HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pajerek@telstar.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Subject: Re: Economic Discrimination was Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Reply-To: pajerek@kadsma.kodak.com (Don Pajerek)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corp. - Telstar
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 16:23:14 GMT

In article <81206@ut-emx.uucp> vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu (Vadim S. Kaplunovsky) writes:
>>I think it's the Don's mindless flame that is too arrogant.  I can see
>two possible ways of interpreting what he is trying to say, but both made
>any future discussions with Don rather pointless.
>

[stuff deleted]

You too can have a nice day.

>The first possibility is that Don asserts that Brian is too stupid or too
>ignorant to think for himself and thus is a helpless victim of conditioning.

This is a possibility? Only in your mind.
>
>The other interpretation is that Don believes that NOBODY can think for
>oneself, look at the facts and draw conclusions and thus WE ALL are helpless
>victims of historical conditioning.

This too is your interpretation.

I am not asserting some sort of pseudo-Newtonian 'historical determinism'
that makes it impossible for people to make objective analyses. I am
asserting that the social and historical milieu in which one is raised
will exert a massive, often unperceived influence on one's thought patterns.

It is certainly possible for an individual to somehow throw off this
influence and begin to view things in a way that differs from typical
members of society. However, this is both a) unlikely; and b) not
necessarily guaranteed to result in a superior result. Not only that, but
we begin to enter the 'infinite regress', in which one can claim that
even the ability to stand outside of society's norms is itself somehow
a 'norm', and a product of routine social conditioning in that particular
society.

>Vadim S. Kaplunovsky               | vadim@bolvan.ph.utexas.edu (internet)


Don Pajerek

Standard disclaimers apply.
From: s462075d@edinboro.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: THE ONLY WAY TO REDUCE THE PUBLIC DEBT!
Date: 7 Oct 92 13:36:04 GMT
Organization: Edinboro University of Pennsylvania

All this talk on inflating the debt is just showing what the world seems
to think of us here in America, that we're lazy and irresponsible!

We made the debt, and want it to vanish overnight. Not gonna happen.
There is only one way to eliminate the deficit (the first step necessacary
to reducing the national debt):

we must raise revenur AND cut spending!

The problem is that everyone sez:  where can you cut 300 Billion from the
budget?  The answer is:  Everywhere!

Cut a little from many programs.  Pass a sunset law to eliminate "temporary"
programs.  Cut entitlements to the bone.  Place a tax on imports, espically
oil and cars, etc. etc. etc.

There will be no quick soloution, but with determination, the debt could
be paid off by 2010-2020.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:10:07 GMT

In <1466000003@igc.apc.org> dcaulkins@igc.apc.org (Dave Caulkins) writes:


>>By definition, democracy is related to the principle of "one
>>person, one vote." The above idea might be summarized as "one
>>dollar, one vote." This is known as plutocracy.

>Plutocracy, according to my dictionary, is "government by the
>wealthy."  My scheme is not this; it simply allows tax payers to
>determine by a democratic process how tax monies are to be
>distributed across budget expenditure categories.  The scheme
>generates an average-type consensus across all tax payers; if the
>averaging algorithm weights all tax returns equally there is no
>preference given to wealth.

Sorry, but if you look at it the folks with the most money will be
deciding where the budget gets spent.  If it isn't 'one man, one vote'
then it's not democracy.  What you have described is indeed a variant
of a plutocratic system, in that someone who pays 100x the taxes of
someone else has 100x the impact on what the government spends money
on.

It's like the Plutocrat's variant of the Golden Rule; he who has the
gold makes the rules.

>>I think the above poster's confusion between democracy and
>>plutocracy may reflect a fairly mucked up set of values.
>>Robert Vienneau

>I think Mr. Vienneau's ad hominem posting reflects a set of
>values even more mucked up than any I am likely to hold.

Well, I don't know about ad hominem, but what you are describing
certainly isn't democracy.  If it were, someone who paid no taxes
would have as big an impact on how money is spent as someone who pays
$1 M in taxes.  That's hardly the case in the system you described. 

