HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:27:00 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep1.094859.3841@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <52738@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> In article <87453@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil) writes:
>>>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly 
>>>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>>>for all types of governmental law.  Morality and related topics should solely
>> 
>> And some type of marxism-leninism similarly attempted to exclude morality
>> from their programs which were ostensibly based on a "scientific"
>> understanding of history. The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>> science is equally convincing.
>>  
>	All you are doing with such lies is damaging your net.credability. 
>Post the quotes where Libertarians attempt to pass off prejudice as science.

If anyone claims to be "stripping" politics of its moral content, they are
claiming to be able to make objective and rational political judgements
without reference to moral values. This is an attempt to pass off prejudice
as science.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7176 talk.politics.theory:3882 alt.individualism:5313
From: ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.theory,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 27 Aug 92 01:33:44 GMT
Organization: Intergraph Advanced Processor Division - Palo Alto, CA

In article <l9kn1cINNfks@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM> tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM writes:

>
>How about: 
>1. The implementation of libertarian ideals will lead to policies the
>   majority of americans view as cold-hearted. Game theory research
>   has shown without a doubt people have a sense of "fairness" flatly
>   rejecting traditional economic assumptions concerning rational behavior.

That may be because they have not had to confront the costs, if indeed
it is true.  It is easy to be generous with other people's assets.

>2. It takes a majority to elect someone to office or it at least takes
>   a large voting block to influence politics.

In the current environment, it takes large coalitions of special interest
groups.  The Democrats have Big Business, the Trial Lawyers, the
Teacher's Unions and the Govt Employees.  The Republicans have Big Business,
The Fundamentalists, the Military Industrial Complex, some unions, etc.

>3. Thus libertarians will never have a signigficant influence in
>   american politics.

It is indeed an uphill battle for a political party which stands 
against the very idea of special interest politics and the unbridled
mixing of political power into the economy to take on all the
special interest groups at once with no money.  No question about it.
But we are confident that "the truth will out."

>4. So libs should either give up or reorganize their policies into a vision
>   acceptable to enough people that changes in the political system have
>   a realistic chance of being implemented. In other words give a little
>   and you might get a lot.

I agree that the Libertarian Party should focus more on key bread-
and-butter issues, and get a lot of tangential stuff out of the
platform.  Get rid of the albatrosses, so to speak.  But I see no
reason to compromise on the idea that the govt should be shrunk,
just because those who currently suck at the federal teat might
be inconvenienced.  

De Tocqueville said that American democracy would last until the
people realized that they could vote themselves largesse from
the Treasury.  The skyrocketing national debt is the warning
sign of the impending bankruptcy of our current system of govt.

It will not collapse because the Libertarians are in opposition
to the system, but because economic reality always prevails.
The Libertarians are just the bearers of the bad news.


--Al Date
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose)
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc, Cupertino CA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 01:34:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.010021.29903@leland.Stanford.EDU>, jojo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joanne Spetz) writes:
> In article <htweedie.04d4@madhat.actrix.gen.nz> htweedie@madhat.actrix.gen.nz (Hamish Tweedie) writes:
> 
> >	Anybody care to discuss their view of the valuation of life by
> >govt. policy makers, and what they view as the implications of the issues
> >involved in such valuations??
> 
> How do people feel about such valuation?  My impression is that people
> find it to be morally repugnant.  However, one cannot avoid making
> some sort of value judgement of human life whenever one supports or
> doesn't support most government policies.  People seem to try to
> make themselves feel better by not explicitly stating what their "life
> value" is...but that's only a dodge for the hard, cold, cynical truth
> of economics:  everything has a price.
> 

People might find the naming of a dollar amount repugnant, but
implicitly people are constantly making these tradeoffs.  When
you buy a car, dash across the street, even take an aspirin or
smoke a cigarette, you are making a tradeoff of shortened life
expectancy vs reward.  Now one might argue (and its probably
true) that people vastly underestimate the risks of things they
commonly do; perhaps one's estimate of the increased life expectancy
by buying a Volvo instead of a Honda Civic is low, but regardless
of how accurate it is there is still some tradeoff being made.


____________________________________________________________________
Ken Rose    (kenr@storage.tandem.com)
The Usual Disclaimer:  Any opinions expressed above are mine alone, not
those of my employer (who is kind enough to allow me Usenet access).
From: bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P.Chatterjee)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Considering Grad School: Would appreciate help with info.
Date: 1 Sep 1992 18:53:55 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

I'm considering going in for my Ph.D in Econ. in one of the better known schools. At present I have about two and a half years of Graduate work under my belt at a lesser known institution. Over the past year or two I've concentrated on arming myself with as much of a math background (Analysis, topology, etc. etc.) as is possible.

