HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Bush Announces Sale of F-15E's to Iraq
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:50:26 GMT
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <BuCHED.En6@eis.calstate.edu>, kmitche@eis.calstate.edu (Kenneth Mitchell) writes:
> 
> Both wrong, gentlemen; the S&L crisis was caused by changes in the tax
> lasw relating to real estate development. Congress did it.

The 1986 tax reform was originated in the Reagan administration (Don Regan
in the Treasury Dept), passed by the Democrat controlled House, Republican
controlled Senate, and signed by Reagan.
>                                                            Fraud accounted
> for less than 1 percent, even by the MAXIMUM estimates. 
> 
> Real estate was a great tax shelter, so lots of people invested in real
> estate. Congress, wanting to squeeze the last nickel out of the economy
> re-wrote the tax laws,

Reagan wanted to simplify the tax code.  Part of the simplification was
the elimination of "loopholes"(tax shelters) so that a lower tax rate 
was applied across the entire tax base.

>                       making real estate a much more risky, much LESS
> profitable investment. When the risk went up and the profit went down, it
> became difficult to sell real estate (commercial real estate, now; nothing
> to do with single family homes) and so the price plummetted. S&Ls which
> had bet on good returns in lending to commercial real estate were left
> holding worthless real estate that they couldn't sell. Many S&Ls suffered. 
> 
> Congress panicked. They demanded increased regulation and oversight for
> S&L's, which until that time had been guaranteed (by the $100,000 deposit
> insurance) never to lose money.

Don't forget that Bush signed the FIRRA Act of 1989, which helped create
the current credit crunch.
>                                Many S&Ls then invested in "high-yield" or
> :junk" bonds. Along comes congress again, forcing the S&Ls all to sell
> their junk bonds at the same time. With junk bonds a glut on the market,
> the price dropped, and many people got the mistaken notion that "junk"
> bonds really WERE junk. Lo and behold, most of those "high yield" bonds
> have been good, and have paid off; junk bonds have been the best possible
> investments for the past two years running. 
> 
> Anyhow, that's the sordid story of how Congress caused the S&L
> catastrophe. Needless to say, you won't hear it from your congresscritter!

The tax reform act was Reagan's idea, passed by the Democrats in the House
and Republicans in the Senate.

So much for the Reagan legacy...

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Xref: sparky sci.econ:7502 talk.politics.misc:45614 talk.politics.theory:4195
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Mass Transit vs. Private Cars Re: Question about
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:22:22 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Ohio State University

In article <BuMsKz.14L@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> hrubin@pop.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) writes:
>In article <183503@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
>>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?

>Mass transit was essentially, and in some cases completely, a profit-making
>and tax-paying activity before WWII.  It might very well have run into some
>problems earlier if not for the Depression.  

>>|> 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.

>The roads were needed before private cars, and would be needed if they
>were banned.  I suspect that we would need well over half the paved streets
>and roads.  Without private cars, we would need more delivery vehicles.
>And a major problem would arise; can we expect to have someone home all
>the time so that deliveries can be accepted? 

>There is a major externality not considered by the advocates of public
>transportation; waiting time, and slow travel time, to take into account
>stops for numerous travelers.  Add this cost into the externalities, and
>it is likely to be the largest.  Rapid transit systems were not all that
>common, except in high density areas.  

I agree with much of what you say.  However, one must consider that these
factors are different for different people.  I suspect the mass use of
private transportation is more habit and laziness for the average person
than an economic issue.

As an example, I often walked home when it took twenty minutes.  It saved
a $3 cab fare and I didn't earn $9 per hour.  Also taking a bus for 50cents
and a one hour ride was economical if cab fare would have been $10 and I
didn't make $10 an hour.  For people who make more money, private transportation makes more economic sense but hardly for teenagers who don't even make the
minimum wage.

One can also adjust and live where there is mass transportation convenient to
stores and work.

Charlie
From: ncostello@vms.eurokom.ie
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Free movement of labour/labor
Date: 9 Sep 92 18:11:35 CET
Organization: EuroKom Conferencing Service

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.
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Subject: Re: Tobacco subsidies (Was:
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 21:41:28 GMT

In article <27274@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM> wats@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Bruce Watson) writes:
>Actually tobacco is not subsidized. There are price support guarantees
>to prevent tobacco from falling below a mandated level. That minimum
>price level has never been reached. No government money went to the
>growers.

But the price is supported by government restricted access to
growing tobacco.  Tobacco rights often far outvalued the farm to which
they were attached, although recently they have been given more
mobility.  The use of police forces to eliminate potential competition
certainly is helpful, if you don't want to call it a subsidy.