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
From: p00140@psilink.com (Gary A. Woodward)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Real Estate Devaluation art. in WSJ
Date: 13 Oct 92 23:11:32 GMT
Organization: Performance Systems Int'l
X-Mailer: PSILink (3.2)

Today's article in the Wall Street Journal on the devaluation of real 
estate in Calif.  The article brings forth the premise that for every 
$100 drop in the value of real estate consumer spending drops by $5.  
Given the assuption of the multiplier effect-are we going into an even 
slower recovery?  How much of our prosperity was based on the multiper 
effect of paper real estate gains.  Maybe this time it won't be the 
stock market that crashes but (another investment vehicle) real estate. 
hmmmm?
gw
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8011 talk.politics.misc:50313
From: matt@physics.berkeley.edu (Matt Austern)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Date: 8 Oct 92 12:21:11
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory (Theoretical Physics Group)
Reply-To: matt@physics.berkeley.edu
NNTP-Posting-Host: physics.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: markr@mot.com's message of Thu, 8 Oct 1992 10:34:50 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.103450.1931@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mot.com (Mark) writes:

> A lot of us are making the mistake that Perot is running to hurt or help
> one of the other candidates.  What we must realize is that he is in the
> race to win it

In the race to win it?  I don't think so.  There are many things about
Perot that I don't admire, but I have enough respect for his
intelligence to believe he knows perfectly well that he is not going
to win this election.  Whatever his reasons for reentering this
campaign, winning the election just isn't one of them.

Voters ought to remember that too.  The next President is going to be
either Bill Clinton or George Bush, and we might as well face reality
and accept that fact.  If you choose, for whatever reason, to vote for
Perot, then you are giving up your opportunity to influence the
decision between those two candidates.
--
Matthew Austern                   Just keep yelling until you attract a
(510) 644-2618                    crowd, then a constituency, a movement, a
austern@lbl.bitnet                faction, an army!  If you don't have any
matt@physics.berkeley.edu         solutions, become a part of the problem!
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Robert.Vienneau@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Robert Vienneau)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:02:29 GMT

Dave Caulkins writes:
>
>>By definition, democracy is related to the principle of "one
>>person, one vote." The above idea might be summarized as "one
>>dollar, one vote." This is known as plutocracy.
>
>Plutocracy, according to my dictionary, is "government by the
>wealthy."  My scheme is not this; it simply allows tax payers to
>determine by a democratic process how tax monies are to be
>distributed across budget expenditure categories.  The scheme
>generates an average-type consensus across all tax payers; if the
>averaging algorithm weights all tax returns equally there is no
>preference given to wealth....
>
>Dave C

Suppose there's a flat tax rate of 30%. X has an income of $10K and
Y has an income of $100K. X pays $3K in taxes and Y pays $30K. The way I
understand your scheme, Y, making more money, gets to decide what
government programs get funded to the tune of $30K, while X only gets to
decide to the level of $3K. A few people like Y have vastly more
leverage over government programs than the same number of Xs. This is
plutocracy.

Compare an alternate scheme in which all spending bills are decided on
by a majority vote of the whole population, with each person receiving
one vote. The principle direct democracy is based on is simple and
compelling: "All men [and women] are created equal." Everybody should be
equal before the law. This is democracy.

Mr. Caulkins, if I read him right, is misusing English to gather the
emotional force of approval for a system he opposes. This is typical of
libertarianism, which I assume is the silly set of ideas from which he
speaks.
                                    Robert Vienneau
--
   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
From: trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Clinton's economics and Kennedy's economics
Date: 16 Oct 92 20:52:56 GMT
Organization: Fermi National Accelerator Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: fnalf.fnal.gov

Before you read this message, let me make clear that I am referring to
economic ideas, and not the persons.  If you respond, please keep this 
conversation within the economics framework.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe you knew Jack Kennedy and Jack Kennedy was a friend of yours,
but what I hear from Bill Clinton reminds me of Jack Kennedy.

When Jack Kennedy proposed lower taxes to estimulate the economy, many thought
that he was wrong and that his policies would create huge deficits.  He knew
that a good economy was good for the country and that a good economy would 
help balancing the budget.  President Johnson applied Kennedy's ideas.  By 
1965, then President Johnson balanced the budget, thanks to Kennedy's proposed 
economic policies.

Now Bill Cliton proposes NATIONAL INVESTMENTS to estimulate the economy.  A 
healthier economy will help balancing the budget.

I understand that this is the 90s and not the 60s.  I understand that this
is a different world.  But if you think about Jack Kennedy's and Bill Clinton's
messages, you may notice that they have similarities.  Now, let me make one 
thing clear.  I am simply comparing the economic policies, and not the two
persons.  There will never be another Jack Kennedy.

