HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 16 Apr 92 23:33:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <DRG.92Apr16175959@bubba.ma30.bull.com> drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson) writes:
to complain about my interpretation of his words.

>   >The economy is being guided by a government structure which was never
>   >designed to guide economies.  Those of you who would like the
>   >government to guide the economy should vote for a king.  Those of you
>   >who would like the economy to be guided by markets should vote for a
>                                                      ^ You can't see
>    it but I wrote here in a very tiny font, which only Victor can
>    see, "(which is a euphemism for 'the rich and powerful' but in
>    actuality I believe that they are supernatural forces)".
>
>   >Libertarian.  Those of you who are not sure should move to Canada.
>
>   "markets", above, is a euphemism for "the rich and powerful". Your
>   belief that a "market" is a supernatural force is testimony to the power
>   of unexamined beliefs.
>
>I didn't mean to write that.  I actually meant to write:
>
>   The economy is being guided by a government structure which was never
>   designed to guide economies.  Those of you who would like the
>   government to guide the economy should vote for a king.  Those of you
>   who would like the economy to be guided by markets should vote for a
>   Libertarian.  Those of you who are not sure should move to Canada.

Well, you'd like the "market" to "guide the economy". We have several
choices in understanding this. First, we can see "the market" as being
a complex social construct in which such forces as consumer demand, legal
strictures, national borders, wars, and culture are all involved. But, 
you seem to find "market" as something completely other than "government". 
So, if we are to make sense of your posting, we must assume that you believe
"markets" to be forces which "guide economies" without intervention of
"governments". Thus, any social mechanism depending on laws, police forces, 
public spending, bureaus of weights and measures, public schools, post
offices, or any other one of the many facets of "government" can't be
a "market". This seems to leave only the supernatural and physical laws.
I'm unaware of any disveries of "market forces" in the physical sciences, so
that seems to leave no alternative.

>Your ability to read that tiny font is testimony to the power of a
>hard blow to the head.


No coercion, please.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Reply-To: al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka)
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 08:44:56 GMT


In a previous article, jamie@[128.127.2.100] (Jamie O'Keefe) says:
>
>The US government debt is ~50% of GNP.  After World War II it was
>100%.

What was it BEFORE the war?

-- 
=======================
"Endeavor to persevere"
=======================
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: distribution of wealt
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:39:50 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Apr11.100057.3089@rose.uucp> david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones) writes:
>The Enclosures have a deservedly horrible image in popular history
>because they did force poor people in the country to become poor people
>in the city.  But it seems to me an illusion to suggest that the people
>at the bottom were somehow propertied before and propertyless after the
>Enclosures.  They were at the bottom before and after.

See E.P. Thompson, History of the English Working Class, for an introduction
to the history of the enclosures. While the rural poor were, indeed ppor,
before the enclosures, they were much poorer, and much more dependent, after
the enclosures. In fact, as Thompson shows, the rural elite openly sought
to reduce the rural poor to the status of wage laborers through the
method of stealing the commons. Unable to grow food on his/her own plot or to
glean firewood from common forestland, the rural laborer was forced into
the cash economy as a supplicant. 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The future
Date: 17 Apr 92 17:45:47 GMT
	<1992Mar24.225033.17743@clipper.ingr.com>
	<1992Mar25.185947.11369@cs.rochester.edu> <45451@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <45451@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   The latter stage of a "consumer society" seems to require a reform
   of the government, in which the government enforces longer term
   considerations on industry including those which raise the general
   standard of living -- e.g. with a welfare system to stem social
   discord, an educational system to train workers, and various
   regulations to encourage investment.

First of all, how is welfare and education a long term consideration
of industry?  Sure, industry wants the poor to shutup and its workers
to be sufficiently educated but how does industry bear those burdens?
I was always under the impression that taxpayers are bearing those
burdens.  Second, show me how welfare has stemmed social discord.
Better yet, show me how it hasn't sown social discord.  Next, show me
how government education has improved worker skills.  I can atest to
the fact that my public education sucked (feel free to make ad hominem
attacks here).  My education consisted mostly of indoctrination into a
blind faith in government authority (I failed all the tests).  Last,
can I safely assume that you disapprove of the SEC's regulations which
require corporations to make quarterly reports and which seems to be
discouraging the long term planning which you feel the goverment
should encourage?

