HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cfrbj@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Bob Jorstad)
Subject: Re: All my favourite tools
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 23:05:53 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <24941@dog.ee.lbl.gov> sichase@csa2.lbl.gov writes:
>In article <1992Jul27.081916.11923@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz>, ecmtwhk@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Thomas Koenig) writes...
>>What do you think essential or very useful computer tools for today's
>>scientist?
>> 
>>Anything I've missed?
>
>Sure.  A laser printer, a C compiler (with interactive debugger), and a
>Mac. 
>
>-Scott
>--------------------
>Scott I. Chase			"The question seems to be of such a character
>SICHASE@CSA2.LBL.GOV		that if I should come to life after my death
>				and some mathematician were to tell me that it
>				had been definitely settled, I think I would
>				immediately drop dead again."      - Vandiver

 would place the Mac (030 variety) first on the essential list along with
a good integrated piesce of software i.e. MS Works or Claris Works.  With
that a tremendous amount of work can be done and the files can be used by
most specialized software later on.
	Just an opinion.
		BOB
From: egntoh@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Toh Guan Nge)
Newsgroups: sci.comp-aided
Subject: posting test
Date: 24 Jul 92 03:03:29 GMT
Organization: Nanyang Technological University - Singapore


Just a testing

--
Toh Guan Nge, School of EEE,
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Internet Email: egntoh@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg
Bitnet   Email: egntoh@ntuvax.bitnet
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:40:31 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Social Security and Taxes

In article <9207250404.AA06683@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee
timlee@btr.com) says:

Earlier posts deleted...

>You have done your taxes recently, haven't you?

Yes, of course I have.  Your point is that we should completely revise our
entire Social Security system, because it's difficult to fill out a 1040?
Excuse me, but I think that's a lousy reason to make public policy.

>I'd think that most people would be very much inclined to replace
>the current system with one that is much easier to understand and
>eliminates many problems.

maybe you mean to say "eliminates many EXISTING problems, WHILE CREATING
A WHOLE HOST OF NEW ONES FOR US TO SOLVE." ?


>
>Then what modifications would you propose on the current tax and
>welfare system?  Consider the problems:

I see no reason why you insist that tax simplification, a worthy goal,
must be tied into a revamping of the Social Security system.  Minor
changes in the current Social Security system, which I noted in an
earlier post, would remove most to the problems you note.

>* difficulty to understand (both for individuals, and employers
>  who must go through large bureaucratic expenses to deal with
>  withholding and such)
>* multiple tax assessments (which, when combined, create various
>  unintended effects)
>* hidden tax rates and bubbles
>* work disincentives for people on welfare
>
>As an example, a single person who makes all his/her income from
>wages/salaries/tips and takes the standard deduction pays his/her highest
>marginal national income tax rate (35.65%) on the income from $23400
>to $53400.  For married joint filers with two children under the same
>assumptions, there is a bubble of 34.6% at $14300 to $21250; just below
>that range, the rate is 19.6%, while just above, it is 22.65%.  Does
>it make sense?  Also, try understanding the deduction phase-out
>bubble at $100000...  if the government wants to levy extra tax on
>the upper middle / upper class, why doesn't it at least do so in an
>obvious, easy to understand way?
>
Dennis G. Shea, Penn State <<USUAL DISCLAIMER>>
"I believe that there is social and psychological justification
for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth....But it
is not necessary....that the game should be played for such
high stakes as at present."  John Maynard Keynes
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: marina@tk.mainet.msk.su (Naumenko M.V.)
Subject: To anybody who is interesting in science
Reply-To: marina@tk.mainet.msk.su
Organization: Moscow Aviation Institute, PDTK
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 13:01:11 GMT

          TO  ANYBODY  WHO IS INTERESTING IN SCIENCE
        We apply to everybody who interested in  future  Russian
science; who   would  like  to assist  it  to integrate in World
science society.
        We need information about Funds and other  organizations
who interested in  attraction russian  science organizations  to
research within  the limits active and  plan science proects and
directions of  this  researches   but also about  conditions  of
precipitation  russian scientists   in this proects.  Besides we
would like to know about questions of finance.
        We pin   our hopes on  establishment of interaction  and
development of international cooperation.
        Best regards.                 Marina V.Naumenko



Xref: sparky sci.econ:6619 misc.taxes:2868
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Social Security and Taxes
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:25:22 GMT
Reply-To: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Followup-To: sci.econ,misc.taxes

DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|In article <9207250404.AA06683@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee
|timlee@btr.com) says:
|
|Earlier posts deleted...
|
|>You have done your taxes recently, haven't you?
|
|Yes, of course I have.  Your point is that we should completely revise our
|entire Social Security system, because it's difficult to fill out a 1040?
|Excuse me, but I think that's a lousy reason to make public policy.

