HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:03:16 GMT
Organization: Lawrence Livermore Nat'l Lab.

In article <1992Apr4.204559.7250@waikato.ac.nz> hgm@waikato.ac.nz writes, in
response to my response to someone else:
>
>I justify coercion this way: 
>I believe that natural rights are equal to all individuals. Individuals only
>have rights if they recognise the equal rights of others. If you kill me you
>forfeit your right to life. If you forceably take my rightful property you lose
>your right to property and your right not to have force used against you.
>
>Helen Marsh

I guess I take a different tack, and I tend not to think in terms of "rights"
at all.  In an earlier post I blathered on about how "ownership" is actually
a complex notion, only partly tied up with legal notions of property rights.
The idea of property rights itself is very complex.  It just isn't true 
that property rights in practice are based on abstract principles -- they
are based in a web of legal codes, customs, and social obligations, with
no single abstract inspiration.

There are many possible reasons why I personally might coerce someone else
in some way, or why I personally might use force on another.  These reasons
are mediated through my morality, whatever that might be, but in general
I couldn't base it on logic alone, and in fact, I think it would be impossible
in principle to do so.  The only thing I could say is that, whatever the
reason, I am responsible for my actions.

Use of force by society, or the state, is even harder for me to rationalize.
Instead, I view the whole thing as a gigantic complex optimization problem,
where we collectively authorize the state (in a democracy, at least) to 
use force in the minimal way to accomplish certain goals of stability,
happiness, prosperity, and so on.  (Use of force is intrinsically not
very happy, in my experience, so there may be another way to factor it in.)

I arrive at this point of view from introspection, really -- all the things
in my mental landscape that one might call "morals" are really based, as
far as I can tell, on emotional values attached to various experiences.
I then extrapolate from these values to decide how to act.  

To sum up (this sounds terrible, I know), I really justify coercion as just
a means to certain ends, one of which is to minimize coercion.

Kent



--
Kent Crispin				"No need to get excited",
kent@ocfmail.ocf.llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke....
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory	<Standard disclaimer>
From: hgm@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:50:05 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <122508@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
> In article <1992Apr9.014812.7322@waikato.ac.nz> hgm@waikato.ac.nz writes, in 

>>The views of the majority are not the shared values of all the people and
>>governments are commonly not elected by a majority of the people and don't
>>really reflect the views of a majority of those who did vote for them so laws
>>do not reflect shared values. The people need to know that they have some
>>rights which are protected from the totalitarian power of the oligopoly which
>>both the government of the USA and that of New Zealand appear to be.
> 
> Hmm.  I won't touch that :-)
> 

ditto
No, really, my view is that you and I, together in the majority for a change,
have no right to impose our cultural view that murder is wrong on a minority in
our state who think it is right in certain circumstances. Only if all the
people in a referendum agree to that rule should it be imposed on the society.
I can accept that if there is an alternative society to which deviants can
easily move a majority decision might be justifiable. This is not usually the
case however. I believe that abortion is murder. This issue tends to split
societies. In Eire abortion is illegal, in UK it is legal but there are still a
lot of people in Eire who do not believe it should be illegal in all cases.
There are other factors which make it difficult to move to UK.
In practice I would settle for a 95% vote in the referendum.

Helen Marsh
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 8 Apr 92 13:42:01 GMT


 
>>  "Logical consistency" requires a set of formal knowledge to which to
>>  apply rules of logic.  Such knowledge exists in rigorous form in, 
>>  say, mathematics, or in physics and chemistry.   But not in economics.
>
>Not true. Much of  mathematics is far from rigorous and relies on intuition.
>What can be formalized is rather trivial.

   Maybe at the most theoretical level, like physics.  But I would 
   contest this for practical examples.  In my area (computer graphics)
   we make extensive use of linear algebra and geometry.  And the 
   mere fact that it is computable in a literal sense attests to 
   the formal structure of it.  



>>  What can Mr. Yodaiken possibly mean by evaluating proposals for change
>>  "on their own merits" ?  How does he propose that we determine what 
>>  those merits might be?   I say, as I did above, that there are only
>>  two intellectually honest methods:  develop a concrete instance, or
>>  demonstrate that economics has sufficient rigor on which to base an 
>>  abstract model.
>
>Let's apply your argument to the American revolution. How many working models of
>republics were in existence in 1776? How rigorous was the development of the science
>of government? Well, the answers are obvious, so, by your logic Jefferson, Adams,
>and Paine were intellectually dishonest for proposing such a radical new system.