   The Soviet Union could not make the transition from raw
   industrialization to consumer society, perhaps because of the
   effects of maintaining such a huge military apparatus. Kruschev
   "should" have been the Soviet Roosevelt, but the security state
   could not tolerate his reforms.

I don't have any hope for the former SU.  They couldn't even get raw
industrialization right.  I think you may be right about the effects
of a large military apparatus.  Consider that a large military
apparatus is very similar, if not identical, to a large government
apparatus.
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:25:54 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

Communalism ~= Micro-Fascism
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Date: 15 Apr 92 16:15:22 GMT
Reply-To: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

In article <1992Apr10.051031.1013@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>In article <8859@alvin.mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr7.052044.25065@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>>
>>Ed Ipser thinks that lowering the net assets of the government is good,
>>I asked him for an estimate of the current level, he gave no estimate,
>>but thought that it must be high, and
>>opined that the National Parks and interstates were worth at least
>>"trillions".
>
>The actual level of assets held by the federal government is irrelevant
>to the discussion and any estimate of their value is largely speculative
>in the absence of a market for them. At best, you argument supports the
>assertion that the government is already at negative net worth and so
>the deficit/debt must REALLY not matter; the federal government can
>spend and borrow as much as it wants. Fine. Boogyman exposed.

No, my contention is that, in the minds of the lenders, the national
debt is backed by that fraction of the total national assets which they
expect the federal government to be able to 'mobilize' in service of
that debt, not only by nominal federal assets.


>> >in the event of an equity for debt
>> >swap, bond holders will find themselves in possession of federal assets

I'm sorry, but the federal government has not only the power, but the
right and obligation to tax, confiscate, mobilize or seize the assets of
you and I to pay its obligations.

Are you not aware of several Colorado towns which were  incorporated by
developers and issued municipal bonds to fund roads and sewers for,
say, 10,000 people.  After only hundreds had moved in, the land boom
ended, and no others bought in.  These people's property is now
worthless, since the tax bill is greater than 10% of previous market
value.

>> >within the government's jurisdiction. Yet federal bonds remain of the
>> >highest reputation. The market seems to consider them quite safe
>> >investments despite a $4 trillion debt and $300 billion annual interest
>> >payments. If bond holders are not worried about default or inflation, why
>> >should we?

Because they are backed by the country's net worth, not the
government's.


>The only true test of value is what the asset will fetch on the open
>market.

The only true test of the parts of RJR was their sale on the open
market, true, but banks and brokers loaned $20B on them.  I think 
they had previous estimates which they trusted.  

Your estimates, please.


-- 
That is the land of lost content,       Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
  I see it shining plain,
The happy highways where I went
  And cannot come again               AE Housman
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery: typo of the year.
Date: 16 Apr 92 00:53:10 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <46611@dime.cs.umass.edu> I wrote:
>Well there are two points here. First, the lack of family structures and
>values among the urban poor has been a favorite topic of middle-class and
>wealthy observers since Feudal times, at the very least. Look at the
>famous Hogarth engravings, or read Dickens, Zola, or Upton Sinclair
>for prior versions of your argument. The poor, it seems, always drink too
>much, fight too much, and are too damn unclean for the tender sensibilities
>of their betters. You might also want to read "Jews without money", a great
>book by a fellow named Gold who grew up in the old Lower East Side -- a
>place where prostitution, gang violence and drug (alcohol) abuse were not
>unknown. (God went on in life to become a very dull, proper,
>middle-class member of the communist party,but that's another story). 

