HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 26 Aug 92 13:21:02 CDT


au329@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ronda Hauben) writes:

> It is NOT that MACHINES create WEALTH.
> 
> It is that wealth is created by LABOR.
> 
> It is not the act of selling something that creates WEALTH.

IF "the act of selling something" == "LABOR"

Then (using substitution):

It is that wealth is created by "the act of selling something".
and
It is not "LABOR" that creates WEALTH.


Either Rhonda's logic needs some work or she should explain to
people in sales why their actions ("the act of selling something")
is not "LABOR".

-- 
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!)
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 27 Aug 92 12:38:17 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <l9kn1cINNfks@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff) writes:

>1. The implementation of libertarian ideals will lead to policies the
>   majority of americans view as cold-hearted. Game theory research
>   has shown without a doubt people have a sense of "fairness" flatly
>   rejecting traditional economic assumptions concerning rational behavior.

If this is true, why do you feel it is necessary to have a governmental
structure that enforces this view of fairness upon everyone.
Individuals, acting out their own internal sense of fairness can surely
be more effective then the cold hand of beaurocracy.

>2. It takes a majority to elect someone to office or it at least takes
>   a large voting block to influence politics.

A true statement.

>3. Thus libertarians will never have a signigficant influence in
>   american politics.

If you feel this is true, why do you spend so much time attempting to
put down libertarian thought.  Could it be that you fear that people
do not have as deeply an engrained sense of fairness as you claim.
Or at least not your flavor of fairness.

>4. So libs should either give up or reorganize their policies into a vision
>   acceptable to enough people that changes in the political system have
>   a realistic chance of being implemented. In other words give a little
>   and you might get a lot.

In other words, stop pushing your view of how the world should be and
adopt mine.

-- 
--Mark
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:03:44 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug21.031513.27785@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>(I HOPE that I have the attribution correct...)
>>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> 
>> >>>	Milton Friedman, economically.
>> 
>>The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
>>world over.
>
>Of course, if the whole Chilean situation was actually orchestrated by
>the CIA (which is, of course, possible, and is in fact probable, but
>probably not completely verifyable), what Friedman did has little or
>no REAL relevance.
>
>That is, if the whole situation is the responsibility of the CIA, then
>Miltie is (axiomatically :-)) NOT responsible.

You miss the point. I do not suggest that Milt was responsible for the
overthrow of the Allende government, I merely suggest that his claim to
be an advocate of "freedom" is incompatible with his eagerness to
cooperate with the Pinochet junta while it was still engaged in wholesale
torture and murder.  I further suggest that Friedman's economic polices
have been shown to be quite appealing to torture regimes, and are now
apparently quite the rage among the Nationalist right wing in Russia. 
The massive social engineering and economic redistribution of the 
Pinochet regime seems to be quite impossible in a democratic society where
working people have a voice in the drafting of laws and the administration
of justice. Thus, advocates of Milt's economics should explain just how
far they are willing to go to give the rest of us the benefits of his, 
brave new economy.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 4 Sep 92 01:00:41 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <23141@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>In article <52804@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>
>>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.
>
>And if one does not do so, one has three choices:
>1. Claim to be able to make rational political judgements with reference to
>   moral values.  This is an attempt to pass off prejudice as morality.
>   This is very popular now, most visibly among the Quayluuddites.
>2. Make no rationality or objectivity claims whatsoever.  This is an
>   attempt to pass off prejudice by either charisma or force.
>   This is the speculative bubble of politics.  The WOD has entered this stage.
>3. Ignore the relation between politics and morality and claim to make
>   rational judgements without reference to moral values.  This is
>   an attempt to pass off prejudice by obfuscation.  This is normal 
>   politics. 
>
>I prefer #3.  What do you prefer?

Honesty and clarity. Economics is deeply connected to morality, and it
is either disingenuous of simply mistaken to claim that one's economic
program is based on scientific principles alone. Even if economics were
advanced far beyond its current fuzzy level, it would still not tell
us whether GDP measured wealth, what is involved in a "living standard",
or what the proper relationship between humans and the environment should 
be. Thus when anyone, be they Marxist or "free-marketist" claims that
his/her economic program is determined by scientific/economic principles
which are free of moral content, it is sensible to be very suspicious.