   Good example.  The American Revolution JUST HAPPENED to turn out well.
   But we only know this in hindsight.  And we also know (in hindsight)
   that the vast majority of violent revolutions in human history are
   either put down, or succeed militarily only to result in chaos or
   the imposition of a new set of tyrants.   Someone may have been 
   emotionally swayed by the romantic arguments of "Jefferson, Adams,
   and Paine", but it's quite easy to poke holes in, or note the
   vagueness in, their arguments intellectually.   

   It is interesting, nay fascinating, that we see here the EXACT same 
   confusion on this topic emanating from both the left and the right.
   Examples like cars, electric light bulbs, and American Revolutions
   are very individual examples of success in classes of endeavor
   (e.g.'s, invention, political revolution) in which the majority
   of attempts are failures.  As such, instead of giving credence
   to the argument that we should be less skeptical of new ideas 
   they only serve to reinforce a thinking person's skepticism.

---peter
From: fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: So what's your alternative to Social Security?
Date: 13 Apr 92 01:42:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA

In article <8863@alvin.mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
>In article <7c2j02AtbdxC00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>>  Since Social Security is meant to provide assistance to people when they
>>retire, why not just mandate some sort of contribution plan where individual
>>contributions would be on behalf of that person only, not a big pool of
>>revenue to be re-distributed.  It would be called Individual Security, 
>
>This money has to be invested by the government; if an individual has
>loaded up on Eastern Airlines, then we are going to bail him out -
>that's the whole idea behind this to start with. If the gov is covering
>the mistakes, it must be in charge, or wild speculation will ensue.

  I thought I said in the original posting that the Govt. would indeed
control such investment for individual retirees; in fact I'm sure I said
that because I said that this program would ensure that the Govt. could 
still finance its debt.

  I agree that only safe investments should me made in such a retirement
plan, and Govt. securities are about as safe as them come...

  Doug
-- 
                                                     Doug Fierro
                                      |\             UTS System Software
  O                         __________|_\______      CASE tools development
  \_.______________________| * * * * * * * * */      fierro@uts.amdahl.com
 __\____                   |=================/       (408)746-7102
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Xref: sparky sci.econ:3706 misc.invest:6759
From: mausb@warwick.ac.uk (The Jazz Fiend)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
Subject: Black Scholes pricing
Date: 13 Apr 92 12:47:22 GMT
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK

Can anyone explain to me how the Black Scholes derivative securities
pricing formula is derived, I think it uses Ito's lemma/formula but I don't
know what this is.

Thanks,

Martin Hopkins
mausb@uk.ac.warwick.csv
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Small Communities (Re: Wage..
Date: 6 Apr 92 21:39:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle

In article <Mds=TlS00Uzx85cUwp@andrew.cmu.edu> Ashish Arora <ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Excerpts From Captions of netnews.sci.econ:
> 6-Apr-92  Small Communities (Re: Wage..  Paul Barton-Davis@cs.was (3348)   
>[..]
>
>>On the other hand, one also needs to be careful not to pay too much
>>attention to the 19th century US examples that collapsed due to their
>>inherent own design (such as zero-birth rates). One can get better
>>examples by looking at the parallel but non-intentional communities of
>>the Amish and Mennonite communities, particularly those around the
>>Lancaster County, PA region. Although their particular mode of social
>>organization is complicated by (1) religious belief and (2) US federal
>>and state government interference, these communities are doing well in
>>most senses. They are not "marxist", "socialist" or "communist" in the
>>sense of having explicitly adopted these -ism's as working strategies.
>>Nevertheless, they do manage to demonstrate both some of the strengths
>>and some of the weaknesses of these -ism's in a way that economics
>>never does.
>
>A very interesting post.  At the very least this appears to give lie to
>the oft seen assertions about "human nature".  Typically such assertions
>take selfishness (or self seeking behaviour) as a enduring (and
>unchanging) characteristic of human nature.  

Actually Ashish, I wouldn't go that far. I sometimes think that what
the Amish have succeeded at is the creation of a mode of social
organization in which those same selfish tendencies are redirected
into things other than the bedrock of their communities. There is
still plenty of interpersonal conflict within the Amish (at least
according to the less-than rigourous studies I have read, and my talks
with people who live close by), but it doesn't surface in the same way
as selfishness does in more typical US communities.

