HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (Stefano Pagiola)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Reply-To: spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu
Organization: DSO, Stanford University
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 92 16:49:20 GMT

Dave Caulkins writes
> 
> The concept is simple and compelling - US taxpayers should be
> given the right to 'vote' on how their tax dollars are spent.
> 

They do.  They vote for the people who decide how to spend it.  In  
practice, they vote for the people who promise to spend it on them.

--
-
Stefano Pagiola
Food Research Institute, Stanford University
spagiola@frinext.stanford.edu (NeXTMail encouraged)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8105 alt.amateur-comp:109 alt.activism:17471
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
Subject: Re: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:26:31 EDT
Organization: Penn State University

In article <1992Oct14.034506.24007@news.ysu.edu>, ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda
Hauben) says:
>
>In a previous article, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
>
>>
>>In article <Bw2C4C.DuE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>(jimmy donal wales) writes:
>>> Becker won the Nobel Prize.
>>>
>>> Comments?
>>
>>
>
>Isn't Becker the proponent of so called "Human Capital" theory?

Yes.


>I thought I read where that theory was admitted to be nonsense at
>the turn of the century by the people who put it forward then.
>
>I thought it is basically anti automation and pro having
>fewer workers work harder,
>
>Rather than workers being able to produce more because they are
>working with the most advanced machinery.

??????????? I don't know where you got any of that, but I've never
heard any of it before today.  The theory is simply that investments
in training, education, etc. are just like investments in physical
capital in the sense that those making the investments will consider
the costs and benefits of making the investment.  While it sounds
pretty basic, it has enormous implications and explanatory power.
To my knowledge it certainly is not anti-automation.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State
<<DISCLAIMER>>
Ain't nobody's bizness but my own. I'll be happy to accept all
the credit for anything I've written.  It's funny, however, how
employers only acknowledge the profitable ideas.
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Keywords: NO BUSH, NO CLINTON
Date: 12 Oct 92 20:36:25 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <markts.718243301@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (Mark T. Schmidt) writes:
>
>
>   Clinton? I saw three speaches by Bill in the last 4 days. I think his
>   strategy is promise the world to everyone. --> Health care for 
>   everyone, sponsored by business; BUT, he wants to 'help the small
>   business man achieve success through less red tape and lower
>   business taxes.'

	He wants to reregulate the airline industry because otherwise 
prices MIGHT eventually be higher.  He surely favors regulated cable TV
monopolies instead of evil competition.  One of his favored advisors is
Derek (lowlife slimesucker) Shearer, a founder of the Supreme Soviet of the
People's Republic of Santa Monica.  If you think price controls work, you'll
like Clinton.

>   Also --> 'Reduce the tax burden on the middle class by taxing the
>   rich and *international businesses*'; BUT, he wants the US to regain 
>   its competitive edge in the global market. (That is an interesting
>   way to support American companies trying to trade abroad.)

This refers to branches of foreign companies that price their internal
transactions to move profit from US operations to places like Singapore 
where they pay little or no tax.  I don't know why American multinationals
don't do the same thing.  They would be a much more lucrative
target for civil forfeiture than accusing random people of possessing
Evil marijuana, but Clinton would not propose anything so draconian 
for a group with a lot of lobbyists.

[Comments on Bush economic platform (Pray for Prosperity) ignored.
 Presidents with extensive foreign policy experience just don't understand
 either the US Constitution or economics.]

>   So vote for your favorite third party, or no-party candidate. It's 
>   time we started voting FOR people again, and stopped choosing the lessor of
>   two evils.

Definitely.  It looks now like a Clinton landslide, which means a Democratic
President and Democratic Congress with an unlimited ticket to pig out.
Anything to make them hesitant is good.

Even votes for Perot might be useful if his brokering role will be limited
to economics, and provided that there is no chance he could actually win.
Or vote Libertarian to stop the WOD (War On Drugs, Waste Of Dollars).
Or Green for anarchy and composting.
	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
	GM executive says Saturn buyers can "graduate" to GM models
	that traditionally cater to older buyers.
	No wonder we have a high dropout rate.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory
From: gary@isis.cgd.ucar.edu (Gary Strand)
Subject: Re: What happens when USA goes bust?
Followup-To: talk.politics.theory
Organization: Climate and Global Dynamics Division/NCAR, Boulder, CO
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 04:56:15 GMT

mh> Mark H
pn> Peter Nelson
kw> Karl Wee

kw> Vote for Ross Perot at least as a protest

pn> Ross wants to raise my taxes.  So I'm not voting for him.

mh> It's either Austerity, or Bankruptcy.

  "Austerity" != "raising taxes". The feds take in as much as they would have
  needed just a few years back (like '84-'85) to have a balanced budget, so
  the problem isn't that taxes are too low, it's that spending is too high.
  Besides, when was the last time a tax hike actually cut the deficit? Leave
  taxes alone, and cut spending.

--
Gary Strand                      Opinions stated herein are mine alone and are
strandwg@ncar.ucar.edu            not representative of NCAR, UCAR, or the NSF
From: roberts@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Don Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton's economics and Kennedy's economics
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:38:46 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory


The difference between tax cuts to stimulate the economy (Kennedy) and
government investment to stimulate the economy (Clinton) is whether you
believe private enterprise or government planners are better able to
create wealth.
--
 Donald W. Roberts
   University of California                                     Physicist
   Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory        Recreational Bodybuilder
   dwr@llnl.gov                                          Renaissance Dude

 The ideas and opinions expressed here do not represent official policies
 of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,  the University of California,
                or the United States Department of Energy.
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp,alt.activism
From: he5r@ellis.uchicago.edu (Steve Herscovici)
Subject: Re: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
Reply-To: he5r@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 16:10:56 GMT

In article <92288.072631DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.034506.24007@news.ysu.edu>, ae547@yfn.ysu.edu (Ronda
>Hauben) says:
>>
>>In a previous article, rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) says:
>>
>>>
>>>In article <Bw2C4C.DuE@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>>(jimmy donal wales) writes:
>>>> Becker won the Nobel Prize.
>>>>
>>>> Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Isn't Becker the proponent of so called "Human Capital" theory?
>
>Yes.

Not quite:  Becker's _Human Capital_ was an extension of Mincer's
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY: perpetual pain and problems...
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 09:17:13 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu
Keywords: social security

In article <markts.718918490@mcl>, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:
|> 
|> >> anyone who can make money is smart enough to manage that money
|> >> better than the government. Unfortunately that means getting rid
|> >> of social security. Any ideas?
|> 
|> >Change Social Security to a mandatory 401k system.  The "401k"
|> >part will mean that the money is actually invested in the person's
|> >name, without the government touching it.  The "mandatory" part 
|> >is for political reasons because the public wants a Social Security
|> >system (and any attempt for an optional system will be labled as cutting
|> >Social Security).
|> >Real savings & investment for retirement.  What a radical concept.  :-)
|> 
|> Russ, this sounds like a solid idea, but how would the transition from
|> the current system to a 401k investment system take place? Somehow 
|> the current level of spending on social security can not be allowed
|> to nosedive, yet people still in the midst of their earning years 
|> should be allowed to manage a portion of their long-term savings.
|> 

At the present FICA rate, SS is running a surplus.  This means that after
paying current retirees there is excess.  Of course, this excess is meant
to help fund the future liability for current employees.  What we should
do, instead of letting the government 'invest' the surplus in Federal
Government psuedo-bonds, is refund the excess to the taxpayers for 
investment in a qualified retirement plan.  Since current taxpayers will
be paying less into the current system, the amount of 'benefit' received
when they retire will also be less.  However, the amount earned on the
invested refunds should more than compensate for the reduced government
benefit.  The goal should be to continually lower the amount needed
to pay current (and soon to be) retirees, until the system can be
shutdown and completely replaced by the individuals own retirement
account.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: (Re: Becker won the Nobel Prize?)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 20:45:49 GMT

>>> Becker won the Nobel Prize.
>>> 
>>> Comments?

Ronda responds:

>I thought it is basically anti automation and pro having 
>fewer workers work harder,
>
>Rather than workers being able to produce more because they are 
>working with the most advanced machinery.
>
>               Ronda
>
>
>P.S. Maybe there is a need for a People's Noble Prize for Economics
>
>


Let me be the one to say it.  Ronda, please get some information
before you spout off your ill-informed nonsense.

Geez.

