HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 19 Aug 92 22:42:53 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <Bt6yIw.M47@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>
>The notion that the government ought to exist only to protect
>individual rights does not preclude that the government will
>be a strong organization.  I wish to limit the _scope_ of the
>government... not to arbitrarily limit the _size_ of the government.

Worthwhile distinction.  I do have the impression, however, that much of 
the appeal of libertarian philosophy lies in its promise to eliminate
the obligation of individuals to support (monetarily) the rights of
other citizens to whom they feel no connection.  Not meant as a
personal accusation, only a comment on the appeal of the philosophy
to many of its adherents.

>
>>I get the feeling that arguing with Libertarians is like sailing in a
>>shifting wind.  I can't tell where they're coming from.
>
>There are lots of flakey libertarians out there.  I don't know if
>George Tucker is one or not.  So I understand your frustration.
>But try arguing with socialists as a group, or Republicans, or
>whoever.  For any political position, there are any number of
>different adherents.
>
>>Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
>
>--Jimbo Wales

Another valid point, Mr. Wales.  Having read libertarian theory off and
on for the last 25 years, or so, and having plowed through hundreds of
postings here, let me suggest that much of the "flakey-ness" in evidence
is adolescent rebellion finding a simplistic political philosophy that
appears to justify "doing what I want" and "keeping what I get."  For 
those for whom identity formation is an immediate and pressing concern,
libertarianism seems to promise affirmation of one's adulthood.  For
those escaping the authoritarian bonds of one's parents it focuses on
the evils of institutional authoritarianism.  And for those with a 
limited historical perspective (the last dozen years, at most), the
simplistic appeal of a laissez-faire economic policy can be most
seductive. 

In short, most libertarians outgrow it. :-)
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ta@itk.unit.no (Trond Andresen)
Subject: Reference alternative money system
Keywords: reference, interest, currency, basket
Organization: Norwegian Institute of Technology / SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 12:05:46 GMT

I have earlier sent some of you through e-mail an article
on a proposal for a new convertible interest-free currency,
but at the time I didn't know where it had been
published. 

Now I have found a reference:



A Strategy for a Convertible
Currency

- by Bernard A. Lietaer -

published in ICIS Forum, Vol.20,
No.3, International Center for Integrative Studies,
New York 1990, pp 59 - 72.


I still will e-mail the article to anybody interested. Tell me!


-- 
Trond Andresen  (ta@itk.unit.no) ======================================
male, age 45,			    |MAIN 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.
From: fpf@taurus.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Comparative Advantage
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:32:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NorthWest Natural Gas Company of Portland Oregon


In my posting on Comparative Advantage, I argued that living standards
in the developed nations might well fall dramatically as a result of
free trade.  My point is that factor prices tend to equalize accross
trading partners with free movement of capital, goods and services.

In his response, Ken Rose argues (correctly) that living standards will
tend to rise as output increases in those developing, lower wage countries
toward which investment flows.  This is clearly true, still, an increase
in living standards for less developed nations will do nothing to slow
the decline in wages and living standards or workers in the developed
nations.  I've also attempted to note that living standard increases
in developing nations may slow as the developed countries find themselves
less able to purchase the output of the developing nations in sufficient
quantities to fuel rapid development.

I also not, in response to other postings, that these effects are not
yet obvious.  We have been able to maintain a high level of purchases
of imported items for decades now.  I believe we may now be seeing an
end to our ability to maintain these purchasing levels.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: burris@epcot.spdc.ti.com (Jim Burris)
Subject: Re: Libertarian rebuttal..
Organization: TI Semiconductor Process and Design Center
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 14:28:37 GMT

In article <2009@usna.NAVY.MIL> potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)) writes:
>
>  In article 8763 marty@hoqaa.att.com writes:
>
>>Who am I supposed to believe is the serious Libertarian?.....
>
>>I get the feeling that arguing with Libertarians is like sailing
>>in a shifting wind... ad nauseum.
>
>  Your misconceptions arise from the fact that you are using an
>ethnocentric label "Libertarians" to dissect the political opinions
>of 2 INDIVIDUALS.

   stuff deleted

>
> Then again, perhaps they do have a common platform -> socialism!
>
> Jeff
>
   I'll be the last person to defend the Republicrats. However, the argument
that these parties advocate socialism is WRONG. Socialism, by definition, is a
system where the government owns the means of production. After all these years
of Democrat-controlled Congress, we still have nothing approaching government
control of the means of production. This is the famous "straw man" that
Libertarians so often mention.