Another interestingly different model to look at is the Iroquois
Confederacy, or "Great Nation" of the mid-Atlantic states. If you look
at their decision-making process, the role of "chiefs" and so forth
(I'd recommend Jerry Mander's "In the Absence of the Sacred" as
introductory reading; comes complete with a great anti-technological
first half :-), there is similar evidence that societies based on the
idea of multiple, independent, rational, self-interested agents are
not universal, even in N. America :-)

-- paul



-- 
"what various paths are followed in distributing honors & possessions" 
Computer Science Lab, University of Washington 	<pauld@cs.washington.edu>
From: coulter@hpcuhe.cup.hp.com (Michael Coulter)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 19:59:46 GMT
Subject: Re: Capital Gains - Wrong Victim
Organization: Hewlett Packard, Cupertino
Newsgroups: sci.econ

In response to Megan's questions:

You can roll your gains into a new residence and defer the taxes
IF THE NEW HOUSE COSTS MORE.  Not a way to raise cash.  There is an 18 month
time limit on buying the new house.  If the new house costs less, I think
you get taxed on the difference.

If you are 55 or older, you can once in your lifetime sell your house
and not buy a new residence and exempt $150K (I think that is the
number) of the gain from taxes.  If you have a $450K gain, you still
have a pretty hefty tax bill.  (You also have a pretty hefty amount of
money left over.)

-- Michael Coulter

Xref: sparky sci.econ:3794 misc.taxes:2278
From: degroff@amanda.IntelliCorp.COM (Les Degroff)
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:41:44 GMT

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:
|> |> 
|> >>If the government started with only the 13 colonies, and has taken in 
|> >>$X, and spent $X+4 trillion, and has a huge positive net worth, then how
|> >>can you criticize their performance so strongly?
|> 
For parks, country and national value, don't forget the forward expected
cash flow.  A number of the parts would still be centered on rare
natural attractions such that a large NPV would be reasonable to
assign in valuation.

|> Surely the total assets serve as an effective upper limit on government
|> assets???
    Just like banks with bad loans, and investments in bad junk bonds, there
is a very large grey zone where "promises" and "speculative futures" are
treated as assets.  Today rating services ect classify US bonds as AAA+++
securities. to the holders they are assets.  They continue to be highly
valued and liquid.  Like "money", assets esp paper finanial assets are
bounded by "trust" and "market behavior" and thus have much higher
bounds than any static/material/land based analysis. (Also worth of note,
the bit of mythos/lore about the Japanese Tokoyo real estate bubble indicating
that the value (per collateralization and "paper values") of Tokoyo was
greater than equivalent value of California USA.   

|> >This is a really bad way to estimate value of assets with respect to a
|> >quasi-bankrupt entity like the federal government.
|> 
|> But it is an excellent way to estimate corporate worth, and you were
|> using a corporate analogy.  Please demonstrate a better one.
|> 
|> >What we really need is a Wall Street-style hostile takeover of the federal
|> >government. Break it up and sell off the pieces. 
|> 
|> When this happens on Wall Street, it is backed up by copious figures and
|> calculations, be they right or wrong.  You are advocating it, show us
|> your calculations.  Right now, you won't even estimate present value.

  Ya and don't forget to explain your future cash flow estimates, up 
because of "superior private utilitzation", down (discounted) because of
additional inefficiencies.
  Then look at the resulting reinforcement of the wealth holding curve,
all the poor who are even more disadvantaged because the have no current
reserves to buy into the sell off. 
|>
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:22:39 GMT
Article-I.D.: alvin.8864
Reply-To: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

Again, breaking a long response into separate threads.

In article <1992Apr7.052044.25065@nuscc.nus.sg< ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
<In article <8849@alvin.mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
<>In article <1992Apr4.054726.265@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
<>>In other words, the government may have the power to destroy the net
<>>assets of the country but it does not follow that it has the power to
<>>confiscate them in any practical sense.

<You've switched from tax to confiscation (although there appears to be
<little difference in the modern welfare state, according to supreme court
<decisions).  The government does not have the legal authority to confiscate
<property, merely to tax it into oblivion.

Since you agree there is little difference, why argue the point?
In *.legal, I'd argue your side, but the government has precisely those
powers, in practice.

<practical terms. You would be more likely to see California seceed from
<the union than its residents private property confiscated and sold to
<the Japanese to pay off the federal debt.)

The South failed, I doubt California will secede.  The private property might
not be sold, just authority transferred, with power to determine title
left to new government.

<>Many consider themselves closer to workers in this 'corporation' than
<>stockholders or uninvolved.  The eventual failure of this board and
<>their replacement by a subsequent government is of interest to many.

<In theory, we are all shareholders in the federal 'corporation' (all of
<voting age, anyway). Of course, we are not all equal shareholders to judge

NO!! Shareholders enjoy limited liability, US citizens do not, and may
be liable for all federal debt.

-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: david.lloyd-jones@rose.uucp (david lloyd-jones)
Subject: s this a No-Profit
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 10:59:10 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.2)


Date Entered: 04-11-92 07:56
Replying to: steve@stss.uucp (Steve Temcheff)
S(T>Subject: Is this a No-Profit World?
S(T>Summary: On a world-scale there is no profit ( loss )

S(T>Is it true that there is no profit ( loss ) on a world-scale?