(True of other crops, tobacco is just more highly restricted.)
-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
But I make a profit of 3 1/4 cents an egg by selling them for 4 1/4
cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for 7 cents an egg.
Of course, *I* don't make the profit.          Joseph Heller, Catcha 22
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: RE: Property Rights...
Date: 14 Sep 92 17:01:36 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


    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! 
   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.
   Perhaps I should explicitly note that this premise included an
implied notion that one would not be allowed to violate the property
rights of others. Your reference to slavery is more likely to occur
in a system that acknowledges one person's right to property 
(the slave owner) as more viable than that of another's (the slave's
right to his body and labor).
    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....

  Jeff
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 17:29:16 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.020211.926@newshost.unh.edu>, pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
> vy: do so on the basis of government protection of "private property".
>     If police, hired at public expense, are going to enforce the
>     racial/religious bigotry property owners, then it follows that
>     members of unpopular racial/religious groups will be forced to pay
>     taxes to support their own oppression. If you want to call this
>     process voluntary and freedom-enhancing it only illustrates the
>     shallowness of your ideas.
 
We could just as easily rephrase this in terms of freedom of speech
instead of property rights.  How does vy feel about the fact that
minorities can be forced to pay for the protection of racist groups,
for example when the KKK decides to march down the street or hold a
rally in a public place?  Doesn't this really apply to any group?
 
I mean, clearly "pro-lifers" should argue that they shouldn't be forced
to pay for the police protecting abortion clinics.  Again, how is this any
different?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson)
Subject: Re: Economics publications
Reply-To: thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Organization: Economics Department, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:39:22 GMT

mikeg@athena.mit.edu (Jughead) writes:

>I'm looking for publications that discuss in some detail current economic 
>research and topics, something above the level that US News and World Report and
>The Economist get into.  I know there are jillions of journals and papers out
>there, but I'm looking for a good starting point for my independent research
>without going into our library and picking something by random. 

In 1987, as part of an attempt to make economic research more
accessable to non-academics, the American Economic Association started
a new journal called

The Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Perhaps this could be a starting point.  Please keep in mind, however,
that since this is a quarterly its coverage cannot be very extensive,
and is especially weak on mathematical economics, econometrics, and
the other more technical branches of current research.

Some of the U.S. Federal Reserve Banks have research departments that
publish very good review style periodicals (not necessarily reflecting
the official opinions of the Federal Reserve system).  Most libraries
get these.

If you are willing to look at some of the journals commonly read and
used by active researchers, I would suggest (in approximately
increasing degree of technical difficulty)

The American Economic Review       (offical journal of the Amer. Econ. Assoc.)
The Journal of Political Economy   (published by the U. of Chicago econ dept.)
Review of Economic Studies
Econometrica                    (official journal of the Econometric Society)

These are all "general purpose" journals, in that they do not
(explicitly) focus on particular subject areas.  The AER explictly
refuses to publish articles with too much mathematical difficultly
while Econometrica seems to require a certain level of mathematical
sophistication.

If you are interested in subscriptions, these are also among the more
reasonably priced academic journals in economics.

I'm sure that other readers of this group have other opinions.
Perhaps you would summarize your findings for us.
--
T. Scott Thompson              email:  thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu
Department of Economics        phone:  (612) 625-0119
University of Minnesota        fax:    (612) 624-0209
From: titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Eric Titmas)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: SPS
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 18:39:41 GMT

In article <53064@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
|> In article <1992Sep5.030208.18854@newshost.unh.edu> pas@kepler.unh.edu (Paul A Sand) writes:
|> >vy: Victor Yodaiken
|> >ps: Paul Sand
|> >
|> >vy: [...] let's examine the "libertarian" position that one has the
|> >    "right" to refuse service in a public place of business on the basis
|> >    of racial bigotry. [...]
|> >
|> >ps: Translation: libertarians believe that market transactions should be
|> >    mutually voluntary.
|> >
|> >vy: That is not a translation, it is a sugar-coating.
|> >
|> >On the contrary, it's an accurate description of the underlying
|> >principle.
|> >
|> 
|> Hate to break this to you, but most people do not volunteer to be
|> discriminated against any more than they volunteer to be victims of
|> fraud. 

Victor seems to have a real problem comprehending English.  Perhaps it's not his
native tongue.

 Translation: libertarians believe that market transactions should be
 mutually voluntary.  Negate this situation.  A transaction doesn't occur.
 One of the parties could have wanted it to occur.

|> >vy: The "libertarians" argue that it is moral to impose taxes for the
|> >    purpose of paying for a police force which will enforce the racial
|> >    prejudices of property owners by forcibly ejecting blacks, jews, or
|> >    whatever from hotels, restaurants, banks, or any other "privately
|> >    owned" place of business. [...]
|> >
|> >ps: Translation: libertarians believe that A's presence on B's property
|> >    should be agreeable to both A and B.
|> >
|> >vy: You may word this how you like, but it would be nice if you could
|> >    confront the reality of the situation.
|> >
|> >The reality being what? That, under a system of liberty, some folks will 
|> >use that liberty in stupid and vile ways, and yet be perfectly within
|> >their rights to do so? This is uncontested. 
|> 
|> Again, if A calls the cops to enforce his prejudices by violently
|> ejecting B from his property, this will likely not be agreeable to B.
|> To insist on viewing police enforced denial of serice on racialgrounds
|> as "mutually agreeable" is nutty.