Jim Burris
Xref: sparky sci.econ:6906 alt.individualism:5274
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:22:12 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug17.172013.10835@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
> From article <1992Aug16.204251.29075@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, by n8640664@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Richard Nixon):
>> ......   If you remember correctly, the libertarian view is that
>> the only legitimate purpose of government is to control/punish the very
>> fraud you speak of above, along with the control of violence/property
>> crimes, etc.
> 
> Well, does that include implicit misrepresentation of consumer
> products, dispersal of pollutants into the commons without
> compensation to the public, takebacks of retirement benefits under
> cover of fine print, etc.?

	If it is determined to be fraud, yes.

> Be assured that the present government safeguards against those
> fraudulent and effectively criminal practices are woefully
> inadequate.  If you want to prevent them, some agencies of the
> government will have to be made much larger, and will have be be much
> more intrusive into private business, than they are today.

	Bzzzt.  Exactly the wrong approach.  Government has failed, so the
solution is to make government bigger?

	The "solution" is to let the victim recoup losses (through litigation
if need be).  Right now corporations are hiding behind government regulations.

> What I am saying is that all this Libertarian fluff about minimizing
> government is totally incompatible with the basically liberal aim of
> preventing fraud against the public, 

	No, it's against the liberal solution of making the government even
bigger.

>and you Libertarians are going to
> have to decide to tell us which you really mean.

	The problem is that you fail to see that the problem is government.  Not
that government isn't big enough.

>> It is possible, Mr. Tolman, that the source of your mistatements is
>> your own imagination, and that rather than a intentional lying problem, 
>> you merely have an unitentional 'imagination' problem, one of filling 
>> in the gaps in what you know with fantasy images and scenerios.
> 
> Well, then, let's have the gaps filled in by a Libertarian, so we
> don't have to use our imaginations.  We have seen what Republicans
> mean by reducing government and getting government off people's
> backs.  It means letting business have free rein to rip off the
> public.  It's hard to imagine that Libertarians mean anything
> different by the same slogans, but I'm willing to listen.

	We shall see.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: Bruce.Scott@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Comparative Advantage
Date: 15 Aug 92 20:32:14 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service

fpf@taurus.gasco.com (Frank Ferguson x3584) writes:

>Given the disparity between income and wage levels between the developed
>and developing world; and given the vast number of potential workers in
>the developing world's low wage pool, one would expect the process of
>lowering the industrial nation's workers wage level to go on for some
>time.  At the extreme, the wages of people in all nations would achieve
>the a common level, and given the current situation that would mean that
>wage earners in developed countries would see their wages fall to
>equality with those of third world competitors.

How does population pressure affect this argument? It would seem to me that
high fertility rates will continue to drive down laborer income in under-
developed countries, especially due to the (perceived, but is real?) 
laborers' interest in increasing the number of wage-earners under their
control (read: children).

Gruss,
Dr Bruce Scott                             The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent
bds at spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Libertarian rebuttal..
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:53:30 GMT

From article <2009@usna.NAVY.MIL>, by potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF)):
> 
>   In article 8763 marty@hoqaa.att.com writes:
> 
>>Who am I supposed to believe is the serious Libertarian?.....
> 
>>I get the feeling that arguing with Libertarians is like sailing
>>in a shifting wind... ad nauseum.
> 
>   Your misconceptions arise from the fact that you are using an
> ethnocentric label "Libertarians" to dissect the political opinions
> of 2 INDIVIDUALS.

Hey, Jeff, I didn't invent the label.  I'm only repeating what I say.

>    The truth of the matter is that the Libertarians are the ONLY
> party that has a consistent philosophical platform based on personal
> freedom. The platforms of the Demopublicans are based soley on
> what will bring the most votes - not what will bring sound freedom
> and growth in the long run. The Demopublicans have no philosophical
> basis for their actions, and ride on whims, with flimsy, spurious
> campaign promises that will get them into office - not what will
> benefit the nation. If you disagree please think about the deficit,
> and the S & L debacle, these are just a few examples of the 
> multitudinous ones that could be factually stated.

