HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eric@Turing.ORG (Eric Prestemon)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: American underclass
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:38:28 GMT
Organization: The Turing Project, Charlottesville Virginia.

In article <BtK4Jy.2uz@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> you write:
>
>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..
I wonder the same things...

>(1) Is rent control is places like N.Y a large part of the problem in terms
>of distorting the housing market?
I wrote my undergraduate Econ research paper on Rent Control. The answer
to the above question is *clearly* in the affirmative. Rent control 
doesn't even help the tenants who live in RC'ed apts, in the long run.
>
>(2) Do you think that either Clinton or Bush are *** serious *** about
>addressing these problems?   
Opinion: Bush doesn't care, Clinton may care, but neither will do
anything. Votes are won by $, not individuals, and people who live in
inner cities don't contribute to parties/campaigns, simple as that.
Senators like Metzenbaum and T. Kennedy, who seem to care, are probably
doing more harm than good, so maybe it's for the best.
>
>(3) Is there any way that these problems can be ameliorated without a large
>tax increase?
Yes, I can think of many ways, the simplest being stopping gov't
interference. The idea of "Enterprise Zones" is simply to stop 
interference in areas where business can't support the government 
sucking money from it. 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)

I care very much about these issues, and feel that people with low
opportunities are being held down by a governemnt which claims to help
them. Legalizing drugs would also probably help these areas, too.

I have considered starting a non-partisan,minimal politicing, mailing
list to answer exactly these questions , which our current political system
seems to repeatedly fail to deal with. Any en/discouragement out there,
or pointers to a similar list?



-- 
Eric Prestemon (ecp2z@virginia.edu) 
"Jesus saves! Gretzky steals! Gretzky scores!"
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:41:38 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <BtyFDB.3pu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Victor writes:
>>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.
>
>5 more points off!
>
>The name of this fallacy is 'straw man'.  If Victor had been paying
>attention, he would know that I have _not_ denied the ethical content
>of my argument.  Indeed, I have been quite explicit in my statements
>that all political 'oughts' contain embedded ethical 'oughts'.

Excuse me. You interjected yourself into a discussion which you did not
start, and now complain that your views were not featured as the central
objects of interest. To refresh your memory, my objections were to a posting
by Vinod Valloppillil. His remarks follow:

|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
|be the realm of non-governmental organizations -- in their belief.  The main
|rationale for this is that while the laws of economics are more or less
|universal (referring to basic laws such as supply and demand, marginal
|utility, etc.) morality is inherently subjective.  Thus, when the government (a form
|of monopoly) becomes morally defined, those morals invariably conflict
|with those of one of the citizens.  As a result, enforcement can
|become quite expensive.  When an outside social organization -- one
|that is not affiliated with the government -- adopts moral policies
|individuals still have choice regarding whether or not they wish
|to subscribe to that organization.  
|	Thus, libertarians (at least this particular breed) don't
|allow government to become morally justified because there is no
|room (or significantly little room) for choice.
|

>Logic lesson: the 'straw man' fallacy consists of trying to refute
>one proposition by arguing against another proposition.

Your logic lessons would be more enjoyable if they had something to do
with the topic at hand.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:12:31 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

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".
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.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: jft@lonex.rl.af.mil (James F. Tims)
Subject: Re: Republican Controlled Congress
Organization: RL
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 92 05:35:15 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.104623.10048@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>From 1981 thru 1986 the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and
>had a working majority (along with conservative Democrats) 
>in the House of Reps.

>In billions (%GNP):
>year  GNP     receipts     outlays        deficit     N Debt     admin
>====  ====    ==========   ===========   =========   ======     ======
>1980  2674    517 (19.3)    591 (22.1)    74 (2.8)    908(33.9) Carter
>1981  2986    599 (20.1)    678 (22.7)*   79 (2.6)    998(33.4) Reagan
>1982  3130    618 (19.7)    745 (23.8)*  127 (4.1)  1,142(36.5) Reagan
>1983  3325    601 (18.1)    808 (24.3)*  207 (6.2)  1,377(41.4) Reagan
>1984  3688    666 (18.1)    852 (23.1)*  185 (5.0)  1,572(42.6) Reagan
>1985  3958    734 (18.5)    946 (23.9)*  212 (5.4)  1,823(46.1) Reagan
>1986  4177    769 (18.4)    990 (23.7)*  221 (5.3)  2,125(50.9) Reagan
>1987  4442    854 (19.2)   1004 (22.6)   150 (3.4)  2,350(52.9) Reagan
>1988  4771    909 (19.1)   1064 (22.3)   155 (3.2)  2,602(54.5) Reagan
>1989  5121    976 (19.1)   1137 (22.2)   161 (3.1)  2,857(55.8) Bush
>
>* Republican controlled White House, Senate, & working majority in the House.
>
>Notice how spending (%GNP) *increased* when the Republican's were in control.
>
>-- 
>Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
>------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
>