Oscar Trevizo
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are just my opinions, and not necessarily the opinions of my employer.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Economic Democracy
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 21:12:46 GMT

In <JACKSON.92Oct13165141@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:

>w.r.t.
>The principle direct democracy is based on is simple and
>compelling: "All men [and women] are created equal." Everybody should be
>equal before the law. This is democracy.

>What is the criteria for 'equal before the law' taxation?

>	Same dollar amount 
>	Same percentage of income
>	Same percentage of wealth
>	Same income remaining after taxes
>	Same wealth remaining after taxes

>Under the current system, none of the possible criteria is used.

>Only one of the possible criteria can be chosen, thus creating
>inequality before the law by the other criteria.

Semantic gamesmanship is hardly what can be called productive.  'Equal
before the law' says that you and I both have to pay what they say we
have to pay, and we're both subject to the same penalties if we don't.



-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: Perot's Economic Figures - TV
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:27:59 GMT

         [various sections removed]   
In article <1992Oct7.174316.1@fnalf.fnal.gov> trevizo@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>
>But lets get serious.  The question is on the overall message that Perot
>presented.  We can get into individual numbers, but in a political speech
>one would have to find the bottom line;  Perot's main message.
>

Thank you for the clarification.

>He presented many figures on the economy, all negative.  I could not list 
>all of them.
>
>The overall message that I received from Perot was that the American economy
>has been severely demaged during the last 12 years.
>
>So I would like to know;
>
>	a) do people agree with Perots' statements? and

I agree with most of the individual statements within the segment I saw. 

>	b) did people also feel that Perot's main message was that the last
>           12 years hurted the economy.
>

I think the main message was that the country has had structural problems
with respect to the behaviours of various agents since 1965.  By not
resolving these problems, the past twelve years allowed the snowballing
to continue.  The economy was the primary area of troubles identified. 

>
>Well, from reading the net I have the chance to learn people's OPINIONS,
>such as yours (thank you very much).  Do I trust them?  It is not important 
>if I trust them or not.  What is important is that we share our opinions.
>

OK, I've got it.  Thanks.

>
>My opinion is that Perot's speech was not necessarily an economics speech.
>It was a political speech.  

Yes, it was definitely a political speech.  For example, he discussed
infant mortality, something that is beyond the focus of
mainstream economics.  Further, as you rightly point out, there was no
attempt to present a balanced case.  Finally, it was part of a political
campaign.

>Even though the economy suffers, looking
>at the figures, the last twelve years also include 
>
>	a) low inflation and 
>	b) low interest rates.
>
>I don't recall Perot saying anything about inflation and i%.

Well, real long-term interest rates are quite high by historical
standards (including recent history).  Low nominal interest rates
are based upon the lower inflation of the past twelve years.
I have no doubt that Perot omitted this policy success.

>
>Also, Perot did not mention how much money he made in stocks during the last
>twelve years either.
>

That had very little to do with the overall situation
of the country.  On a practical note, mentioning it would only have 
served to further alienate voters.

>
>Oscar Trevizo, trevizo@fnal.fnal.gov
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>These are just my opinions, and not necessarily Fermilab's.


-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.
From: jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-party candidates!!!
Date: 11 Oct 92 12:46:41 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.seq9_lq00iV3I2LWAD
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 9-Oct-92 Re: Vote for 3rd party/no-p..
by Ronda Hauben@yfn.ysu.edu 
> The historical record indicates that a decrease in the number of hours 
> worked results in a proportional or more than proportional increase in
> productivity for several reasons.
>  
> 1)workers are more rested and so they are able to produce better work.
>  
> 2)morale is better.
>  
> 3)employers then have the incentive to put in more advanced machinery 
> because if they want to increase productivity they MUST invest in
> new machinery since they can't just arbitrarily extend the hours worked.
>  
> 4)the workplace is safer.

You missed the point.  Elasticity is not infinitely linear.  Eventually
a decrease in the amount of hours worked will result in a decrease in
productivity.  Whether that happens at 40 hours or at 20 hours is not
relevant to my argument.  

In addition, it may be that the historical record does indicate that a
decrease in the number of hours worked is correlated with an increase in
productivity.  Notice I say correlated not "resulted in".  Correlation
does not prove causality.  For example would you say that christmas
cards cause Christmas?  Of course not, yet the two are highly
correlated.  The industrial revolution enabeled industrialized nations
to work less and enjoy higher living standards.  But to say that the
cause of the increased productivity was the decrease in the number of
hours worked rather than the result is ludicrous.  