I haven't seen a consistent platform in this newsgroup.  I still don't
know what that consistent platform is.  I agree that the Democrats and
Republicans don't have consistent platforms - has it ever occurred to
you guys that that's why they keep getting elected, and the
Libertarians don't?

A politician's first responsibility is to get elected.  If that doesn't
happen, somebody else gets to make the decisions.

>  Then again, perhaps they do have a common platform -> socialism!

Is that part of the Libertarians' "consistent platform," or was it
just a wild shot?  As I see it, their common platform is nothing so
abstract: just plain power.

Summary:  Libertarians claim consistency but haven't shown it - nor
have they shown the political savvy to do much more than complain.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)
From: fofp@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Book recommendations wanted
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:53:16 GMT
Distribution: sci
Organization: Edinburgh University

I want to read up on a couple of things. 

The first: The UK is now tied into the ERM. This has been much compared
to the Gold Standard days. Can anyone recommend an accessible book
covering the Gold Standard and the economic and political effects on the UK?

Second: It looks like most of the advanced economies are in a
debt-deflation scenario. Since it's doubtful that this is something new
under the sun, are there any good books covering (preferably multiple)
previous and similar situations? 

FoFP
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.individualism
From: pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 14:32:55 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.175813.27471@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
|> From article <1992Aug18.143837.16804@cs.brown.edu>, by pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey):
|> > In article <1992Aug17.172013.10835@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
|> > |> Well, does that include implicit misrepresentation of consumer
|> > It certainly includes deliberate misrepresentation. It doesn't
|> > include situations where the consumer could have figured out the
|> > truth with a modest application of brainpower.
|> 
|> Fascinating.  I think this is a Libertarian saying it should be lawful
|> to cheat people who don't know when they're being cheated.  Who else
|> thinks so?  I don't.  Shades of Phineas T. Barnum!  "There's a sucker
|> born every minute."

My point about negligent consumers was intended to apply to misrepresentation
that was not deliberate, not as an exception to deliberate misrepresentations.
Was I unclear, or are you ranting about unintentional cheating?

|> > |> .... takebacks of retirement benefits under
|> > |> cover of fine print, etc.?
|> > No. Libertarianism assumes that people are willing and able to read
|> > contracts upon which they depend.
|> 
|> I'm able, but I'm not willing to spend time reading fine print.  Some
|> people who are very good at their jobs are not even able to read and
|> understand the fine print.  Making me (or them) spend time reading the
|> fine print on the back of every sales slip is a tax on our time more 
|> onerous than the sales tax.

Who depends on the fine print of a typical sales slip? I was responding
to a question about retirement benefit contracts, which most people get
on rare occasions and realize that if they rely on the benefits, then
it is important to know what the contract says.
-- 
         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury, 
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant 
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: STUDY: NAFTA TO CAUSE U.S. JOB, INCOME LOSS
Date: 15 Aug 92 11:45:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug14.164722.1361@tandem.com> kenr@orleans.storage.tandem.com (Ken Rose) writes:
>
>Surprisingly enough, most professional economists seem to share 
>the view that free trade is advantageous.  In his book
>"Hard Heads -- Soft Hearts", economist Alan Blinder of Princeton
>reports that "A poll of more than two hundred American economists
>in 1978 found that an astonishing 97 percent agreed that tariffs
>and quotas on imported goods reduce general economic welfare"

A) "free trade" is a complex issue which is not equivalent to 
"tariffs and quotas". For example, subsidies to local industries,
environmental and occupational health restrictions on imports,
taxation to encourage local production in non-tariff form (e.g.
via tax breaks for domestic suppliers or restrictions on government
contracting) and educational/research funding are all policies which
influence the market, but which are not "tariffs" or "quotas".

B) The "science" of economics is a highly ideological one, and until
someone demonstates that his/her econoic theories are verifiable by
independent experiment, polls tell us only what ideology funders favor.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 21 Aug 92 21:26:54 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <52188@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>In article <8313@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>>>>The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
>>>>world over.
>>
>>In Pinocet's defence I must say that I was impressed by the fact that when
>>he was voted out of office, he actually left.  
>>Not many other dictators can make that claim.
>
>United States. BTW, the Chilean army still has rights over finance and
>government which no self respecting democracy would countenance.

Pinochet din't really leave.  He just stepped aside to a position where he
could step back in if he didn't like the new government.  Not many dictators
get that opportunity.  Marcos didn't, Ortega did.

