HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Date: 20 Aug 92 22:57:08 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug18.135550.3571@desire.wright.edu> exit writes:
>> Right, but what kind of jobs? Everything I've read on this topic suggests
>> that the 80's saw a process in which high-wage skilled labor was replaced
>> by low-wage unskilled labor: replacing 400K industrial skilled labor
>> jobs with 500K burger flipping jobs is a massive net loss to the economy.
>
>	Not true.  During the Reagan years, the number of jobs paying less than
>$10/hour decreased 25% while the number of jobs paying more than $10/hour
>increased 67%.  [USA Today, Op-ed piece, Monday, August 17th]

Boston Globe reports today that real-wages have been declining since 1972

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: sgccpgs@citec.oz.au (Paul Salanitri)
Subject: Deregulation and the Australian Dollar
Organization: CITEC
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 02:55:39 GMT

I am an economic ignorameous.  
But I would desperately like to know of some simple explainations for:

  1)  Why and how did the AUSTRALIAN government DEVALUE the dollar????
  2)  Why and how did the AUSTRALIAN government DEREGULATE the dollar????
  3)  How does it get its value anyway????
  4)  How come all of the above steps by the OZ G didn't work!!!!!
  5)  Why did we vote them back in????

--

==========================================================================
 Paul Salanitri                               sgccpgs@citec.oz.au
  P.O. Box 12702, Elizabeth Street, Brisbane QLD 4002, AUSTRALIA
   Committee for the Liberation and Intergration of Terrifying 
         Organisms and their Rehabilitation Into Society
             E quindi uscimmo a riveder le stelle.  
==========================================================================
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:43:25 GMT
 <1992Aug18.135550.3571@desire.wright.edu> <1992Aug19.143853.22143@mcnc.org>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Aug19.143853.22143@mcnc.org>, ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.135550.3571@desire.wright.edu> exit writes:
>>	Not true.  During the Reagan years, the number of jobs paying less than
>>$10/hour decreased 25% while the number of jobs paying more than $10/hour
>>increased 67%.  [USA Today, Op-ed piece, Monday, August 17th]
> 
> Was this "$10" inflation adjusted?  If the comparison is continued to
> this year, how do the numbers stand?

	The article did not state.

> Thanks for including your email address.

	Hitting 'reply' works for most people.

Brett (demon@desire.wright.edu, if the headers on your machine are gone)
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Libertarian rebuttal..
Date: 14 Aug 92 11:37:23 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


  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.
   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.

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

 Jeff

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 18:11:16 GMT

>Who am I supposed to believe is the serious Libertarian?  George
>Tucker, who believes that scams by business are as nothing compared to
>what government perpetrates?  Or Jimbo Wales, who wants government to
>watch business stringently to keep it honest?

I don't know George Tucker; I can't speak for his seriousness.
But I believe that scams by business are almost nothing compared
to what government perpetrates.  And I further want government to
watch business stringently to keep it honest.  There is no contradiction
between these positions.

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.

>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
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 19:19:28 GMT

I find this one somewhat amusing.  Kenneth Tolman is responding
to someone who didn't even (to my knowledge) claim to be a libertarian.
Further, the argument to which he is responding is very simplistic.

Real world problems require real world solutions.  Real discussion
of economics requires a careful attention to detail.

Kenneth Tolman writes:
>>I think it's a little more complicated than that, and I think some
>>Libertarians will mail or post to tell you so.  It isn't that all
>>business owners are saintly.  It's that there are enough alert
>>consumers so that no business owner could get away with cheating them,

I surely don't think that any serious libertarians assume that
'there are enough alert consumers so that no business owner could
get away with cheating them.'  Such a statement is patently false,
as evidenced by the number of scam artists, etc. who manage to stay
in business!

So Kenneth's reaction is the proper one:

>SAY WHAT?  There are so many businesses now successfully ripping off millions
>of people in scams it is unbelievable.  Not every consumer has the omniscient
>eyes of God at their disposal.  I myself- a well informed consumer- have
>been ripped off a few times from corrupt businesses.  I don't know what world
>you live in, but it isn't the real one.

All sensible libertarians I know of will argue for very stringent
laws against fraud and other deceptive business practices.  It is
critically important that all parties to a contract have available
recourse to failures to deliver on the details of the contract.

This is yet another example of the straw man argument.  "If there
were no regulations to protect consumers from dishonest businesses,
there would be chaos.  Therefore, libertarianism is a bad system."

What is wrong with the argument?  The argument given is valid, but
the conclusion has nothing to do with it!  Libertarians are NOT
opposed to laws which punish (and SERIOUSLY) businesses which
engage in fraudulent behavior or commit violent crimes (pollution).

--Jimbo



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: Free Trade or Comparative Advantage
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 13:40:19 GMT

How about these argument for free trade?

Third party restrictions on the conditions of under
which trades are made benefit neither of two parties
trying to trade.

If trade restrictions for international trade are good,
then trade restrictions for interstate, intercounty,
intercity, ... trade are also good.