I was wondering if somebody could shed some light on what the 'clinching' factors are in the admission process and to what extent are the 'big' names willing to finance entering grad students. I wouldn't mind 'sacrificing' all the credits I've earned here so far; some people might think, with good reason too, that I'm being 'crazy' but I believe graduating from a 'big' school is, in more senses than one, a very important factor for an aspiring economist.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk)
Subject: How Long it will Take to Pay back the Debt (Life in the 24th century)
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 23:01:26 GMT

   Consider that our largest surplus since WWII was 12 billion dollars.  That
was when the debt was only about 250 billion, so there were just these real
tiny interest payments (10-20 billion or so).  So we'll probably never even
be able to get anywhere near back up all that way to 12 billion with our
current interest load (400 billion or so), since 12 billion even with the
smaller interest was likely considered intolerable.  And remember, Americans
simply won't stand for more tax increases (unless the increases exempt the
vast majority of them).

   So the current debt is 4000 billion.  Payback time >= 4000/12 = 333 years.

   Therefore, it is unlikely we will pay back the debt any time before the
year 2325.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: RBC Modelling
From: <ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 1 Sep 1992 21:00:51 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

MIKE ORSZAG
Department of Economics
University of Michigan writes:

> There is no indication that the "technological shocks" of RBC models
> have anything to do with real technological innovation; I think
> they are connected with various real rigidities which are in any
> case indistinguishable from technological shocks even at the
> microeconomic level.

This seems to indicate that RBC models are not too bad, does it not?
They mimic the real world data rather well.  We may quibble whether the
drving force is really a technology shock, but if it is obervationally
equivalent to a technology shock we might as well act as if it really is
one.

I am interested also to see if people think monetary shocks are also
important.  It is my understanding that New Keynesians really buy into the
notion that sticky prices are important, but that sticky wages are not.
My inclination based on admittedly casual empiricism would be to believe
the opposite, that wages are probably sticky while prices are not.  What
is the rational for the accepting the former, or am I misstating the
New Keynesian position?
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7343 misc.invest:11198
From: breid@pyrhard2.eng.pyramid.com (Bill Reid)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
Subject: Re: need details on devaluating U.S. currency
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:21:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technology Corporation, Mountain View

Wow, what's happening with this group?!?  Questions about the Fed and 
money supply, currency devaluation, etc.?  What happened to the endless 
litany of "What mutual fund should I invest in?" and "Stock XXX dropped 
18 points yesterday - why?"  These new questions are far too 
fundamental and pertinent!

In article <5esJ03Tu76p100@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
>
>  Can someone help me out with some specifics on devaluation of the
>U.S. dollar.  It is my impression that only the U.S. can devaluate
>U.S. currency. 

Any other currency can devalue the dollar, just by being a "stronger" 
currency.  It has been happening recently with the DM vs the $.  

>  1) How exactly does the government devaluate the dollar?  

They don't.  See above.  The government does set, along with the major 
developed countries of the world, "target ranges" for the various 
currencies.  If a currency gets out of that range (which is never 
announced, it's a secret), then the central banks of the countries 
do certain things (like buy the currency) to try to bring it 
back into the "target range".  

>     Do they
>     announce a target percentage devaluation or is it decided then by
>     the world market?

It is decided by the world market, as above.  You can tell what the 
secret range is by the actions taken by the central banks when 
currencies begin to rise or drop in value.  

>  2) When was the last time the dollar was officially devaluated? Was it
>     in the early '70s (under Nixon)?

Nixon signed what I think was called the Bretton-Woods agreement, which 
allowed currencies to float freely on the world market.  Prior to that, 
the value of the dollar (and the DM and yen, etc.) HAD been strictly 
set to certain value by government decree.  (Bretton-Woods came about 
as I remember because England was devaluing the pound every two 
weeks or so, and it got to be ridiculous).  

>     I'm not sure what issuing new bills would accomplish since the dollar
>     is a truly fiat form of currency with no real worth without the backing
>     of the government (and confidence of consumers).

Actually, the dollar is not a "fiat" currency, and the backing of the 
government for the dollar in a fiscal crisis would be not very 
effective at best.  

>So if this is
>true, then if other leading countries decide to devaluate their currency
>as well, does that defeat the purpose and can it lead to a devaluation war?