>Source of relationship:
>	Most politics is based on simple greed and fear.
>	So is most morality.
>	So is all prejudice.
>
>How do you get rationality from greed and fear?  Market systems.

Seems completely counter-factual to me. Social pressure,
compassion, affection, esthetics, sex, desire for prestige,  and
curiosity all seem to me to be more important in human society than greed
and fear. But, perhaps  you live in California.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Black Hole Economics (was: Re: DEBT vs. DEFICIT)
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:19:29 GMT
Organization: University of Chicago

markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk) writes:
>
>And now the 1990's.  Balanced Budget and Whopping $400 billion interest!  Huge
>Deficit!  Rapidly growing Debt.  Even bigger Interest.  Even bigger Deficits.
>Even more rapidly growing Debt.
>forgetting to pay the interest!


  A small correction.  We are at $200 billion in interest/year.  The
deficit was $340/billion, but that was just because they left
out the S&L money and are coming out of a recession with slow growth.

  The estimates I've seen say that the deficit is probably closer to
$200 billion a year once we start seeing some reasonable growth.


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7368 misc.invest:11248
From: breid@pyrhard2.eng.pyramid.com (Bill Reid)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
Subject: Re: need details on devaluating U.S. currency
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:30:17 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

In article <92247.202251ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET> ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET writes:
>Actually the Bretton-Woods system was the fixed rate regime that was
>scrapped during the Nixon years in '72 or '73.  It was not strictly a gold
>standard as all major currencies were pegged via par values in terms of
>dollars.  The dollar, however, was pegged to gold at some official rate
>(the value escapes me at the moment, was it $32/oz?)

Yes, that's what I remember, but since I couldn't even remember that 
Nixon ABANDONED the Bretton-Woods agreement, rather than SIGNING it, 
I wouldn't take it as gospel truth! (Somebody sent me funny email saying that 
Algier Hiss signed it, which may actually be true).  Anyway, the 
corrected version of events is that Nixon, along with other countries 
that were signatories to Bretton-Woods, abandoned the agreement of 
fixed currency rates pegged to the dollar, which WAS pegged to 
gold, which in the same general time frame, Nixon de-pegged by 
signing some law, said law also allowing Americans to legally buy 
gold, at market rates.  

What's also interesting is the tremendous rise in America of the 
market value of gold, which went from the $32/oz official rate 
in 1972, jumped rather quickly to $64/oz or something in 1973, 
and eventually hit $900/oz in 1979 (since collapsed back to 
mid-300s?).
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 1 Sep 92 09:48:59 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

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.

	Go ahead, make our day.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Deficit as a Retrospective Tax
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:33:46 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


   Satyen Baindur writes:

>If the government, let us say, in a Democratic Administration now
>said, heck no, that was a foolish thing to do, we don't owe you
>that money which should have been taxes anyway, what happens?

   First of all that is theft plain and simple. The government of
the United States cannot be considered above the law anymore than
any other business, corporation, or individual can. What kind of
an example would it set for anyone else were the government to
blatantly thumb its nose at creditors and refuse to pay debts? This
is the type of situation that leads to a centralization of power
(as if one didn't exist already). Just because the government  
refuses to pay the deficit the debt does not vanish. The lenders
are still out billions of dollars! These transactions do not exist
in a vacuum. The money must come from somewhere...


>In other countries, the government meets deficits simply by 
>printing more money...[deleted]

   And our government doesn't do this?! The U.S. treasury has been
off of the gold standard since our old buddy FDR instituted his
nefarious `New Deal' package, thus rendering paper money to be
just that - paper. Money without backing of value is just a piece
of paper - no matter what the government says. The US government
does the same old tricks of printing worthless money and selling
useless bonds to finance itself as other governments do.