Employers will allocate capital and labor according to their relative
prices and how much productive output can be obtained from a unit of
capital versus a unit of labor.  You are arguing that the government
should limit the amount of hours an employer can hire an employee for. 
This is stupid.  Furthermore, you have no idea what the consequences
might be.  The company might just hire more employers and not raise
wages at all (if there is a strong supply of labor).  The point is that
there is no reason why the company should do as you say and employ more
advanced machinery.  There is absolutely no reason why they would
necessairly have any incentive to raise wages.  The best allocation of
resources both on the part of the employer and the employee will be made
only if both parties have the freedom to choose.  You say that you want
to "protect" the employee.  From what?  Making a decent living?  

Employers and employees both produce wealth but in a capitalist society
it is the entreprenuer that is the engine of innovation.  Your socialist
policies will kill this innovation and make both the employer and the
employee worse off.  The reason that there is no voice to argue your
point in the political arena is that it is a ridiculous argument and no
candidate could maintain any credibility if they represented this
position.
From: wattsj@mace.cc.purdue.edu (John Watts)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
Date: 7 Oct 92 16:24:51 GMT
Organization: Purdue University

In article <PUP7ABT@mailgzrz.tu-berlin.de> wich1820@ww.tu-berlin.de
(Thorsten Wichmann) writes:
>Any suggestions who will or should win the Nobel prize for economics this 
time?  

having been associated with the university of chicago for 5 of the last 6 
years, i guess i should have this burned into my brain already, but i 
don't ...

would someone list the past winners ?  a week ago, i made a prediction, 
which was a bit embarrassing in that my "candidate" had already won :-)

john watts
krannert school of management, purdue university

p.s. of course i know the past chicago-associated winners ... they're written
on the floor of ida's cafe ...
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.amateur-comp
From: he5r@ellis.uchicago.edu (Steve Herscovici)
Subject: Re: Nobel Prize
Reply-To: he5r@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:51:03 GMT


My guesses (in alphabetical order)

Becker, Mincer (or both)
Fogel
Grilliches (sp?)
Harberger
Zellner
From: v068mwnn@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (NEW YORKER by BIRTH! (american ONLY by passport))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: RICARDO vs. VON THUNEN
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:34:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

Can anyone contrast Von Thunen's model of location rent with Ricardo's theory
of quality rents?

Thanks in Advance,
-J
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8102 sci.edu:1093 sci.energy:4917 sci.environment:11933 sci.misc:1671 sci.physics.fusion:2487 sci.research:1170
From: noring@netcom.com (Jon Noring)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.edu,sci.energy,sci.environment,sci.misc,sci.physics.fusion,sci.research
Subject: Perot's "Platform" Posted to the Usenet
Summary: I encourage everybody to read it.
Date: 14 Oct 92 00:00:48 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)


Perot's detailed stand on many issues was posted today in four parts to the
following newsgroups:

     alt.politics.perot
     alt.politics.elections
     talk.politics.misc

Subject: Perots Economic Plan


It apparently was excerpted from his best-selling book.  It is fairly long
when the four parts are combined, over 170K.  I'll admit that I am not sure
that the poster (it was not me) had permission to post this to Usenet, but
the "damage" has been done.  I'm sure Perot would like his views disseminated
to as large of an audience as possible, and the electronic ether is one of
Perot's more favored means of communication, bypassing the interpretation and
vagaries of the Press (tm).


Note:  I'm posting this notification here since Perot touches upon issues
pertinent to this newsgroup.


*****************************************************************************
IF (note the 'if') you cannot access the above newsgroups, I can e-mail the
document to you - just send me your request.  Please share it with others.
*****************************************************************************

Carefully read this document before deciding on who you will vote for
President come Election Day.  And of course, get off your kaziski (a.k.a.
butt) and VOTE!

Jon Noring

-- 
=============================================================================
| Jon Noring          | noring@netcom.com        | "The dogs bark, but the  |
| JKN International   | IP    : 192.100.81.100   |  caravan moves on."      |
| 1312 Carlton Place  | Phone : (510) 294-8153   | "Pack your lunch, sit in |
| Livermore, CA 94550 | V-Mail: (510) 862-1101   |  the bushes, and watch." |
=============================================================================
"If your annual income today is $50,000, you have the same buying power as
the average coal miner did in 1949, adjusted for taxes and inflation," John
Sestina, nationally recognized Certified Financial Planner;  quoted in 1987.

------->   VOTE FOR PEROT IN '92
Xref: sparky sci.econ:8134 alt.amateur-comp:117 alt.activism:17523