It's happened before amongst the major nations, and has happened recently 
with the third-world nations, and will most likely happen again.  This 
is all part of the "great world-wide depression" scenario.  
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
From: jon@destin.dazixco.ingr.com (Jon Stone)
Subject: Re: need details on devaluating U.S. currency
Reply-To: jon@ingr.com
Organization: Dazix - An Intergraph Company
X-Newsreader: GNU Emacs 18.58.1, GNUS 3.14.1, NNTP 3.10
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 1992 23:02:18 GMT


>>>>> On 3 Sep 92 01:48:08 GMT, fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) said:

 Doug>   It seems to me that devaluation of the dollar doesn't affect
 Doug> people much if they are not buying anything outside of this
 Doug> country- i.e. their salary, car loan, mortgage, etc. won't
 Doug> appear to change much, but if they want to buy that Mercedes or
 Doug> French wine or round-trip ticket to Tokyo the cost will be much
 Doug> more than before the devaluation took place.


I'm no expert, but I don't agree with this.

If the dollar were de-valuated by some large amount, say 500%, then
your house mortgage for $100,000 yesterday would now be worth $20,000
in de-valuated dollars.  Obviously lending institutions would be quite
unhappy about this situation and demand payment indexed to this
devaluation (i.e.  inflation).  Presuming they could get the
government to go along with it.  So your house loan would now be
$500,000 in the devalued currency.

I believe this is exactly what happened in post WW1 Germany.  When
hyper-inflation set in because of the massive devaluation of the
currency, banks pushed, and got, these kind of concessions from their
government.  From their point of view, their outstanding loans were
becoming worthless without such indexing.  The ordinary citizens saw
their debts going out of sight, and their salaries not keeping up.

If I've got something wrong, then of course, corrections welcome.

Jon

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Stone                                                 jon@ingr.com
Dazix, an Intergraph Company; Boulder, CO               (303) 581-2319
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 4 Sep 92 20:33:39 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep3.125957.3895@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>In article <52804@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep1.094859.3841@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>In article <52738@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>> In article <87453@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil) writes:
>>>>>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly 
>>>>>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>>>>>for all types of governmental law.  Morality and related topics should solely
>>>> 
>>>> And some type of marxism-leninism similarly attempted to exclude morality
>>>> from their programs which were ostensibly based on a "scientific"
>>>> understanding of history. The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>>>> science is equally convincing.
>>>>  
>>>	All you are doing with such lies is damaging your net.credability. 
>>>Post the quotes where Libertarians attempt to pass off prejudice as science.
>> 
>> If anyone claims to be "stripping" politics of its moral content, they are
>> claiming to be able to make objective and rational political judgements
>> without reference to moral values. This is an attempt to pass off prejudice
>> as science.
>
>	What science?
>
>	Libertarians simply state that one should not be able to impose their
>morality upon the other in the name of "what is right".

Read Valloppilli's post again:
>>>>>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly 
>>>>>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>>>>>for all types of governmental law.  Morality and related topics should solely

If you have a problem with his claim, complain to him, not to me.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Subject: Re: too much junk
Organization: University of Chicago
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 17:01:34 GMT

In article <12071@cis.rand.org> cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave) writes:
>
>I second the original poster's comments.  I thought this was sci.econ, not
>alt.econ.  There is precious little economics in here, and what there is,
>is macro.  Bummer.

  Perhaps if you post something along the lines you wish others of
us to comment on, we can stir up some discussion in that arena.  Given
the low quantity of posts concerning either theory or applied
economics, I can only assume that those of us who currently complain
about the status of sci.econ are doing precious little to change it.
It isn't as if sci.econ has all that much traffic.

  Personally, I'm bound by evil confidentiality concerning my econometric
work, but I'm more than willing to join in other people's discussions.
Maybe there just aren't enough of us doing similar enough work to
keep up reasonable discussions. (?)