It sure is. But, the missing "l" was purely unintentional.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: So what's your alternative to Social Security?
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 17:04:30 GMT

In article <92095.162049DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>, <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> I have no major problem with Doug's ideas about an Individual Security
|> system.  All an old age insurance system has to do is force savings
|> (Doug's plan does this) and re-distribute income to those who outlive
|> their savings (Doug's plan could do this).
|> 
|> There are a few minor problems.
|> 
|> One of the reasons that SS was set up as a public system was because
|> FDR advisors argues that too many people at that time would invest their
|> money risky assets, leading the program to be unstable actuarily.  Many
|> of us have witnessed in recent years the mismanagement of private pension
|> funds.  Many of us would resent being forced to pay for the retirement
|> years of those who took a flyer on some start-up.  So I would think
|> there would have to be some limits on where people could invest
|> their savings.
|> 

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


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones)
Subject: distribution of wealt
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 11:00:56 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-10-92 20:17
Replying to: hgm@waikato.ac.nz
HG>Newsgroups: sci.econ
HG>Subject: Re: distribution of wealth

HG>The New Right are heavily into this kind of right to pollute but they are go
HG>to sell the rights to the highest bidder and then allow them to sell them. T
HG>will increase the tendency of the market to make the rich richer and the poo
HG>poorer. The land enclosures in UK were the final alienation of the rights of
HG>the masses to a meagre portion of the land resource. Property rights in othe
HG>resources will be the second enclosure if they are not distributed equally t
HG>all.


Helen,

These themes are often asserted, but assertion is not proof: that the
market promotes inequality, and that the Enclosures robbed the poor of
their pittance.

Both are prettty counter-intuitive.

Real hardass inequality appears in non-market situations.  Bahrein, the
gambling feifdoms of Jersey and Guensey, Quatar etc. in our present
period; practically anywhere in previous periods.

In ancient time you could see the difference between Athens, a market
town, and the Persian autocracies.  In Athens a rich man could pay for a
trireme, the equivalent of maybe owning a LearJet in today's world, and
there were several hundred such rich people in town.  Clubs of middle
class people could also chip in for their triremes, and have some of the
thrills of the real rich.  Sorta like having a Gold Card today.

On the Persian mainland, by contrast, you had real wealth: the
stultifying, unspendable Heavy-Thunk-Money of today's sheiks.

As for the enclosures, surely you've lived in a co-op where people argue
about whose chocolate milk is taking up too much space in the fridge --
and the meeker people eat out or leave.  That's the Commons for you.

The Enclosures have a deservedly horrible image in popular history
because they did force poor people in the country to become poor people
in the city.  But it seems to me an illusion to suggest that the people
at the bottom were somehow propertied before and propertyless after the
Enclosures.  They were at the bottom before and after.

                      When Adam delved...

                                  :-)

                                        -dlj.
---
   SLMR 2.0   World peace through world law.
   RM 1.60: Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:18:33 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204141458.AA02040@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>  Yes, I agree some limitation here is reasonable, at least
>  in extreme cases.   The British government swiped some of
>  BA's slots a few years go to make way for (Cathay Pacific?)
>  and most industry analysts in retrospect seem to think that
>  this was a correct decision.    I think allowing a certain
>  percentage of slots to "evaporate" every year, i.e. put
>  them up for grabs, might not be unreasonable although
>  it's not clear to me why this couldn't be done by the 
>  local airport authorities.   But beyond ensuring that 

Think about how popular the airport commission of Pitt would be if they
annoyed one the major employers in the area by cutting USAIR's number
of alloted gates. Ditto for Delta in Atlanta.

>  do not result in barriers to entry, I don't see any need
>  for additional regulation in this area.

How's about predatory pricing regulation? People's express was making a
profit with fares that other airlines matched until People's bit the
dust. Having deep pockets enables an established corporation to murder
its competition. 


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:3559 soc.history:3455 alt.conspiracy:6097
From: baylor@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Baylor)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,soc.history,alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: highways and fascism
Summary: freight riders
Date: 22 Mar 92 21:27:05 GMT
Article-I.D.: ut-emx.68857
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX

> 
>> >- one of the creepiest underground fascist organizations in the US (Freight
>> >  Riders of America, or something like that) makes a specialty of random
>> >  killings on trains.
>> 
>> Never heard of these guys. Got any more info on 'em?
>
>They're just hobos who have apparently formed a Manson-style family.  
>They reportedly engage in random thrill-killings of people they 
>encounter while riding the rails.  Usually the victims are other hobos with 
>the occasional railroad worker mixed in.  
 