Will the argument against this be that Democrats still controlled
legislation by controlling the key committees, e.g. Ways and Means?
Will Reublicans take the tack that the domestic expenditures were lavish
in view of our urgent need for a military buildup, complete with
the Caesarean casuistry that said buildup caused the collapse of the USSR?  
For now, I see these figures as evidence against a popular myth.  
DEMOCRATS TAX AND SPEND!
DEMOCRATS TAX AND SPEND!
DEMOCRATS TAX AND SPEND!
Even the most ardent liberal cringes to hear the accusation,  
feelng the kindergarten-like litany "tax and spend" to be irritatingly true.
I have believed this to be among the most vulnerable areas of my own 
political position in argument, not from coherent debate 
concerning social priorities, but from bludgeoning, Orwellian 
repetition that forces one to concede all points to the opposition,
even so far as to believe that the mindless incantation that ended
all discussion was true. I feel positively rejuvenated!  Should I?
What's the catch, here?  Can I wheel out this chart and smash 
Republicans willy-nilly, or will I just open up the next layer of
the onion?  The very Liberal ass's jawbone of a chart!  8^)

-- 
jft
"And if you're a miner, when you're too tired and old and sick and stupid
to do your job properly, you have to go, whereas just the opposite applies
with the judges."  Beyond the Fringe
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: Thu, 03 Sep 1992 17:35:29 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <1992Sep3.161725.12079@news.eng.convex.com>, dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) writes:
|> In article <IedWpSa00YV7M2c8pG@andrew.cmu.edu> ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen) writes:
|> >A "majority" of Americans saw their real incomes decline through the
|> >eighties, which lasted ten years not four as indicated. The growth in
|> >income went to the top 20% of income-earners and most of that went to
|> >the top 5%. 
|> 
|> A newspaper article about the recent announcement of per capita income for
|> 1991(?) said this was the first time since 1982 that the increase in per
|> capita income was less than the rate of inflation.  Combining that statement
|> with yours would tend to indicate that most people fell further behind in
|> 1980 and 1981 (Carter budget) than they could catch up in 1982-1991 (Reagan
|> and Bush budgets), wouldn't it?
|> 

There was also a recent news report (I saw it in clarinet, in the paper, and
on TV) indicating that people who started work in the '50s through '60s saw
a steady growth in income throughout their careers.  The demographics for
new earners since then show that, with fixed $'s, younger workers, started
at lower pay, suffered stagnant earnings during their middle years (late 30's
and 40's, and can expect decreases in their later years).  The area under the
curves (total $'s earned) was much much smaller for later earners compared to 
the earlier generation.

Dan
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7258 talk.politics.theory:3948
From: vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 31 Aug 92 13:51:46 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <Btt7vq.1oJ@newcastle.ac.uk> Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) writes:
>
>        [talk.politics.theory added to newsgroups line, with a
>        view to transferring this thread away from sci.econ if
>        it continues]
>
>jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>>Thomas Omar Smith writes:
>>>Strange as it feels, I have to agree with Victor on this one.  Although
>>>Libertarianism possesses a strong argument logically, as a moral system,
>>>it is repugnant.
>
>>Again, libertarianism is not a moral system.  Libertarianism is a political
>>theory.
>

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
be the realm of non-governmental organizations -- in their belief.  The main
rationale for this is that while the laws of economics are more or less
universal (referring to basic laws such as supply and demand, marginal
utility, etc.) morality is inherently subjective.  Thus, when the government (a form
of monopoly) becomes morally defined, those morals invariably conflict
with those of one of the citizens.  As a result, enforcement can
become quite expensive.  When an outside social organization -- one
that is not affiliated with the government -- adopts moral policies
individuals still have choice regarding whether or not they wish
to subscribe to that organization.  
	Thus, libertarians (at least this particular breed) don't
allow government to become morally justified because there is no
room (or significantly little room) for choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vinod Valloppillil
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 1 Sep 92 12:16:27 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug31.141051.3822@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <52628@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> 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.

Call it what you want, the torture remains torture.

>> 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

You may not want to call what happened in Chile "social engineering", but
under Milt's disciples radical restructuring of the Chilean economy
was imposed violently on the Chilean people: standards of living were
radically downgraded for most people, whole industries were eliminated,
land ownership was radically redistributed to the rich, the rights to
strike and organize were eliminated, the schools and universites were
completely revised to eliminate mention of unwanted ideas ....


