HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Economic motivations...
Date: 10 Sep 92 02:07:02 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep9.140423.3997@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>> Growth economics -- i.e. making the economy grow -- IS a morality.
>
>	*Which* one?  The morality of being fruitful?  That's like saying
>growing old is a morality or wanting to live instead of die.  Do trees make a
>moral choice in growing?

Depends on how you define "growth". If we use the usual definitions and 
speak of GDP etc. then it can be argued that growth in GDP is not
incompatible with a drop in standard of living and a drop in GDP may
correlate to an increase in living standard. For example, if GDP grows
by causing irreversible damage to the biosphere ...



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Castro's Cuba (was Re: Milton Friedman...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 9 Sep 92 14:17:45 EST
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1166@kps.UUCP>, ded@kps.UUCP (David Edwards /DP) writes:
> In article <1992Sep3.122917.3892@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
> 
>>	They could always improve their human rights record, then trade with
>>the countries that respond to that kind of thing :).
> 
> What crimes against humanity has Cuba commited lately? Please compare 

	Lately? It's hard to tell.  We usualy don't hear about the murders,
imprisonments, and tortures until someone escapes to the US.

> to South Africa, or US supported dictatorship you care to name. 
> Suddenly the whole thing looks a personal vendetta against Castro, as 
> you suggested. 

	Why should we compare Cuba to anyone?  Is not their record to stand on
its own?

>>	Fortunately (for the US government), Castro has followed in the
>>footsteps of Stalin enough to make the embargo defendable.
> 
> How "Enough like Stalin" do you have to be to be slapped with an 
> embargo?  The word "Fortunately" makes it sound like they were looking 
> for an excuse (since you can scarely compare Castro to Stalin). They 

	Scarcely?  Only in the sense that Castro has no Ukraine to genocide. 
But Angola seemed to suffice for a while.

> both happen to be commies, but there the comparison ends. Do you 
> think the US cares about Cuba's *human rights* record to drive them 
> deeper into poverty? 

	Not as long as Castro is around.  It's a personal thing.

>>	Much more likely to be PR.  But then again, aid would flow if Castro
>>would free what's left of the political opposition and hold free elections.
> 
> You may be flattering yourself. Who says they want aid at all?
> I think they would like to be able to do trade like any other nation. 

	Who says they want the embargo lifted?

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Property rights...`
Date: 11 Sep 92 14:40:46 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


    V. Yodaiken writes:

>That's your ethical belief, but it is not based on any fundamental
>principle which can distinguish between "real rights" and
>"non-rights". I can equally well argue that there is no right to
>"own" land. Rights are social and ethical constructs, not physical
>objects.

   You are correct in your assertion that rights are social and
political constructs, however they are necessary foundations to
the formation of a society. Really what it all boils down to are:
Does every individual have the right to his/her own property? (as
guarenteed by the constitution) or do they not?
  If one asserts that every single individual has the right to his
or her own property then taxation, drug and prostitution 
criminalization (one's body and drugs are property), conscription,
anti-gun legislation, censorship; these can all be relegated as
violating the property assertion and declared as unconstitutional
and morally reprehensible given the societal right to own property.
  If one assumes that certain ends justify the violation of this
right then the society begins to fall apart, its foundation is
corrupted, and a 'my right to property is more viable than yours`
mentality ensues. Thus the impoverished suddenly have a 'right` to 
your property. The government has a 'right` to take your property 
away from you or to keep you from owning certain forms of property
because 'the public is too irresponsible to handle these things`.
Communism, socialism, and all forms of despotic totalitarianism are
formed on this assertion that "the groups rights to property are
more viable than the individual`s". Hence the mass slayings and
misery that is typical of these regimes.

 Jeff
From: baindur@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Satyen Baindur)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Deficit as a Retrospective Tax
Date: 8 Sep 92 14:24:17 GMT
Reply-To: baindur@aplcen (Satyen Baindur)
Organization: Johns Hopkins University


ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora) writes:

>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 7-Sep-92 Re: The Deficit as a Retros..
>by Dave Polewka@cleveland.F 
>> In a previous article, baindur@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Satyen Baindur) says:
>>  
>>  
>> >......... Paying down the debt, under the present tax structure, 
>> >simply means sending more and more money earned by working people 
>> >to the rich people !
>>  
>> .....who then take that money and invest it in the economy,
>> creating more jobs!!  Jesus Christ, how many times do you
>> have to be told before it gets through your thick skull!?!?!