Because the income tax system and the Social Security tax must be
considered together in determining the true tax burden on the people.
Why is this so difficult for you to understand?  Note that businesses
who pay employees have more complicated withholding to do, because
income tax and Social Security tax are calculated differently and
separately.
 
|>I'd think that most people would be very much inclined to replace
|>the current system with one that is much easier to understand and
|>eliminates many problems.
|
|maybe you mean to say "eliminates many EXISTING problems, WHILE CREATING
|A WHOLE HOST OF NEW ONES FOR US TO SOLVE." ?
 
Name some problems.  Maybe some special subsidized interests would
get stepped on, but it would be better that way.  Maybe the problem
(for politicians) is that people will see how much tax they really
have to pay, and throw them out.

|>Then what modifications would you propose on the current tax and
|>welfare system?  Consider the problems:
|
|I see no reason why you insist that tax simplification, a worthy goal,
|must be tied into a revamping of the Social Security system.  Minor
|changes in the current Social Security system, which I noted in an
|earlier post, would remove most to the problems you note.

Explain how the minor changes you note would solve:
1.  regressivity of tax rates caused by Social Security tax
2.  marriage penalty if both spouses work
3.  progressive benefits (more to the rich, less to the poor)

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lee                 timlee@btr.com  ...!decwrl!btr!timlee
This message comes with no warranty, not even an implied warranty of
fitness for any particular purpose.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:6604 talk.politics.theory:3109
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,talk.environment.misc
Subject: Re: Property in Prehistory
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:53:52 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <22488@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>In article <1992Jul17.192018.4563@clipper.ingr.com> ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
>>The article is entitled "The Economics of the Emergence of Humankind,"
>>by Vernon L. Smith.  I will attempt to summarize it here, but it is a long
>
>Oh dear, all the majestic grandeur of the universe can have only one 
>purpose, and that purpose is the irrefutable prrof that private property
>is the noblest state of matter.  Spare me. 
>

That was not my stated purpose, nor was it my intent.  

I was attempting to present evidence to counter the oft-mentioned idea
that property is merely an artificial invention of our (class) society, 
which has no basis either in biology nor in man's anthropological
roots.  If you want my personal opinion, the justification of the
concept of property lies somewhere between the extremes of natural
inalienability, on the one hand, and total social fabrication, on the other.  

Ultimately, it should and will be judged solely on its *usefulness,* 
and I think the evidence
is overwhelming that property is highly utilitarian.  This
opinion flies directly in the face of Marxism, of course.  Marx's
conclusion that capitalism (and hence property) were doomed to
self-destruct (a non-utilitarian outcome) was simply wrong.


>>....[Much pedestrian stuff deleted.  (This line deleted in later omissions.)]
>>that began 17,000 BP (before present).  The history of Earth is mostly of
>>periods of glaciation, lasting on average 100,000 years each, with warm
>>periods lasting only 10,000 years.  (Perhaps this will comfort global
>>warmers).
>
>Sounds like recent history.  Warm periods lasting millions of years 
>punctuated by glaciation lasting 100,000 years is more like it.
> 

Well, when speaking of human beings, we need only consider the
last million years.  

[Yawns deleted.]
> 
>>    5. Humankind was an intense user of the environment for self-
>>       interested needs.  It is likely that prehistoric humans
>>       had a comparable if not more severe impact on their environment
>>       than industrial society.

>At no previous time in human history has the rate of species extinction,
>pollution, climate change, etc. approached modern levels.  

This is probably true, but when compared to the number of humans
present, it may not be true.  

It is hard to be certain of such things.  It is quite possible
that global warming will help to stave off an ice age.


--Al Date
From: ta@itk.unit.no (Trond Andresen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Reference,zero-interest money
Date: 27 Jul 92 10:47:57 GMT
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology / SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway

I have some time ago tried to arouse interest in
the problems caused by capital demanding real
interest to permit its use. Some of you have been e-mailed an
article by B.A. Lietaar concerning this topic. There
was one important reference lacking in this article.
This book, IMO, is the most thorough treatment of
this topic available. Here it is:



Dieter Suhr:

"The Capitalistic Cost-Benefit Structure of Money
-An Analysis of Money's structural Nonneutrality and its
 Effects on the Economy"

Studies in Contemporary Economics,
Springer Verlag (1989) New York Berlin Heidelberg,
ISBN 0-387-51138-5, or ISBN 3-540-51138-5


Dr. Dieter Suhr was professor at the University of Augsburg, until
his death in an accident two (I think) years ago.



-- 
Trond Andresen  (ta@itk.unit.no) ======================================
				    | INTERESTS: Economic and social
Lecturer in systems & control theory| systems, transport systems,
Division of Engineering Cybernetics | electric vehicles, local public
Norwegian Institute of Technology,  | service radio broadcasting,
N-7034 Trondheim, NORWAY	    | media theory & politics.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:6526 talk.politics.misc:35841
From: david@mail.sas.upenn.edu (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Smith Corona plant closure
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:16:27 GMT
Reply-To: david@penndrls.upenn.edu
Followup-To: sci.econ
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Data Center, University of Pennsylvania

In article <14l8i2INNins@agate.berkeley.edu>, bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) writes:
> Per the radio:  875 U.S. workers are being laid off at a Smith
> Corona plant and the plant is moving to Mexico.  The plant is
> turning a profit.  The profit is not big enough for the stockholders.
> Goodbye jobs. Goodbye tax revenue. Goodbye community.

Per the Economist, July11-17th: Hyundai is closing its Korean PC operation
and moving it to Silicon Valley, where it will operate with (somewhat fewer
but higher paid) American workers /and managemant/.  Hyundai thinks the
proximity to the market will decrease inventory and speed production cycles
enough to more than make up for the higher labor costs.
Newsgroups: sci.econ

/ hpcc01:sci.econ / bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman) /  8:20 pm  Jul 22, 1992 /

Per the radio:  875 U.S. workers are being laid off at a Smith
Corona plant and the plant is moving to Mexico.  The plant is
turning a profit.  The profit is not big enough for the stockholders.
Goodbye jobs. Goodbye tax revenue. Goodbye community.

 The newspaper article said they were profitable but did not say how 
 profitable. This is important to figuring out if the move is legitimate.
 They have to be comparable to competition to have comparable budget for
 new product development, otherwise death spiral could occur. Have any info
 on this? 
 
 Per the radio:  General Electric and Rockwell International have been
found guilty of fraud.  Not one U.S. contract has been cancelled, nor
have these companies been barred from getting future U.S. contracts.
-------

  apparrently they sold jet engines to Israel and broke export controls to
  do it. They were turned in to Gov by GE employees. They didnt go to trial
  they plead guilty. thats all I know.
  
  Graham Flower
  Hewlett-Packard
From: timlee@public.btr.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Social Security, Pension plans, and Ending the national debt
Date: 21 Jul 92 06:22:55 GMT
Reply-To: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee)
Followup-To: sci.econ
Distribution: usa

DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|And if you would read all my posts, you would quite clearly see that I readily
|admit that Social Security is not even close to perfect.  It is, however,
|the most effective anti-poverty program in American public policy.  The
|difference in benefits between the largest and smallest is miniscule,
|especially compared to other income sources.

But why should there be any difference at all?  It's not miniscule;
sample figures in an almanac indicate the rich get 1.7 times someone
who made $15000 a year before retiring.  An anti-poverty program
that gives more to people who don't need it than it does to those
who do is, by definition, wasting money.

Suppose you could redesign Social Security, other welfare programs,
and the tax system from the clean sheet.  What would you do?

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: Social Security, Pension plans, and Ending the national debt
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
	<92204.081135DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu> <JACKSON.92Jul23084008@kaos.stsci.edu>
	<92205.112505DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 21:34:52 GMT

Shea notes:

>If one is entitled to benefits because one 'paid' into it,
>then the welfare aspect is suspect.
>
>If one is entitled to benefits because you are poor, then
>the benefits being related to contributions is suspect.
>
>Kind of like a fried snowball - Internally Contradictory

Suspect in what sense?  Most effective poverty reducing public policies
in industrialized nations have been designed as social insurance programs.
Combining insurance with poverty reduction or prevention appears to be
a politically acceptable, and quite administratively efficient means
of simultaneously reducing risk and re-distributing income.

To which I reply:

The insurance rationale means if you don't pay in then you
don't receive benefits, i.e., no welfare aspects.

The welfare rationale means only the poor should get benefits,
which is not the case where benefits are related to contributions.


How can the reduction in poverty be attributed to Social Security?

What about the economic consequences of the net transfer of wealth
between those paying and those receiving benefits.  It is more of
an intergenerational transfer than a transfer between rich and poor.
From: david@mail.sas.upenn.edu (R. David Murray)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Date: 31 Jul 92 15:00:58 GMT
Reply-To: david@penndrls.upenn.edu
Distribution: usa
Organization: University Data Center, University of Pennsylvania

In article <1992Jul31.015314.28479@samba.oit.unc.edu>, Nigel.Allen@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Nigel Allen) writes:
> Press release from the Clinton/Gore campaign

Now I didn't read this drivel word for word (NB: that was /not/ an 
anti-democrat dig, that was an anti-politician dig), but is it just me or
is the /only/ prescriptive statement in the whole thing a statement that
he is going to raise taxes on 'the rich'?  As far as I can see, everything
else in that speach is either blame-throwing or wishful thinking.  Anyone
know what Clinton's economic plans are?  (We know Bush doesn't have any.)
From: howard@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Moral Basis of Property 
Date: 23 Jul 92 10:09:32 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <JACKSON.92Jul23084636@kaos.stsci.edu>, jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:
> 	<50707@dime.cs.umass.edu>
> 
> As to air conditioners, the profit is made or not made in selling air 
> conditioners.  The flourocarbon emissions probably occur when the air
> conditioner is operated by the owner rather than during manufacture.
> 

Florocarbon emissions are likely to occur mostly when the unit breaks
down. I don't have experience with air conditioners, but I do with 
my refrigerator. My 2 year old refrigerator stopped working. The 
repairman finnally found the problem- it had a slow leak, and all
the florocarbons had leaked out. So he got a tank out of the repair
truck and, after plugging the hole, filled it up again. Then I heard this 
WOOSH in my kitchen. I asked what happened. He said he had released
what was left of the florocarbons in the tank into the air. "We won't
be able to do that in Iowa for much longer", he said with a look of
accomplishment at having done it, "they passed a law saying we shouldn't". 

In Al Gore's book, _Earth in the Balance_, he said that in his research
stories like mine actually occur with great regularity. 

The real potential for economic growth, in my opinion, is in the 
area of products that preserve energy/protect the environment. These
include refrigerators that don't use CFC's and use less energy, windmills
/solar panels that can capture electricity to supplement regular electricity
in houses to run those refrigerators, TV's, coffee pots (and maybe to 
recharge the batteries that run in battery powered cars....), innovations
in insulation for better windows, doors, and so forth to reduce heating
bills, innovations in packaging design to reduce waste in landfills, 
food products that are grown with less chemicals, cold weather gear that
do not use fur from wildlife. 

Even during the recession, many of these environmental products have
been doing very well, such as organically grown coffee, and even
toilet paper made from "post-consumer paper". But beware- these are 
very well educated consumers. Don't say a product is environmental 
if it really is not- that has already been tried, and failed. 

By the way, my air conditioner is in the attic. And I hope the next
time I buy a refrigerator, one will be available without CVC's. I'll
even pay extra for one- especially if it is made in the U.S.A. 

-Mary Howard
From: timlee@btr.com (Timothy J. Lee  timlee@btr.com)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Social Security and Taxes
Date: 25 Jul 92 04:04:14 GMT

DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
|In article <7496@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@public.btr.com says:
|>
|>Such changes won't fix the structural problems in a welfare and tax
|>system that is basically a kludge with many unintended effects.
|>
|>Instead of Social Security, other welfare, and the current tax system,
|>why not:
|>[flat tax and standard credit, which becomes welfare if it causes
|> a negative tax]
|
|Why throw out what is basically a workable system? 

You have done your taxes recently, haven't you?

|                                                     The changes you mention,
|while not without merit, are not politically feasible.

I'd think that most people would be very much inclined to replace
the current system with one that is much easier to understand and
eliminates many problems.

|                                                       We can achieve most
|of what you desire (removal of unintended effects, such as work disincentives)
|without completely re-writing current programs.  Furthermore, there's no
|guarantee once you enter the political arena that what you intend to create
|will be what is created.

Then what modifications would you propose on the current tax and
welfare system?  Consider the problems:

* difficulty to understand (both for individuals, and employers
  who must go through large bureaucratic expenses to deal with
  withholding and such)
* multiple tax assessments (which, when combined, create various
  unintended effects)
* hidden tax rates and bubbles
* work disincentives for people on welfare

As an example, a single person who makes all his/her income from
wages/salaries/tips and takes the standard deduction pays his/her highest
marginal national income tax rate (35.65%) on the income from $23400
to $53400.  For married joint filers with two children under the same
assumptions, there is a bubble of 34.6% at $14300 to $21250; just below
that range, the rate is 19.6%, while just above, it is 22.65%.  Does
it make sense?  Also, try understanding the deduction phase-out
bubble at $100000...  if the government wants to levy extra tax on
the upper middle / upper class, why doesn't it at least do so in an
obvious, easy to understand way?