HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 16:04:18 GMT

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>Keynes was confused.  He attempted to prove that savings were bad
>and investment was good.  However, by his own definitions, savings
>and investment were, in fact, the same thing.  Why should 'savings'
>be any different than 'investment'?  When you put money into 'savings',
>where does the money go?  Does it sit in a vault until you take 
>it out?  Banks lend the money to individuals and businesses, who
>then spend the money on various things like capital equipment
>purchases, housing purchases, etc.  Why is this bad but government
>spending is good?


>James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
>University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
>Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         

I think Keynes suggested deficit spending in
recessions to stimulate the economy. He also suggested
generating a surplus in good times to fund the deficit spending.

It's not his fault that governments followed the former,
but not the latter advice. Although that should have been
predictable knowing the nature of governments.

When you put money into "savings", the banks lend the
money to the government (buy treasuries) or invest
in the debt of large, safe corporations (corporate bonds).
They pay out 2% in interest, and get the 5% difference
between short and long term interest rates, not to mention
that because of falling interest rates the value of
the bonds and treasuries at old interest rates has
increased dramatically.

They are not making loans to small businesses and
individuals. Why should they take larger risk for
smaller profits?

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 20:03:36 GMT

jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:

>Why is government spending better at stimulating the economy
>than private spending?

It isn't better. But when there is no private spending,
then government spending is better than none.

>If the money is used to buy treasuries this should be a good
>thing, shouldn't it (by Keynesian reasoning).  After all, you
>are giving the government money which it can spend to stimulate
>the economy.

Little heavy handed attempt at humor?

>What do the 'large, safe corporations' do with the money they
>receive from bond proceeds?  Do they stuff it in a mattress, or
>do they spend it somewhere?  I would wager that corporations
>(large or small) sell bonds in order to grow.

Large corporations generate far fewer jobs than smaller
ones. Inefficiencies of scale.

>|> They are not making loans to small businesses and
>|> individuals. Why should they take larger risk for
>|> smaller profits?
>|> 

>Government spending is not going to go to small businesses.  

No argument here. The point is that unless interest rates
go down, it is very hard for small businesses to raise
capital.

It might help if you read my post more carefully before
responding. You're arguing against points that I've never made.

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Southeast Design Center
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 20:14:55 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.225413.24584@ncsu.edu> jjprice@eos.ncsu.edu (JEFFREY JAMES PRICE) writes:


   |>In article <MDL.93Jan15115718@ak.cypress.com> mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
   |
   |>>
   |>>in times of recession...  He thought government spending was more effective
   |>>because than tax cuts because part of the tax cuts would go to savings.

   Did this guy say what I think he said.....

no, you jumped in to the middle of the thread.  Do you even know
who the "he" is any more?

   We shouldn't cut taxes because peole might save the money.....

what he said (or my interpretation of it) was that if you believe it's
the job of the government to stimulate the economy in times of
recession, government spending is better than income tax cuts, because
part of the cuts would go in to savings rather than investment.

   A true democrat at heart...If someone saved money they might become
   rich and we can't let that happen.

   Gee Whiz...If I didn't save my money I wouldn't be attending
   college right now...My parents helped out some but my dad was out
   of work for a total of one year during the past four(not all at
   the same time)...Right now I am down to my last $93 bucks until
   May when I can go back to work. I plan to get a real job this 
   summer and actually make some money which I can "save"...some
   will go to college..some of it will go to buying stuff for me...
   and the rest will go for when I get out of college and want a 
   decent car (OH Yeah...that was something else I bought with my
   savings)

When you say "save" I assume your not just putting it in a regular
savings account.

   My parents taught me to save my money because I might need it someday..
   They have helped me out a lot but all the things I have done in the
   past four years would not have been possible without my savings.
   I guess I should have just wasted my money on frivolous things instead
   of buying a car or going to college. Better yet maybe I could have
   given $4000 bucks to the gov't and let them use it..NOTTT!!!!!!!

While you're in college, try taking some economics courses to learn
the difference in savings and investment.  Also, quit whining about
having to pay your way through college.

disclaimer to those who know economics:  I am not a Keynesian
--


Matt Landrum, CAD Engineer      | e-mail: mdl@cypress.com
Cypress Southeast Design Center | office: (601) 324-4609, FAX - 4614
1 Research Blvd, Suite 200      | "You can get what you want if you
Starkville, MS  39759           | know how to find it." -- Tower of Power


Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:52:30 GMT

In article 1k66vtINNju7@srvr1.engin.umich.edu, jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
[...]  If I have a driveway
>which needs plowing, should it be illegal for me to contract with
>you to do the plowing for the next year?  Is it any different if I
>contract with a plowing service which you operate?  If I contract
>with your plowing service, only your employees will be allowed to
>plow my driveway.  It would be a violation of our contract if I
>paid someone else to do the work, as long as our contract remained
>in existance.  