  Jeff
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:39:13 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <BtwwLy.Go4@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>victor yodaiken wrote:
>>>>The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>>>>science is...
>
>And I responded:
>>>Ad Hominem!  Minus 5 points for Victor!
>
>To which he replies:
>>"Ad hominem"  is not synoymous with "strongly worded". 
>
>I can see that, as I expected, yet another lesson in practical
>reasoning is necessary.  Victor is of course right when he points
>out that "ad hominem" is not synonymous with "strongly worded".
>Unfortunately, he is still guilty of the fallacy, as I shall show.
>
>The "ad hominem" fallacy is committed whenever someone rejects or
>dismisses another person's statement by attacking the person rather
>than the statement itself.  There are several kinds of ad hominem,
>and the name of the one committed by Victor is known as "poisoning
>the well."
>
>The "poisoning the well" ad hominem fallacy is consists of trying
>to refute a statement by showing that the speaker has a nonrational
>motive for adopting it.

I have absolutely no idea how you could so grossly misread my statment. I
make no claim as to why a person would argue that his/her political/economic
ideology is objective and based on an understanding of the science of
economics, but I find such claims to be ludicrous.

>Clearly, Victor is trying to refute statements made by libertarians
>NOT by attacking the statements themselves, but by showing that we have
>a nonrational motive (i.e. prejudice) for making those statements.

You mistake the meaning of the word "prejudice" in this context. I claim
that in the absence of a rigorous and testable science of economics,
arguments to the effect that economic program X is not based on
moral/ethical choices are clearly invalid and serve only to obscure the
actual moral/ethical basis of the program. When you or anyone else
argues that the role of government should be to enforce contracts but not
to actively support the human rights of citzens who are the victims
of bigotry, then you do so on the basis of some ethical view. If you deny
the ethical content of your argument, then the ethical content does not
disappear, it merely is revealed to be unexamined --- i.e. a prejudice.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: RBC Modelling
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 14:50:35 GMT

<ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:

>Well, perhaps to start a new thread, perhaps to fail...

>What is the perception out there in netland about the validity of
>Real Business Cycle models?  Do they give us a reasonable and
>useful description of the macroeconomy?  Does money matter?

Depends on what you mean by "validity" since no model is perfect in
all respects.  Some of the current "state of the art" work on real
business cycles gets pretty good fits to some low order moments of the
business cycle variables by simply hypothesizing that the economy is
hit frequently by random "technology shocks" or "productivity shocks."
It is hypothesized by some that these are fundamental forces behind
the cyclical behavior of things like GDP and employment.

Unless you are good at forecasting the next technology shock you will
not find this kind of result very useful for prediction, however.

About two years ago I heard a lecture by Martin Eichenbaum of
Northwestern University about a model that extended the "technology
shock" models to allow for a simultaneous role for unanticipated
changes in the money supply.  He claimed that the data are unable to
sort out whether the unanticipated monetary shocks or the technology
shocks are dominant forces behind the real business cycle.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jmo@taylor.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Subject: Re: RBC Modelling
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 19:21:14 GMT

In article <92242.220031ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET>, <ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
|> Well, perhaps to start a new thread, perhaps to fail...
|> 
|> What is the perception out there in netland about the validity of
|> Real Business Cycle models?  Do they give us a reasonable and
|> useful description of the macroeconomy?  Does money matter?

(1) stupid
(2) on earth, no. There is a possibility that there may be
some planet somewhere to which these models are applicable.
(3) sort of.

-- MIKE

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: How Long it will Take to Pay back the Debt (Life in the 24th century)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:27:52 GMT

In article <BtK2M9.109@world.std.com> pjs@world.std.com (Paul J Schmidt) writes:
>idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman) writes:
>: 
>:  Then how do intend to pay for a neglect of infrastructure and education?
>: 
>:  California can't even pay its civil servents now.
>: 
>I want everyone to be able to get quality, affordable education.
>Education, as most government services can give better quality at half
>the cost if it is privatized.  By privatizing services now provided for
>government, and getting rid of the unecessary ones, it would be
>theoretically possible to pay off the national debt.
>: 
>: Ishay
>-- 
  What are some of the options of privatizing education?
  I heard about the waver system, but I don't understand its specifics.