Hunh?  Sounds like you haven't had a hug today.

                                        -dlj.
---
   SLMR 2.0   World peace through world law.
   RM 1.60: Usenet: Rose Media - Hamilton (416) 575-5363
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: So what's your alternative to Social Security?
Date: 10 Apr 92 19:10:59 GMT
Reply-To: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer

In article <7c2j02AtbdxC00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>  Since Social Security is meant to provide assistance to people when they
>retire, why not just mandate some sort of contribution plan where individual
>contributions would be on behalf of that person only, not a big pool of
>revenue to be re-distributed.  It would be called Individual Security, 

My problem with this type of approach is that it will turn this into a
SOCIALIST country.   In 1989 76M people were between 25 and 44.  IN
2019, this bulge will be bracketing the age of 65, 1/2 retired, and half
needing to be nearly fully funded.  How much will they have invested,
together? Keeping things in current dollars, mean SS distribution for
single worker is $8500.  Figuring a 3% real return, the total investment
pool for IS must be $21T.  Some will have died, but their account
belongs to the heirs, and some of the older generations will be hanging
around still.  Some will still be married, if all were, and half of the
spouses received no IS of their own, and you got 4% real return,
then at current benefit levels only $11T would be needed(*).  

This money has to be invested by the government; if an individual has
loaded up on Eastern Airlines, then we are going to bail him out -
that's the whole idea behind this to start with. If the gov is covering
the mistakes, it must be in charge, or wild speculation will ensue.
You're 64, got a good account, try those naked options, could win big!!
Now the market value
of the top 50 stocks was $1.1T in 1989.  At even $11T, the government
would be the defacto owner of the entire publicly traded market,
including real estate rich insurance cos.  And we would be
nationalized.

(* Annuitizing will be some improvement, but if life expectancy at 65
goes to 20 yrs, it will be fairly small)
-- 
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
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: hgm@waikato.ac.nz
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: economic skepticsDIR
Date: 9 Apr 92 01:57:22 +1200
Organization: University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand

In article <9204071653.AA25991@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
> 
> 
> From: Adam R. Grossman
> 
> 
>>   [...Peter Nelson insists that  a more laissez-faire economic policy must
>>   first be tested on a local level first...]
>>   
>>For macroeconomic policy, this is impossible.   The smallest division which
>>would  constitute   a fair test is  the   national level.  The  separate(!)
>>economies of the individual states  or metropolitan  areas are too  tightly
>>coupled in this country.

That is why they have pounced on New Zealand with such determination. Like
nuclear-testing a small Pacific nation is expendable in the interests of
economic science.

It would be nice if we had some 'shared values' about what rights we should all
be allowed to exercise without government interference and what constitutes a
level playing field.

Helen Marsh - Down-Under in the Laboratory
From: iccsap020@spacm1.spac.spc.com (David Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 8 Apr 92 15:21:45 PST
Organization: Security Pacific Automation Co., LA, CA

I'm getting the idea, from references in various threads, 
that people are taking libertarianism to be based on anarchism.

This is not true for all libertarians, by any means.  Hayek, for
instance, always assumes a government in his descriptions of
desireable social orders.  Nozick (Anarchy, State and Utopia),
presents a scenario, not unlike the one Daniel Platt has occasionally
presented here, showing how government would arise spontaneously
in an anarchic setting, and that it could certainly be 
consistent with libertarian ideas.  


David Cohen
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Capital 'R us
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:22:04 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JACKSON.92Apr13062942@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:
>Alas, it is not clear to my why government regulation,
>either national or local, will result in the investment
>decisions you think are necessary.
>
>Can you describe the process for selecting the people
>who make the decisions and process they use to make the
>decisions and why those two processes will inevitiably
>result in your preferred decisions?

Sadly, I can't think of any system which would inevitably result in
my preferred decisions. But,it might be ok to have
a mixture of private and public investment
centers with the public centers controllable via election/recall of officers
and referendum, and the private ones controlled by the market, 
rational limits on commodification, and an end to the corporate liability
shield.  It is important to limit commodification since so much of what is
valuable in a human life is not amenable to exchange. So, I don't think that
"pollution rights" should be purchasable anymore than "slavery rights".
It is also important to introduce feedback into the investment cycle, so
that instead of decisions being made by small groups of corporate or
government bureaucrats (allegedly in the public interest,or to meet the
"requirements of the market") decisions should be made by those who will
have to live with the consequences.






>Otherwise, I see another case of
>
>	Proof by blatant assertion

Did I assert that I had "proved" anything?



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu