state machinery to protect their elaborate and 
instrusive form of property "rights". A system of courts requires
a police force and a legislature. And a system in which all social arguments
are resolved via law suits  does not, on the face of it, have any advantage
over a system in which elections also play a part.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: there is no such word as devaluate:Re: need details on devaluating U.S. currency
Summary:  help from speakers of english
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:39:12 GMT

>
>|> true, then if other leading countries decide to devaluate their currency
                                                    ^^^^^^^^^


there is no word devaluate. the english lasnguage word is devalue. one
devalues something by reducing its value. this is the word you are all
seeking to use.


please use it.

there. my mind was in a tizzy about this as i saw non-english jargon
proliferating in a situation in which the english language has an
appropriate, and shorter word to describe what you want to say.
-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: too much junk
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:51:25 GMT
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <4DH67TD@mailgzrz.tu-berlin.de> wich1820@maynard.ww.tu-berlin.de (Thorsten Wichmann) writes:
>What about separating this group into something like "theory/stats" and  
>"debate" so that I donBt have to waste my employers money scanning junk when  
>looking for serious announcements??
>
>Thanks.
>Thorsten
>==============================
>T. Wichmann, Dept. of Economics, Technical University of Berlin

  Well, considering that debate theads happen even in the misc.wanted 
newsgroups, don't believe that a newly-created group would necessarily
cut down on the debates.

  Welcome to usenet :-)

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Adjusting for inflation
Date: 26 Aug 92 00:08:29 GMT
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc, Cupertino CA

In article <1992Aug25.214932.20261@genie.slhs.udel.edu>, tom@genie.slhs.udel.edu (tom) writes:
> where would i get a table of conversion factors to convert dollar
> figures for any given year into dollars for some selected year
> (such as 1990 or 1992)?


Tom,

The following is information I got from Myron Calhoun a while back.
-- Ken


Here is what I've found, after someone suggested I look in
an almanac; I typed it in myself and checked it very carefully:

------------ cut here ------------ cut here ------------ cut here ------------
For Cost of Living data on 1935-39=100 base for years 1915 to 1952,
consult pages 760 and 761 in the 1953 edition of the World Almanac.

1947  95.5  based on 1947-49 = 100.
1948 102.8
1949 101.8
1950 102.8
1951 111.0
1952 113.5
1953 114.4
1954 114.8
1955 114.5
1956 116.2
1957 120.2
1958 123.7  through August, 1958.

1955  80.2  from Reader's Digest 1982 Almanac and Yearbook.
1956        not listed
1957  84.3
1958  86.6
1959  87.3
1960  88.7
1961  89.6
1962  90.6
1963  91.7
1964  92.9
1965  94.5
1966  97.2
1967 100.0 based on 1967 = 100.
1968 104.2
1969 109.8
1970 116.3
1971 121.3
1972 125.3
1973 133.1
1974 147.7
1975 161.2
1976 170.5
1977 181.5
1978 195.3
1979 217.7
1980 246.8
1981 279.9 through October, 1981.


____________________________________________________________________
Ken Rose    (kenr@storage.tandem.com)
The Usual Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, not
those of my employer (who is kind enough to allow me Usenet access).
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:13:45 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52630@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <BtJoqq.362@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>>Victor Yodaiken writes (speaking of Thomas Jefferson):
>>
>>>He would have had nothing but contempt for the  crabbed and mean-spirited
>>>money worship that is now called "libertarianism".
>>
>>Now, it is indeed true that the libertarian bent of Jefferson's
>>thought is often popularly overstated.  This I do not wish to contest.
> 
> Wise of you.
> 
>>The claim here is that:
>>
>>1. Libertarians are cold-hearted.
>>2.  Therefore, libertarianism is a false theory.
>>
>>Well, not only does the conclusion not follow from the premise... the
>>premise is false!
> 
> Incorrect. The claim is that "libertarianism is crabbed and mean-sprited".

	For which there is no proof.

> Nothing is claimed about whether or not individual "libertarians" are
> "cold-hearted". And there is no claim that the mean-spiritedness and 
> intellectual poverty of "libertarianism" implies in any way that it is
> a "false" theory, merely that it is a repugnant one.

	Very Chomsky-esque of you.

	Followups to talk.politics.misc

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!