No one claimed the denial of service was mutually agreeable.

If a = b & c then ^a = ^(b & c) = ^b || ^c

Maybe when Victor is able to understand this basic logic he'll be worth paying attention
to.
-- 
Eric Titmas      Motorola ASIC       titmas@chdasic.sps.mot.com               

It is impossible to take in more money than Congress can spend.  - Thomas Sowell
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Economic motivations...
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 4 Sep 92 14:48:34 EST
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52933@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
...
> Honesty and clarity. Economics is deeply connected to morality, and it

	No, it is not.

	Economic justifications, however, frequently are.

> is either disingenuous of simply mistaken to claim that one's economic
> program is based on scientific principles alone. Even if economics were

	Not if your program is merely to make the economy grow, and not to
reward a certain sector.

> advanced far beyond its current fuzzy level, it would still not tell
> us whether GDP measured wealth, what is involved in a "living standard",
> or what the proper relationship between humans and the environment should 
> be. Thus when anyone, be they Marxist or "free-marketist" claims that
> his/her economic program is determined by scientific/economic principles
> which are free of moral content, it is sensible to be very suspicious.

	It's sensible to be suspicious no matter what the underlying motivation
may be.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ded@kps.UUCP (David Edwards /DP)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Milton Friedman...
Date: 9 Sep 92 12:09:49 GMT
Organization: Kuwait Petroleum, Stockholm, Sweden

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

>	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 
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? 

>	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. 

David Edwards
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Drugs have taught an entire generation of
American kids the metric system.         -- P.J. O'Rourke
					    Vancouver Sun, Dec. 20, 1991
From: mtitus@umsa.umd.edu (Marvin A. Titus)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Free movement of labour/labor
Date: 11 Sep 92 13:28:33 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Maryland System Administration

In article <183478@pyramid.pyramid.com> pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:

[deleted a bunch of stuff]
>.......  Exporting work is the same as exporting employment; It
>leaves local workers jobless.  

I am sure that he meant to say "exporting jobless people is the same as
exporting unemployment". This leaves the importing country with higher
unemployment.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Property rights...`
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:04:55 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <gegEadm00Uh7I6ynRu@andrew.cmu.edu> ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora) writes:

>And so Mr. Potter would countenance slavery as well ?

Mr. Potter said that a person ones his own body, he did not say that anybody
else could own it.

Though if a competent adult decided to sell himself???

Peace.

-- 
--Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
From: davidm@consilium.com (David S. Masterson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Free movement of labour/labor
Date: 13 Sep 92 21:35:38 GMT
	<15387@umd5.umd.edu> <183487@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Consilium Inc., Mountain View, California
In-reply-to: pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com's message of 11 Sep 92 19:57:31 GMT
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.13  [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]

>>>>> On 11 Sep 92 19:57:31 GMT, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul
>>>>> Collacchi) said:

> I'm suggesting that we might be experiencing a labor rate vacancy
> decontrol going on right now.  Most employers don't give salary
> reductions.  Therefore, as long as you "own" your job, labor rates
> eventually increase.  Maybe not so any more.

It seems obvious to me that, as the U.S. became more prosperous with more and
more people becoming wealthy (more billionares here than anywhere else...),
workers wanted larger and larger shares of the pie (as shown in their take
home pay).  As workers got the chance to share in the wealth, they could also
demand more in their lives.  Higher demand meant higher prices.  Higher prices
meant more wealth to business owners.  Wealthy business owners meant more
demand for a larger share of the pie by the workers.  This cycle has seemed to
go round and round in the U.S. ever since it was founded.

Now, however, something seems to have changed.  The world is opening up and
more resources (as in workers) are becoming available to the business owners.
The business owners realize they no longer have to capitulate to the workers
here on wage increases -- they can go where its cheaper.  This would seem to
lead to a depression in worker salaries.  The question I have is how long will
it be before there is the accompanying depression in the price of goods and
services (decreased disposable income -> decreased demand -> increased supply
-> decrease in prices)?  Wouldn't that decrease in prices help us maintain our
standard of living while the rest of the world catches up to us in prosperity
(ie. our properity comes down as theirs comes up and balances out)?
--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
davidm@consilium.com				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"Creative minds always have been known to survive any kind of bad training."
-- Anna Freud

Well, sometimes, anyway.
-- Mark Brader, utzoo!sq!msb
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 13:49:26 -0400 
From: Stephen Sorensen <ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Free movement of labour/labor

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 9-Sep-92 Re: Free movement of labour..
by Mike Orszag@stokes.princ 
> 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

The influx of workers and a subsequent lowering of marginal costs would
be an efficiency gain supported by a free market economist. Those
displaced workers would not really figure into the model; theoretically,
they would find work elsewhere.