An erroneous restatement of the question. By the rules of agency shop, 
you would be compelled to (1) recognize the service that you first
contracted with as the sole supplier of services to your house and (2)
be required to pay a service fee to the shoveling service for any other
services you contracted- including those that the shoveling service 
cannot supply.

You also may have misread the bit about the primacy of certain legal
principles over others, given  your request for a proof that
agency shop laws are illegal in the same sense as murder. The idea is that 
certain principles have primacy over the principles of contract law,  
for example, the laws prohibiting murder. In other words, if murder
is an illegal act, the courts will not allow you to enforce a contract for
that act.

Now here's the part that seems to be the one that caused difficulty: If 
an act is objectionable from first principles to a libertarian, then it
would seem that the act would still be objectionable if contracted for,
would it not?

Ergo: It is objectionable, from the perspective of individual rights, to
coerce a person to contribute money to something he may object to 
philisophically. Therefore even though some other agents may have contracted
to do so, after the fact, it is objectionable to coerce him to do so. Yet
agency laws allow a union to come in and do this sort of coercion after
the fact.

SCOTUS held, last year, that a union may not use service fees to pay for 
things not strictly related to the union's representation of the employee,
i.e., contributions to political parties, so they're pointed in that direction
as well.


 >I consider myself to be a libertarian and I believe that the government 
>has no right to interfere in the making of contracts.  Only in cases which
>violate basic natural rights (as in your murder contract, fraud, etc.) would
>I agree that the government has the right to declare a contract null and
>void.  

What about freedom of association? What about the union's authority to take
your money in the abscence of a contract between you and the union?

I generally agree with you on most of your postings, but I think you're missing 
an important point here.

   --mike edelman   mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu (Michael J. Edelman)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Reply-To: mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu
Organization: Wayne State University
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 21:17:50 GMT

In article FC5@cs.uiuc.edu, watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
 >
        [...]

>Large corporations generate far fewer jobs than smaller
>ones. Inefficiencies of scale.

This is unsubstantiated nonsense. Unfortunately, it is nonsense that ouw new 
president subscribes to, ergo his promise for some capital gains tax relief but
only for small business.

Large businesses in this country are generally old businesses, like steel and
automotive, though this is changing. These businesses have a disproportionate
amount of investment in large capital goods, like factories. Even high-tech IBM
suffers from this. As such, they suffer from the way capital is taxed. Large
businesses are taxed indirectly in other ways, most noteably via regulations
that smaller firms are exempted from. The "inefficiencies" of large business, if
any, are created by the federal government.

>
>>Government spending is not going to go to small businesses.  
>
>No argument here. The point is that unless interest rates
>go down, it is very hard for small businesses to raise
>capital.

It doesn't matter where it goes. Government serves only to redistribute, and
inefficiently at that. Sometimes this is acceptable, as in public education. 
The federal government cannot create jobs on net. To create a job paying $20,000
per year it must collect taxes of around $60,000 per year. That means three fewer
jobs in the private sector- probably productive ones. 
>

>
>-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu



mike edelman

Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Organization: Partnership for an America Free Drug
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 00:01:54 GMT

mdl@cypress.com (Matt Landrum) writes:
>what he said (or my interpretation of it) was that if you believe it's
>the job of the government to stimulate the economy in times of
>recession, government spending is better than income tax cuts, because
>part of the cuts would go in to savings rather than investment.

And this, of course, would be horrible, as the money just gets piled
up in the back of the bank doing nothing, gathering dust. The banks
get the interest they pay you by printing money or stealing it.