Ishay





>Paul Schmidt: Advocates for Self-Government, Davy Crockett Chapter President
>706 Judith Drive, Johnson City, TN 37604, (615)283-0084, uunet!tijc02!pjs269
>"Freedom seems to have unleashed the  creative energies of the people -- and
>leads to ever higher levels of income and social progress."  --  U.N. report


Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: Pork Barrel Politics
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 25 Aug 92 13:24:23 CDT


How could they possibly have missed the swine research program
protected by Vin Weber.  True pork if ever there was...

Weber declined to run for re-election after reports that he
bounced a large number of checks at the House bank.  He is
now co-chair of the Bush re-election campaign.

-- 
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!)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 31 Aug 92 19:10:51 GMT
 <1992Aug21.031513.27785@csi.uottawa.ca> <52628@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52628@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Aug21.031513.27785@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>>(I HOPE that I have the attribution correct...)
>>>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>> 
>>> >>>	Milton Friedman, economically.
>>> 
>>>The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
>>>world over.
>>
>>Of course, if the whole Chilean situation was actually orchestrated by
>>the CIA (which is, of course, possible, and is in fact probable, but
>>probably not completely verifyable), what Friedman did has little or
>>no REAL relevance.
>>
>>That is, if the whole situation is the responsibility of the CIA, then
>>Miltie is (axiomatically :-)) NOT responsible.
> 
> You miss the point. I do not suggest that Milt was responsible for the
> overthrow of the Allende government, I merely suggest that his claim to
> be an advocate of "freedom" is incompatible with his eagerness to
> cooperate with the Pinochet junta while it was still engaged in wholesale
> torture and murder.  

	I think it had more to do with Friedman's aversion to communism.

> I further suggest that Friedman's economic polices
> have been shown to be quite appealing to torture regimes, and are now
> apparently quite the rage among the Nationalist right wing in Russia. 

	"quite appealing to torture regimes"?  Please.

> The massive social engineering and economic redistribution of the 
> Pinochet regime seems to be quite impossible in a democratic society where
> working people have a voice in the drafting of laws and the administration
> of justice. Thus, advocates of Milt's economics should explain just how
> far they are willing to go to give the rest of us the benefits of his, 
> brave new economy.

	Such social engineering schemes have usually come from the far left and
far right.  Friedman's economic policies have nothing to do with either.  Much
in the same way that a manufacturere of pistols or knives is responsible for
crimes committed with them.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7332 talk.politics.theory:3988 ba.politics:5003
From: baindur@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Satyen Baindur)
Subject: The Deficit as a Retrospective Tax
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 03:35:02 GMT

It has seemed to me that  this point of view is never 
heard in the media, and I thought I'd voice it here, and hear 
arguments against it. I'm  not a regular reader, so I don't know 
if this  might have been beaten to death in some previous thread. 

The point of view is this : The deficit arose because of tax cuts 
which were not accompanied by spending cuts. As I see it, the rich 
basically  said, no, you can't take this money away from us, as taxes, 
you're going to have to pay to use it. So borrow it from us. If the 
government, let us say, in a Democratic Administration now said,  
heck no, that was a foolish thing to do, we don't owe you that money 
which should have been taxes anyway, what happens ? The deficit 
simply becomes a retrospective tax. So from the government's current 
account, the obligation to pay interest on the debt vanishes. 

The government now has a smaller deficit to cover. If there are still 
people ("investors") with the money sitting around to 'lend' to 
the government, why can't the government simply say, sorry folks, 
we know better what to do with your money than you do, and this money 
is now ours ! That is, collect that idle money in taxes.

Instead, the national debate regarding the deficit is structured around 
arguments about how to pay down that debt, how to cut 'entitlements'
and so on. Paying down the debt, under the present tax structure, 
simply means sending more and more money earned by working people 
to the rich people !

In other countries, the government meets deficits simply by printing 
more money, this whole idea of the government becoming indebted to a few 
of its own citizens ( or certainly citizens of other countries)
does not exist, in this form. Just the idea that governments, having 
agreed on certain spending priorities, and democratically so, would 
then incur a debt obligation on behalf of all citizens to a few, is 
difficult to rationalize.

Satyen

-- 

Graduate School ! It's not just a job, it's an indenture !!