--Jimbo
From: vcbowles@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Saccio Vanzetti)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Two Speed Europe
Summary: What's so bad about a two speed Europe?
Keywords: Europe maastricht economics pizza
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:37:47 GMT
Organization: Engineering Computer Network, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

Over the past few weeks it seems that there has been much effort exerted in
order to prevent Western Europe from splitting up int two groups of nations
on two seperate economic tracks. 

The question is: Why?

There's no special reason (that I can see ) that prevents Germany, France, 
Benelux, etc. from forming an association of wealthy nations that excludes
counties like Britain(!), Italy, Spain, etc. yet Kohl and Mitterand deny
any allegations that they have something like this planned. (Even if they did,
what could the 'out' nations do about it?)

Mayhap someone with a better grasp of the situation than I could explain this?





vcbowles@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu

--        
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8164 talk.politics.misc:52652
From: Robert.Vienneau@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:14:08 GMT

In article <1466000001@igc.apc.org> dcaulkins@igc.apc.org (Dave Caulkins) writes:
>
>Economic Democracy *
>
>"He who pays the piper calls the tune." - proverb
>
>  D. Caulkins                                       10/7/92
>
>The concept is simple and compelling - US taxpayers should be
>given the right to 'vote' on how their tax dollars are spent.
>
>Economic democracy might work like this.  With the forms mailed
>to each tax payer would be included a list of major US Government
>budget line items and the amounts spent on them in the previous
>year.  The tax payer would indicate on his or her yearly tax
>return the percentage of tax dollars to be spent on each budget
>line item...

By definition, democracy is related to the principle of "one person, one
vote." The above idea might be summarized as "one dollar, one vote."
This is known as plutocracy.

I think the above poster's confusion between democracy and plutocracy
may reflect a fairly mucked up set of values.
                                          Robert Vienneau


--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: dcaulkins@igc.apc.org (Dave Caulkins)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:32:00 GMT
Nf-ID: #R:TkPHsB2w165w@netlink.cts.com:-472504739:cdp:1466000004:000:77
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!dcaulkins    Oct 11 21:32:00 1992


Thanks !  I think both the suggestions and the pragma are
excellent.

Dave C
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8163 talk.politics.misc:52640
From: riggs@descartes.tec.army.mil (Bill Riggs)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Sixteen more years
Date: 17 Oct 92 00:22:04 GMT
Followup-To: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Organization: LNK Corporation, Riverdale, MD

In article <1992Oct15.144339.4040@hemlock.cray.com> rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
>
>Two reasons I do not think inflation will go up (at least not more that 
>2-3%) is:
>   1) Carter figured out that expansionary monitary policy leads to 
>      inflation (when G. William Miller was the head of the Fed) and 
>      as a result put Paul Volker in charge of the Fed.  Clinton also 
>      learned that lesson.  He's praised Greenspan several times for 
>      keeping inflation down.
>   2) Structural changes to the banking industry (ie increased capital 
>      requirements) are holding down the the higher monitary aggregates 
>      (M2, M3+).  Any structural changes will talke time to pass & implement.
>
>Slow growth is likely, large deficits possible, but I doubt inflation
>will increase much, if at all.
>
>> >>   As I've been saying, we will almost certainly have to get serious
>> >>   about the deficit in the next few years and once we do we're going
>> >>   into a *depression* with double-digit unemployment and massive social
>> >>   unrest.  (again, if anyone can make the numbers come out some other
>> >>   way >please< post them to the net!!).  So I sure don't envy the Demo-
>> >>   crats if Clinton wins.  
>> 
>> >While there is always opportunity for politicians to screw things up, I
>> >don't see a 1930's type depression.  
>> 
>> If the foreign banks that are now buying U.S. debt drastically change that
>> investment, you may see unemployment and inflation in the high teens.
>
>That change (esp to Germany) is already happening.  I don't see the inflationary
>part yet...

	COULD IT BE... that Bush/Darman/Greenspan have actually done a GOOD
job managing the economy under pretty rotten circumstances ?

	What some folks call a "fear campaign" is, in the proper context,
simply a statement of fact. 

	Things could be worse.

	And, to tell the truth, from the Democrats perspective, things could
be worse, too. 