	Actually, they are the hobos (if that's the term were using). They 
are essentially white guys who lived in homeless camps. They were somewhat 
mean spirited. You're right, they are like manson, or how biker gangs get
depicted. They have titles if i remember correctly, were mostly in the 
south and midwest, raped their camp wives, sold cocain (i don't know if
it's crack), got drunk alot and avoided the law by crossing state lines
often.
	I never heard that they caught any of them, although they 
seem to know names; one of the higher ups was intervied in a homeless
shelter in alabama i think.
-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Baylor Wetzel    baylor@ccwf.utexas.edu         "There is no such thing 
IBM LAN Manager, University of Texas             as an innocent Kennedy"
"All opinions are soley those of the unix guys playing with my account"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Federal Government and the US Constitution (was Re: deficit/debt)
Date: 15 Apr 92 02:08:37 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr10.051314.1700@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
[stuff about the constitution]
>      Section 8. The Congress shall have power
>      To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the
>   debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of
                                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would say that an educated population definitely improves the general
welfare of the united states, wouldn't you?  One can justify many things
as promoting the general welfare.  I could justify an internet connection
in every home, probably :-)


--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: theory of consumer behaviour
Date: 12 Apr 92 23:37:10 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <jke2.702858605@Ra.MsState.Edu> jke2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Joselito K. Estrada) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>The  first false assumption is that there are no big players in  a stock market
>>dominated by institutional investors and a small group of brokerage
>>houses/bankers.  
>
>I am inclined to differ on that statement. The installation of programmed trading in the stock exchanges back in late '87 or early '88 was prompted by the mass
>selling of stocks by `consumers'. These people reacted to actions undertaken by
>the so-called `big players.'

So your claim is that CALPS with approx 70billion in assets is not
a big player, and cannot alter the market any more than any other average
consumer?

.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 7 Apr 92 17:12:11 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr07.145312.24509@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:

>Don't like the sound of 'ends justifying the means?' From a logical
>standpoint, any effective means to get a job done should produce the
>desired end, or else the means will be unjustified.  However, I would go
>a step further and say that some of the 'ends' that the means must
>satisfy are that people's rights have not been violated along the way. 

I was trying to get away from the notion of "rights", and substitute a
notion of "values".  I just find it harder to get a handle on "rights",
whereas my values are available to my inspection, at least to some
extent :-).  That is, I try to make values the more primitive concept,
and define rights in terms of shared values (which may change, since
values are inherently emotional and personal and can easily be
contradictory).  I have never seen any satisfactory intellectual defense
of the notion of "rights" as axioms.  "We hold these truths to be self-
evident..." is nice prose, but a statement of faith, not logic.  I share
the *values* expressed -- just don't buy the reasoning.

>If one disregards some of the ends in order to justify other ends, then
>one hasn't really computed the cost correctly (I've seen lots of
>managers underplay some elements of costs to justify a project they
>think was 'worth while').  In that context, I don't think there's any
>problem with the idea that the 'ends justify the means' except that one
>must look at ALL the 'ends.'

Or, stated another way, the ultimate effects of all the means...

>Dan

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

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thies@bl.physik.tu-muenchen.de (Heinz-Georg Thies)
Subject: lean managment?
Organization: Technische Universitaet Muenchen, Germany
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 12:01:50 GMT



What is "lean managment" and "lean production"?

"Lean xxx" seems to be the new buzzword pretending to explain the 
Japanese and Korean superiority over the European Industry. As far as 
I understand it, the main points are fewer managers per worker and 
better flow of information from the workers to the managment even 
ignoring hierachical barriers.

A friend of mine has to write a paper on this topic. To base his 
claims on some facts he needs information on the managment structure 
of Japanese and Korean Industry.

He would much appreciate information or pointers to literature on:

-How many subordinates per manager?

-How many layers of managment from workshop to general manager?

-Who reports to whom?

especially concerning Japanese and Korean Industry, but information on 
other countries may be useful too.

Thank You very much for Your support.



Heinz-Georg Thies                       Sektion Physik der Universitaet Muenchen
Phone: (+49 89)3209 4071                Am Coulombwall 1
                                        D-8046 Garching, Germany
Internet: thies@charly.bl.physik.tu-muenchen.de