It does appear that Pinochet was put in power by the CIA, but the alternative
history without the CIA might not have been better.  I have never before 
heard that Milton Friedman was a CIA agent or was instrumental in putting
Pinochet in power.  Unfortunately popular or liberal rulers do not always
produce stable economies and brutal dictators sometimes do.  Apparently
Pinochet got sound economic advice, although he should hang for his political
excesses. 

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
Organization: Senior, Mathematics, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
From: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Corporations (was Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality)
Date: 18 Aug 92 23:16:16 GMT
Reply-To: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pyramid Technologies, Mt. View, California.

In article <1992Aug16.171252.13195@cbfsb.cb.att.com>,
mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
|>  
|> I always thought that the original purpose of corporations was to
|> shield investors, not participants, so that participants who could not
|> qualify for loans could obtain risk capital.  It would also have been
|> used to allow participants to invest a limited amount of risk capital
|> in an enterprise, without being personally liable for the losses if
|> the enterprise failed.
|> 
|> Given that the board of directors of a corporation theoretically
|> represents the investors (that is, the owners), and the officers
|> represent the directors, it seems to me that neither the directors nor
|> the officers are personally shielded from any responsibility for
|> wrong-doing.  The only shielding that is inherent in the model of a
|> corporation is shielding from monetary liability in excess of the
|> amount invested.
|> 
|> Am I wrong about this, or was the corporation initially intended by
|> at least some of its proponents to shield unscrupulous managers?

The issue is not what was "intended" but what became the effect.  The
effect was that a corporation is a legal entity which is capable of doing
damage beyond its value.

Given the existence of partnerships, why the
innovation?  Obviously to provide some form of (financial) protection
beyond that afforded by partnerships.  Why? Protection from what?  
Obviously the big consequences of big actions.  The corporate form 
then allowed for "shielded bigness" which meant (potentially) big
damage without (full)liability for the consequences. A distortion.

Secondly, damages are usually assessed against a corporation as an 
entity, but not as a 'personal' claim against individual 
persons  (owners, officers, directors, employees). Would you be
more cautious if you knew you could lose $10,000 of your companies
money or if YOU could go to jail?  When a person steals, he can go to
jail.  What about when a 'corporate participant' steals under the 
umbrella of the corporation?

But, the easiest way to imagine the consequences of incorporation is
to create a thought-experiment where it doesn't exist.  Let the model
come to steady state.  What do you think you'd find?

Paul Collacchi
From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Date: 12 Aug 92 18:17:38 GMT
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server



   It seems to me ironic that Clinton has such an excellent chance of election.
   His ideological background, it seems to me, will make it difficult for him
   to address our present problems. To me it seems that we are overspent and
   underinvested. Clinton was the governor of a late developing state which 
   had significant levels of economic growth and low tax structure. (i.e. an
   economically immature state) He was therefore able to provide increased 
   services by spending increases averaging close to 20% a year. The US 
   economy is far more mature and will not bear the rate of spending increases
   that Arkansas could allow. The US underinvestment is not similar to the
   Arkansas underinvestment. Arkansas could have real improvements with 
   relatively small infrastructure investments. The larger macroeconomic 
   problems of the US economy will require much larger investments. I worry
   that such investments will not be acceptable to Clinton ideologically,
   since they will open he and his party to the criticism of benefiting the
   rich. To a very real extent the screw the rich battlecry makes it difficult
   to favor investment incentives of the size required. There is a catch 22 
   here, there really is not a way to favor large scale investment without 
   benefitting the rich, after all they tend to be those who by definition have
   money to invest, and to encourage investment one probably will give positive
   benefits to those investing. The focus must change and screw the rich which 
   is still very much on clinton's lips will have to be changed to a new 
   battle cry which focuses on the benefits of the investments. So my prognosis
   is that Clinton will have a difficult time really solving our problems,
   he is still focused on spending increases for services which is possible,
   but quite questionable in view of the 400 billion dollar deficit, and he
   is still tied to the screw the rich cry, which leads me to believe he
   will not be ideologically capable of investments of the size involved here.
   I surmise that the only cure for this is an attitude adjustment which 
   will probably happen as a result of continued economic pain. 

   Graham Flower 
   Hewlett Packard
   San Jose Ca 95131