Global ignorance is a far worse problem than global warming.
--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
Laissez faire, laissez passer. Le monde va de lui meme.
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Tax cuts (is this guy crazy)
Date: 26 Jan 1993 19:18:34 GMT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: world
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: tarkus.citi.umich.edu

In article <C1Gxz7.3p3@cs.uiuc.edu>, watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
|> jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe) writes:
|> 
|> >Keynes was confused.  He attempted to prove that savings were bad
|> >and investment was good.  However, by his own definitions, savings
|> >and investment were, in fact, the same thing.  Why should 'savings'
|> >be any different than 'investment'?  When you put money into 'savings',
|> >where does the money go?  Does it sit in a vault until you take 
|> >it out?  Banks lend the money to individuals and businesses, who
|> >then spend the money on various things like capital equipment
|> >purchases, housing purchases, etc.  Why is this bad but government
|> >spending is good?
|> 
|> I think Keynes suggested deficit spending in
|> recessions to stimulate the economy. He also suggested
|> generating a surplus in good times to fund the deficit spending.
|> 

Why is government spending better at stimulating the economy
than private spending?

|> 
|> [...]
|>
|> When you put money into "savings", the banks lend the
|> money to the government (buy treasuries) or invest
|> in the debt of large, safe corporations (corporate bonds).

If the money is used to buy treasuries this should be a good
thing, shouldn't it (by Keynesian reasoning).  After all, you
are giving the government money which it can spend to stimulate
the economy.

|> They pay out 2% in interest, and get the 5% difference
|> between short and long term interest rates, not to mention
|> that because of falling interest rates the value of
|> the bonds and treasuries at old interest rates has
|> increased dramatically.
|> 

What do the 'large, safe corporations' do with the money they
receive from bond proceeds?  Do they stuff it in a mattress, or
do they spend it somewhere?  I would wager that corporations
(large or small) sell bonds in order to grow.

|> They are not making loans to small businesses and
|> individuals. Why should they take larger risk for
|> smaller profits?
|> 

Government spending is not going to go to small businesses.  It
typically goes to large corporations.  Look at defense spending,
for example.  Why is it better for the economy for the government
to spend money than it is for a private individual, bank, or 
corporation to spend the same money?  The only thing government
can do is change the composition of the economy, I don't believe
it can create a net stimulus, unless it resorts to printing money.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Libertarians and Labor Unions
Date: 27 Jan 93 15:08:20 GMT
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada

In article <1993Jan27.131933.4510@cs.wayne.edu> mje@pookie.pass.wayne.edu writes:
>In article 43g@agate.berkeley.edu, ssusin@emily10.Berkeley.EDU (Scott Susin) writes:
>>There aren't any laws that _force_ people to join labor unions,
>>however, unions often _negotiate_ contracts with employers that 
>>require employees to join a union.  Judging from the replies to this
>>question, it seems like the libertarians out there are suggesting
>>that unions and companies shouldn't be allowed to negotiate such 
>>contracts.  Having the government ban certain types of contracts
>>seems like a clear violation of libertarian tenets to me.
>
>States such as Michigan have laws that specifically allow for "agency shop". 
>This allows a union to require that ll employees of a company be required
>to either join the unin or pay "service fees" to that union. The contract is
>not between the employer and employee, but between the employer and the
>union. The employee does not have the right to freely choose whether or not
>the union is her designated representative. Given that a union is a contractual
>supplier- of labor in this case- a parallel would be a parts supplier that 
>says you can buy parts from anyone, but you must pay a fee to the one supplier
>that has signed a contract with you. Often this contract itself is signed 
>with state coercion.

Under your version of libertarian principles, why do you
believe that such a contract between an employer (usually a
corporation) and a union should not be legal, given no state
coercion?

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics
Newsgroups: alt.politics.italy,alt.revolution.counter,alt.uu.lang.russian.misc
Subject: Model United Nations Conference in Prague
From: chao6@husc11.harvard.edu (James Chao)
Date: 24 Jan 93 00:08:30 EST
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

(If possible, please print out and post for people who might be
interested)

To all those interested in international relations, politics, and the
United Nations -- WorldMUN is a great forum for the discussion of 
current issues being debated by the United Nations today: 

Harvard World Model United Nations (WorldMUN) is an international
conference that brings together university students and young
professionals from around the globe to siimulate the workings of the
United Nations.  The second annual WorldMUN conference will be held from
March 28, 1993, through March 31, 1993, at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  

Ten committees, representing the General Assembly, Economic and Social
Council, and Specialized Agencies of the United Nations, will discuss
issues from the actual UN agenda.  In addition to the formal debate of
resolutions, committee sessions will be augmented by presentations from
politicians, businessmen, scholars, and activists who have helped shape
the dramatic world events of recent years.