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7325 talk.politics.misc:43387
From: ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Supply-side economics
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:21:02 GMT
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 2-Sep-92 Re: Supply-side economics by
Stupendous Man@desire.wr 
> > To interpret the 80's as a "resounding success" simply because GDP climbed
> > linearly is neither accurate nor complete.  I for one am not sure that it
> > is worth trying to imitate.
>  
>         It was a success because a majority of the people grew more
> economically secure.  They earned more, the economy was expanding and twice
> affirmed that they were better off than they had been four years >previously.

A "majority" of Americans saw their real incomes decline through the
eighties, which lasted ten years not four as indicated. The growth in
income went to the top 20% of income-earners and most of that went to
the top 5%. 
The fact that 50% of the American public re-elected Reagan and elected
Bush can hardly be used as evidence that most people felt "better off."

Steve           


<><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
       Stephen Sorensen                    
  Heinz School of Public Policy  
   Carnegie-Mellon University                                           
             Pittsburgh, PA 
    Internet: ss9o@andrew.cmu.edu            

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Milton Friedman...
Date: 1 Sep 92 23:11:59 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1161@kps.UUCP> ded@kps.UUCP (David Edwards /DP) writes:
>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? 

>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 

A number of people have begun wondering why the US should continue to
discourage trade with Cuba, and it has nothing to do with any sympathy
for Castro's ideology.  It's a matter of determining what is in the
best interests of Cuba and the US for the time when the crazy old man
is no longer around.  Now that Cuba is no longer a threat to anyone,
there is no reason for paranoia.  

Unfortunately it is almost impossible for a Democrat to open relations
with a Communist country.  Maybe a lame-duck (quack, quack)  Republican
could do it, but I don't know of one likely to get elected.

	 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: jmo@taylor.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Business Cycles
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:07:34 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

The stock market is not a gambling game because in gambling people
know the rules, the model and the probabilities. This is not the
case in the stock market.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: radford@cs.toronto.edu (Radford Neal)
Subject: Re: DEBT vs. DEFICIT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:20:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.210940.13578@isc-br.isc-br.com> steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks) writes:

>In any event, government surpluses can be a major problem since they
>represent resources uninvested in productive activity.

This is not true. You are confusing monetary symbols with reality.
The government forcing people to turn over little pieces of green
paper does not cause factories to go up in smoke.

Indirectly, government surpluses may cause problems. For example, they
may well (other things being equal) cause the money supply to
contract. This will (other things being equal) cause deflation. The
real wages of employed workers will then be pushed up. Since the
workers (we assume) are not producing any more than before, this will
result in some of them being dismissed, at least until the workers get
wise and accept (nominal) pay cuts. 

When the government taxes some people and then does nothing with the
money, there may also be a redistribution of wealth, if the people who
benefit from the resulting deflation are not the same as those who
were taxed.

    Radford Neal
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:25:59 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

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?

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.
(Propertarianism, the extreme right-wing Libertarianism, is not a proper
market system, BTW - too much local monopoly power.)
	 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: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 27 Aug 1992 18:45:41 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

In article 20622@panix.com, jk@panix.com (Jim Kalb) writes:

>>I would ask why do I have to pay for the things you want but you don't
>>have to pay for the things I want?
>
>That's a question someone might ask who wanted the government to do lots
>of things, but not provide a police system, a military establishment or
>a judicial system.  How many people like that are there?  Does that
>point of view even make sense?
>

What make sense depends on your value system.
If our systems differ than what makes sense differs. Just as we have
genetic diversity we also have "value system" diversity. You must
operate in a varied world and be able to deal with the beliefs of others
in a genuine way. You take it as true that police, courts, defense, etc.
are all necessary. Many anarchists will sincerely disagree with you.
Many socialists will also sincerly disagree with your limits. Many many
people are inbetween. So now what?

>When used in a debate with a human being, the pronoun "you" does not
>normally refer to the government.  So the lib wouldn't have to say yes
>any more than other people -- he could say as readily and as sincerely
>as anyone "I believe each of us should help those in desperate need by
>what we do individually and in cooperation with others."
>

Again, after much protestation, in the end should the government as the last
resort help the starving family of five? A simple yes or no will do.

>I haven't the faintest idea why immutable principles and righteousness
>are supposed to be responsible for current events in Bosnia or the
>holocaust.  

Is not "ethnic purity" the most immutable and self-righteous principle 
you can think of?

>I would have thought that some moral courage -- which has a
>lot to do with fixed principles -- could have helped prevent or mitigate
>those catastrophes.  

I guess you were wrong.