	They could have nominated Harkin or Gephardt, and REALLY had the 
chance to turn the US economy into a basket case. 

	Let's put Paul Tsongas's money where his mouth was and make him
Secretary of the Treasury.

	Bill R.


	"My opinions do not represent those of my employer or any
government agency."

-- 
Bill R.
From: rja@mahogany126.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY: perpetual pain and problems...
Keywords: social security
Date: 15 Oct 92 19:25:47 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@mahogany126


In article <1bk99iINNj74@uwm.edu>, markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark) writes:
> In article <markts.718745781@mcl>, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:
> > Unfortunately that means getting rid of social security. Any ideas?
> 
> In article <1992Oct12.094350.8728@hemlock.cray.com> rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:
> >Change Social Security to a mandatory 401k system.  The "401k"
> >part will mean that the money is actually invested in the person's
> >name, without the government touching it...
> 
> Eliminate Social Security.  Social Security taxes are literally bankrupting me.
> Social Seciruty taxes are being used solely to pay the Debt (since all of the
> trust fund is currently balanced against the real debt).  They're a major
> ripoff.  I'm not going to benefit from it since I'm not ever going to retire.
> Nobody else my age is going to benefit from it, because there won't BE a
> United States by so-called retirement age for those few who want to retire.
> 
> The whole thing is a farce, just another excuse to take money from people who
> don't have it and waste it away.

As I said in the part deleted, politically the public wants a social security
system.  Given that constraint, I've suggested an alternative that 
provides for real savings/investment without the government spending it.

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey)
Subject: Re: Consumption tax vs income tax
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 21:05:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.004022.4597@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <tdboyce-061092163112@lloyd-at1.caltech.edu>, tdboyce@cco.caltech.edu (tdboyce) writes:
>> Does anyone know which and/or how many states still have not implimented a
>> state income tax? I have heard that there are still a handful left. How
>> well are their state economies doing? Any recent converts away from state
>> income taxes to consumption taxes?
>> 
>> At the national level some economists have suggested that the federal
>> income tax be abolished in favor of some sort of consumption tax. What are
>> the pros and cons of this approach? Does state level testing of this idea
>> give an accurate picture of how well it would work at the federal level? 
>
>	New Hampshire has no income or sales taxes.  It does, however, have
>things like the "meal taxe", a tax assessed on all prepared food sales.
>
>	New Hampshireites seem to like it.  They feel that those that consume
>(heh heh) the most pay the most.
>

NH has no personal income tax, but it does have a business income tax.
The state raises money through lotteries and its liquor monopoly.
Many state highways are toll roads, including the highest toll per mile
toll road in the US (Rt. 95/NH pike).  There is a definite trade-off
between state services desired and the amount of taxation that
people are willing to pay.  NH voters have made the choice for
lower taxation and fewer services.

Also, because the NH state government has little revenue, property taxes,
which are paid to the town for town services like education and
police, are very high.  IHMO, a true state-by-state comparison must
take into account the county and municipal taxation schemes.

 

-- 
     Jim Lacey  --  my own opinions    
     email:  att!cbnewsl!jlacey  or  jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com
     D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Re: SOCIAL SECURITY: perpetual pain and problems...
Originator: rja@redwood26
Keywords: social security
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 12 Oct 92 09:43:50 CDT


In article <markts.718745781@mcl>, markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt) writes:
[...]
> Things must change. Government has to begin to allow us
> to control our own futures, and we have to take the responsibility
> of freedom, and be responsible for our own decisions. The
> government should begin to allow outside parties, investment
> firms, to manage some of the inflow from social security. Yet at
> the same time they must pay those who put their faith in the 
> system when they paid their taxes. Perhaps they could sell
> the rights to manage this money. I know this idea has a million
> flaws, but the current system has a million and one. Point is,
> anyone who can make money is smart enough to manage that money
> better than the government. Unfortunately that means getting rid
> of social security. Any ideas?

Change Social Security to a mandatory 401k system.  The "401k"
part will mean that the money is actually invested in the person's
name, without the government touching it.  The "mandatory" part 
is for political reasons because the public wants a Social Security
system (and any attempt for an optional system will be labled as cutting
Social Security).

Real savings & investment for retirement.  What a radical concept.  :-)

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8067 soc.culture.usa:7717