In this era of momentous political change, WorldMUN seeks to assess the
role of the United Nations in a new world order.  WorldMUN marks the first
truly international simulated United Nations where participants play the
roles of their own nation's ambassadors.  WorldMUN strives to teach
tomorrow's leaders about the United Nations and its methods of conflict
resolution.  It aims to foster skills in negotiation and debate, in order
that delegates may formulate resolutions on topics currently discussed in
the real United Nations.  These resolutions will be sent to the actual
United Nations committees.

WorldMUN 1993 will take place at the Hotel Diplomat in Prague,
The Czech Republic.  The Hotel Diplomat is Prague's most modern conference
center.  Prague is both one of the most beautiful metropoles of Europe and
an ideal location for debating current world politics and the changing
role of the United Nations.

The Hotel diplomat is a luxury resort that offers restaurants, shops, a
night club, and fitness and spa equipment.  Delegates will stay at the
Hotel Diplomat for the reduced rate of 130DM/day double occupancy, which
includes two meals a day.

Delegate registration is $US60 per delegate.  For more information, please
reply to this e-mail address or write/fax:
Joshua A. Salomon, Secretary-General
Harvard World Model United Nations 1993
Suite 23, 1430 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02138-3810
UNITED STATES

Telephone:  001-617-493-6995
Fax:  001-617-493-6995

James Chao
chao6@husc.harvard.edu
Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:272 alt.politics.usa.misc:988 alt.activism:21492
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
Subject: CLINTON: Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity
Date: 27 Jan 1993 14:35:32 -0500
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu




                           THE WHITE HOUSE

                    Office of the Press Secretary


For Immediate Release                               January 23, 1993

                      REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
                        IN PHOTO OPPORTUNITY

                           The Oval Office

12:08 P.M. EST

             Q    How do you like your new office, Mr. President?

             THE PRESIDENT:  I like it a lot.  It's a wonderful
office.

             Q    Did you read the note that President Bush left for
you?

             THE PRESIDENT:  I did.

             Q    What did that say?

             THE PRESIDENT:  I think we should leave it between the
two us, but it was a very generous note and a very encouraging one.

             Q    Mr. President, what are you doing in pursuit of a
new nominee for the attorney generalship?  How are you going about
this?

             THE PRESIDENT:  I did some work on it yesterday
afternoon and had several extended conversations with people about
potential nominees and gave my staff some instructions to go do some
work on three or four folks.

             Q    Three or four -- men?

             THE PRESIDENT:  Three or four people.  (Laughter.)  I'm
not going to say who --

             Q    Have you talked to any prospective nominees
directly?

             Q    -- so far -- how's it gone so far?

             THE PRESIDENT:  So far I've liked it very much.

             Q    -- surprises so far?

             THE PRESIDENT:  We just got started, you know.  I've got
a lot --

             Q    Will you be keeping Mr. Sessions on?

             THE PRESIDENT:  I don't want to talk about --

             Q    What are you going to do for the rest of the day,
Mr. President?

             THE PRESIDENT:   Work.

             Q    Not jogging?

             THE PRESIDENT:  No, I'm going to go out for a jog later.
And I'm going to do a little work, and I'm trying to get the house
acclimated, get organized.
                                 END                   12:11 P.M. EST


Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:253 alt.politics.usa.misc:969 alt.activism:21437
From: Clinton-HQ@Campaign92.Org (Clinton/Gore '92)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.reform,alt.politics.usa.misc,alt.activism
Subject: CLINTON: Privately Funded Abortions at Military Hospitals
Date: 27 Jan 93 20:47:58 GMT
Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: life.ai.mit.edu


                            THE WHITE HOUSE

                   Office of the Press Secretary

 For Immediate Release                          January 22, 1993


                         January 22, 1993


 MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

 SUBJECT:       Privately Funded Abortions at Military Hospitals


 Section 1093 of title 10 of the United States Code prohibits the use
 of Department of Defense ("DOD") funds to perform abortions except
 where the life of a woman would be endangered if the fetus were
 carried to term.  By memoranda of December 21, 1987, and June 21,
 1988, DOD has gone beyond what I am informed are the requirements of
 the statute and has banned all abortions at U.S. military facilities,
 even where the procedure is privately funded.  This ban is
 unwarranted.  Accordingly, I hereby direct that you reverse the ban
 immediately and permit abortion services to be provided, if paid for
 entirely with non-DOD funds and in accordance with other relevant DOD
 policies and procedures.

 You are hereby authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in
 the Federal Register.



                                    WILLIAM J. CLINTON



                               # # #
Xref: sparky alt.politics.reform:252 alt.politics.usa.misc:968 alt.activism:21436