Pat


-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
From: jmo@stokes.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: RBC Modelling
Date: 1 Sep 92 20:41:30 GMT
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@nimaster

In article <thompson.715272635@daphne.socsci.umn.edu>, thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:
|> <ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET> writes:
|> 
|> >Well, perhaps to start a new thread, perhaps to fail...
|> 
|> >What is the perception out there in netland about the validity of
|> >Real Business Cycle models?  Do they give us a reasonable and
|> >useful description of the macroeconomy?  Does money matter?
|> 
|> Depends on what you mean by "validity" since no model is perfect in
|> all respects.  Some of the current "state of the art" work on real
|> business cycles gets pretty good fits to some low order moments of the
|> business cycle variables by simply hypothesizing that the economy is
|> hit frequently by random "technology shocks" or "productivity shocks."
|> It is hypothesized by some that these are fundamental forces behind
|> the cyclical behavior of things like GDP and employment.
|> 
|> Unless you are good at forecasting the next technology shock you will
|> not find this kind of result very useful for prediction, however.
|> 
|> About two years ago I heard a lecture by Martin Eichenbaum of
|> Northwestern University about a model that extended the "technology
|> shock" models to allow for a simultaneous role for unanticipated
|> changes in the money supply.  He claimed that the data are unable to
|> sort out whether the unanticipated monetary shocks or the technology
|> shocks are dominant forces behind the real business cycle.
|> --
|> T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
|> Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
|> University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209


The RBC models use assumptions based on observed macroeconomic
data (Cobb-Douglas production function, etc.) and are calibrated
with macroeconomic data. It would be very surprising if such
models did not match the data very closely.

There is no indication that the "technological shocks" of RBC models
have anything to do with real technological innovation; I think
they are connected with various real rigidities which are in any
case indistinguishable from technological shocks even at the
microeconomic level.

-- MIKE ORSZAG
Department of Economics
University of Michigan
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 28 Aug 92 13:07:59 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <23020@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker) writes:
>In article <52260@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>
>>He was no propertarian. TJ supported  public financed education, public purchase of vast
>>stretches of land, legislation to reduce disparities in wealth, public support of
>>manufacturing industries via taxation and tariffs, sharp limitations on "intellectual
>>property" (patents) ... Jefferson was more concerned with human liberty and the rights
>>of human beings than with the rights of property ownership. And Jefferson had a very
>>strong ethic of civil duty and a belief in majority rule. He would have had nothing but
>>contempt for the  crabbed and mean-spirited money worship that is now called "libertarianism".
>
>This doesn't sound like a Thomas Jefferson that Ronald Reagan would have known.
>You must have it wrong.

We all know that Ron's memory is not the best.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 03:20:05 GMT

>The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>science is...

Ad Hominem!  Minus 5 points for Victor!

How long must this go on?

--Jimbo

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: kevin@drogges.tti.com (Kevin Carothers)
Subject: Re: American underclass
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 18:19:57 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.225455.2184@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
%  Since you are really looking for reading material, I'll make a couple
%of recommendations and keep my opinions short and sweet.
%
%In article <BtK4Jy.2uz@watserv1.uwaterloo.ca> idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman) writes:
%>
%>I have always wondered why the U.S, the richest country in the world in
%>terms of per capita GNP, is having such a hard time solving the problems
%>of homelessness, urban poverty, drugs, etc..
%
%  Because you can't get rid of poverty by spending money.  With the
%money our government devotes to poverty, it should put every poor
%person above the poverty line (in terms of straight math.)  If someone really 
%knew what the problem was, I think it would be fixed by now.  The fact is,
%no one knows how to fix it and I believe many different solutions should
%be tried in conjunction with one another rather than assuming that a
%"Grand Plan" can work.
%
%>Of course, Democrats and Republicans yell and scream at each other for
%>ignoring and neglecting these problems. I am wondering whether people
%>know of *** good *** books addressing this problem.
%
%  Well, I recommend a US News & World Report article from April 20, 1992.
%I also recommend Lawrence Mead, "Beyond Entitlement" and 
%Charles Murray, "Losing Ground".  You are unlikely to agree with them,
%but they do represent two schools of thought on the issue.

 Another reading would be "Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell.
 He presents a theory of "social engineering", based upon two extremes; that of
 the "constrained", versus the "unconstrained".  The basic philosophy of these
 two outlooks is as follows;

ISSUE            CONSTRAINED                     UNCONSTRAINED
-----            -----------                     -------------
Human Nature     Humans are imperfect &&         human nature is perfectable
                 materialistic && greedy

Equality         The best we can hope for        education && institutional
                 is equality of opportunity      change can make everyone equals
	
Information      Never enough to make a          perfectable
                 rational policy decision

Society		 Needs to be regulated by the    can be a "designed" society,
                 general, evolved laws.          based on the "common good".

Anyway, I think you can pretty well guess which political party has which
vision :-)

--

Kevin Carothers   {psivax,philabs,retix,quad1}!ttidca!kevin
Newsgroups: sci.econ