>The rich that benefit may or may not (invest in the economy) and the
>more jobs, if created may or may not compensate for the additional tax
>burden on the working people (as is implicit in the reply).  That you
>should assert it vehemently does not make it more believable.  

Indeed, pointless investment in real estate and idle stock market 
speculation has not been unknown. Many of the jobs that have been created,
are in occupations that exclusively service the very wealthy - golf caddies 
come to mind. Further, there is evidence that such productive
jobs as have been created  have been abroad - that is, outside 
the US. 

>On a side note, did I read some suggestion for an alternate bboard which
>would be sci.econ rather than talk.ideology ?

This is vain. While idle ideological chatter should be discouraged, 
surely a discussion of th ideological component of economic issues is 
inevitable ?

>Ashish

Satyen
-- 

Graduate School ! It's not just a job, it's an indenture !!
From: brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Property rights...`
Date: 14 Sep 92 11:27:25 GMT
Organization: Quake Public Access

In article <DAVIDM.92Sep13135705@consilium.com> davidm@consilium.com (David S. Masterson) writes:

>Can we agree that the rights of the "individual" are those rights that the
>"majority" has chosen to allow?  The "majority" giveth and the "majority" can
>taketh away...

Absolutely not!!  People have rights because of their nature as rational
beings, and they have those rights whether or not the king, fuhrer,
preident, or majority choose to recognize them or not.

I think a good analogy is that of an automobile engine.  The proper way
for an internal combustion engine to operate is for the spark plug to
fire when the chamber is full of fuel and air, and not for it to fire during 
the exhaust cycle.  Of course one could build an engine according to that
other theory, and people could vote on it, and fuhrers could command that
it is the proper way for the engine to function, but that will not change
the fact of the matter which if that such an engine will not run.

Likewise, in social systems, individuals need to be free to think and act
in order to live.  Of course majorities and dictators can deny this and
construct "societies" where this is not possible, but such a society will
not result in prosperity and life, but poverty and death.  What happens
when you build a society on half-right principles (such as the US has now)?
You get a sputtering, failing, underproductive engine that half works.
Sould familiar?

--Brian
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: Free movement of labour/labor
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:21:41 GMT

In article <JACKSON.92Sep14154358@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:
>w.r.t.
>	"out of control population growth rate"
>
>Control by whom?

To name a few things: the Catholic Church, the right wing of the Republican
Party, outmoded thinking (be fruitful and multiply), lack of a decent living
standard, lack of basic health care, lack of basic education. And all those
people having (gasp) sexual intercourse. ;}

IOW, people have to believe a problem exists. Then, the children they do have
should be planned for (mostly), wanted, and reasonably cared for and likely to
survive. Birth control should be available and encouraged, and religious
zealots need to mind their own business. Nuff said.

Jim Burris
From: vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians & Inheritance
Keywords: Do Libertarians endorse a level playing field
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:41:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <183523@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>
>What do libertarians think about inheritance laws?  Does libertarianism
>endorse a "level playing field."  Is the "arbitrary" transfer of 
>wealth from one (dead) person to others protected under property 
>rights.  Is it consistent with efficient market theory, or might it
>promote inefficiencies?
>
>Please post in talk.politics.theory or directly to me.  Thanks.
>
>Paul Collacchi

I'd imagine that libertarians would have no problem with inheritance laws.
After all, a lot of the investment that individuals do is based on gauranteeing
a certain standard of living for their children/descendants (sending them
through college for example).  By providing a sense of continuity through
inheritance, individuals are far more likely to engage in investment -- 
especially the super long-term type that we are in desparate need of.

Additionally, inheritance is somewhat assumed when the individual acquires
property.  Thus, not allowing inheritance would seem to violate some type
of property rights -- after all the price paid for the acquisition of a
good reflects it's costs for the lifetime ofthe good.

Vinod Valloppillil

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7398 talk.politics.misc:44195
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Success or greed? (was Re: Supply-side economics)
Date: 8 Sep 92 21:39:56 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Sep5.012350.647@s1.gov>, lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep4.104728.3911@desire.wright.edu>
demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> >	You fail to recognize that the 'top 20%' is not a monolithic entity. 
|> >By definition, they are the most successful.
|> 

By your definition, maybe, and that is fine.  What is accurate is that
the top 20% are the most successful at doing whatever it was that got
them the upper 20 percentile rating, perhaps "making income."

Others, look at "success" as a total concept, which includes emotional
and spiritual values, relationships, physical well-being, wholeness,
etc.  A friend of mine used to ask, "Who loves ya?".

No indication whatsoever that high income earners do well with 
this.  In fact one study (no scientific tour-de-force) which allowed
individuals to assess their own personal success showed no
correlation between income and success.  On average, on a scale of
1 to 5, 5 being the highest, most respondants gave their life a 2.8.

People knock high-earners for being greedy.  I think there's more to it.
I think there are components of power, control (and "true" success) as well.
It's a good question as to whether we want some of the most imbalanced people
charged with making some of the highest impact decisions.  I certainly don't.

Paul Collacchi
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7478 talk.politics.misc:45324 talk.politics.theory:4173
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Mass Transit vs. Private Cars Re: Question about
Date: 14 Sep 92 18:35:39 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <7995@public.BTR.COM>, timlee@public.btr.com writes:
|> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
|> |bohnert@leland.Stanford.EDU (matthew bohnert) writes:
|> |> I plan to vote libertarian in the upcoming election (due to the clear 
|> |> lack of any acceptable alternative), but I find myself wrestling with
|> |> some of what I perceive, perhaps erroneously, to be `good things' for
|> |> society that the Libertarians appear to be against.
|> |> 
|> |> The first that is obvious to me is government subsidized mass transit.
|> |				     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> |	That's probably the biggest sticking point.  Why waste money on
|> |inefficient operators?
|> |	On the other hand, if mass transit is "a good thing" then enough
|> |individuals and businesses should be willing to participate in the funding,
|> |building, and operating of a mass transit system.
|> 
|> But isn't it also true that mass transit's main competitor, private
|> cars, is also heavily subsidized (roads, traffic cops, paramedics to
|> clean up after accidents, externalities like pollution)?  Fair
|> competition would require that the subsidies for both mass transit
|> and private cars be removed.
|> 

Thanks for pointing out yet another hidden "pro-business" subsidy or
entitlement that's so much a part of the government landscape that we
forget about it.  There are tons of these hidden within government 
spending.  So much in fact that I often wonder whether anyone has attempted
to create a complete spending list of "business welfare" that appears
in the Federal Government's budget each year.  I trust it would be
very embarassing to many businessmen who claim to be "self-sufficient.".

There is a difference between "free market" (efficient market) and
"pro-business" policies.  Much inefficient pro-business policy is
disguised using the rubric of free market economics.

Paul Collacchi

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: Free movement of labour/labor
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
	<1992Sep14.173817.17970@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 20:43:58 GMT

w.r.t.
	"out of control population growth rate"

Control by whom?

Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.physics.fusion
From: edward@amber.uchicago.edu (Edward Lewis)
Subject: Test: Did you get my post about sci. and econ.?
Organization: University of Chicago
Distribution: na
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 17:47:21 GMT


Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Free movement of labour/labor
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:27:49 CET
Organization: EuroKom Conferencing Service

In article <1992Sep9.182647.28917@Princeton.EDU>, jmo@stokes.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag) writes:
> In article <1992Sep9.181135.11977@vms.eurokom.ie>, ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie writes:
> |> Has anybody come across any free-market economist who opposes free
> |> movement of labour internationally (e.g. from very poor to very rich
> |> countries)? I'd be interested to know if any such arguments exist,
> |> since it seems as logically simple as 2+2=4 to show that support for
> |> abolishing any controls on "economic migrants" follows from a belief
> |> in free markets. 
> 
> Are you sure? If there were no distortions in the world, possibly,
> but I don't understand how one can make any such assertion when
> there are other distortions even if one believes strongly in
> free markets. Even with no distortions in the world, consider
> workers who would be made worse off and displaced by the influx
> of new workers; in the language of the free market economist,
> this is not Pareto optimal unless lump sum payments can be
> devised to compensate workers for their losses; to make an
> argument work, you must prove that such a scheme is feasible
> theoretically. To summarize, it would be perfectly consistent
> with the viewpoint of a free market economist to support controls
> on economic migrants.
I agree with your second-best argument - in pure theory. I suppose
the point I am trying to make is that your valid argument does not
hold many free-market economists from arguing in favour of dismantling,
e.g., exchange controls, dual exchange rates, controls on capital
movements; while their arguments in favour of these dismantlings are
as open to your argument as is mine in favour of dismantling immigration
controls (or emigration controls in the odd one or two cases like the
ex-DDR). I suppose what I'm really suggesting is that real-world
"free-market" political economists (as opposed to pure theoretical
economists) are often inconsistent in not arguing for abolition
of immigration controls, and this is still more true of "free-market"
politicians. Perhaps it's because of the existence of two different
kinds of right-winger: the libertarian free-market individualist
"there's no such thing as society" rightwinger, and the family-values,
semi-feudal semi-fascistic patriarchal and often racist rightwinger,
and I'm citing a case where in practice the former often borrow a
doctrine (immigration controls) from the latter.
Organization: Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 00:50:30 -0400 
From: Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Property Rights...

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 14-Sep-92 RE: Property Rights... by Mr.
Jeff Potter @silver. 
>     Ashisha Arora writes:
>  
> >And so Mr. Potter would countenance slavery as well ? And what of
> >children ? Are they property till 18 and suddenly become free of
> >servitutde ? The problem is not peculiar to Mr. Potter's argument.
> >It will plague all attempts to define social and economic structures
> >and institutions by starting from abstract principles, with "rights"
> >to this that and the other.
>  
>  
>    If you had read my post carefully enough you would have noticed
> that my assertion regarded a society based on EQUAL RIGHTS for all
> individuals of the society. How does this entail slavery? If you are
> considered as having a right to your body - as property - then my
> attempting to enslave you would violate this right and subject me
> to prosecution by the society's laws! 

My apologies for being imprecise.  I was referring to the possibility of
the sale of oneself into servitude.  In other words, imagine a contract
where I promise to become your slave for $X. (Lest the idea appear far
fetched, one might think of debtors prisons of 18th century England,
where a person entering into a contract did so with the understanding
that failure to pay debts would result in imprisonment.)  Under present
law such a contract is null and void.  But in so doing, clearly the law
violates the equal rights that are so dearly beloved of Mr. Potter.  

>   As for children are they not now considered as "property" of the
>parents under law? With a system of equal property rights the 
>children would be included and thus would have ultimate control of
>their body and situation.

This is semantic skullduggery or worse.  In what sense would a five year
old be thought of as having "ultmate control" of his or her body and
situation ?  
>    Wether you like it or not all societies are based on some form of
>abstract philosophy! You can ignore this at your own risk but all
>political systems, governments and countries are based on some form
>of abstract model. This is not a problem but the way things should
>work. What else should you propose? Building a country with no laws,
>no rules, no rights? That sounds like a totalitarian system to me
>and sorry I would rather not live in such a society....

I freely concede the utility of abstract principles. The point is to
understand the limitations of such abstractions lest they lead one to
the logical (and absurd or repugnant) conclusions.  

cheers
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Deficit as a Retrospective Tax
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:03:41 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <18gca0INNsq2@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>,
al037@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Dave Polewka) writes:
|> 
|> In a previous article, baindur@aplcen.apl.jhu.edu (Satyen Baindur) says:
|> 
|> 
|> >......... Paying down the debt, under the present tax structure, 
|> >simply means sending more and more money earned by working people 
|> >to the rich people !

To restate:  its not only "rich" people that hold US gov't deb't.  I am
not rich, but I hold US paper -- the US is indebted to me.  Working people
can choose to form capital or debt.  It's really their own choice.

|> 
|> .....who then take that money and invest it in the economy,
|> creating more jobs!!  Jesus Christ, how many times do you
|> have to be told before it gets through your thick skull!?!?!
|> 


You don't need to have "rich" people to invest.  Anyone would invest
their money.  Smart investors are trying to maximize returns, not 
create jobs.  In a situation like the current situation, smart capital
will start leaving the US (dollar weak).  This won't create many jobs
for US citizens.

My opinion of jobs is that they are a fucking curse.  I do not see
them as God's gift to the planet, and so I can't see the creation of
jobs as a "good" thing.

Paul Collacchi