Bastiat in Economic Sophisms extends trade restriction
arguments to trade within a nation and shows how absurd
the arguments are.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 19:20:43 GMT

From article <BsvxoH.1HL@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, by jwales@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales):
> Kenneth Tolman writes:
No, I wrote it, based on arguments I've heard from Libertarians:
>>>I think it's a little more complicated than that, and I think some
>>>Libertarians will mail or post to tell you so.  It isn't that all
>>>business owners are saintly.  It's that there are enough alert
>>>consumers so that no business owner could get away with cheating them,
> ....
> All sensible libertarians I know of will argue for very stringent
> laws against fraud and other deceptive business practices.  It is
> critically important that all parties to a contract have available
> recourse to failures to deliver on the details of the contract.

Well, then, is this a senseless Libertarian, below?

In article <22823@hacgate.SCG.HAC.COM> tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)writes:
> .....
> Let's see, what have been the biggest ripoffs I have experienced:
	[details omitted, summary follows]
> 
> Courts, easy bankruptcy , police dept., corrupt politicians, IRS.
> What do those have in common? (hint: select business or government)
> 
> The phoney bills, get rich quick schemes, inflated auto repair estimates, etc.,
> start around number 20.  Most can be avoided with a little common sense,
> wariness, and remembering TINSTAAFL.  Government ripoffs come without
> warning, can take everything you have, and are backed by force.

Who am I supposed to believe is the serious Libertarian?  George
Tucker, who believes that scams by business are as nothing compared to
what government perpetrates?  Or Jimbo Wales, who wants government to
watch business stringently to keep it honest?

I get the feeling that arguing with Libertarians is like sailing in a
shifting wind.  I can't tell where they're coming from.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:17:05 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <8313@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM> mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
>>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>>>	Milton Friedman, economically.
>
>>>The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
>>>world over.
>
>I suppose the dramatic improvements in Chile's economy since they adopted
>Friedman's theories are completely irrelevant.

They are an indication of the vapidity of most economic measurement. A 20%
unenployment rate, a drop in the average standard of living, an end to
all local industry and dimunution of the economy to colonial raw
material supplier status. These are not "dramatic improvement" ,and only
after Milt's boyz were fired and even Pinochet was forced to introduce
some social welfare did the impressive Chicago-school led collapse of the
Chilean economy slow.

>The truth is that Chile is in much better shape today than it was 20 years
>ago.  The fact that you do not like the man who was in charge while the
>improvements were taking place does not invalidate the improvements.
>
>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.

Pinochet served his purpose and was eased out after he had taught the 
Chileans not to make the mistake of voting in programs which annoyed the
United States. BTW, the Chilean army still has rights over finance and
government which no self respecting democracy would countenance.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk)
Subject: My solution to the Federal Debt
Organization: Computing Services Division, University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 1992 04:33:56 GMT

Default on the debt.

Right now by far the vast majority of the creditors on the debt are in the top
brackets.  A hell of a lot of money is being siphoned off from every else
through taxation to support the interest ($400 billion/year!), and this is
grossly accelerating the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few.

Default, declare bankrupcty/insolvency, and reorganize under a new constitution
with (among other things) balanced budget and line item veto provisions in it,
and with provisions in it that allow taxpayers to allocate at least 1/2 of
their taxes to budget items.

At this stage, this is the only solution.  I simply refuse to pay back a debt
that averages $40,000 for every household in this nation by taxes that I had
nothing at all to do with creating, and I presume most everyone else will
refuse to pay back that kind of money too once they make the connection.  It's
pure and utter wealth tyrrany.  I'd leave the nation before seeing these kind
of payments terms imposed on me.

And this is exactly what's being done right now with the Social Security Tax,
as ALL the Social Security trust is currently balanced against the REAL debt
(which someone mentioned being 12 trillion, not 4) -- meaning it's been eaten
up by the debt.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 16:41:30 GMT

From article <1073@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, by mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson):
> In <1992Aug11.151010.18532@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>>.....  As long as you have two
>>opposed regulation agencies, they will watch each other for problems.
>>In our system, one of those regulation agencies is the media- but that is
>>not a sufficient protection alone against business.
> 
> This makes a lot of sense, the media will be able to investigate injustices
> within a regulatory agency, but it will fail when investigating a business.
> 
> Please offer some proof of this assertion.

I couldn't resist the urge to respond, because the answer is so easy.

Government is by definition a public concern and is expected to allow
public scrutiny, e.g. by the press (who are in the public scrutiny
business by definition).  So the government looks into business, and
the press looks into government.

Private business is by definition private, and can not be compelled to
submit to public scrutiny except by edict of government.  If the press
were to try to scrutinize it, it would be one private business trying
to regulate another.

Perhaps government could pass laws that all private businesses have to
be open to scrutiny by the press.  But then competitors might hire
private agents to represent themselves as reporters and pry into trade
secrets, which would be an invasion of property rights.  Then you
would have to decide who would scrutinize the scrutinizers.

So we keep it clean.  Government is supposed to be a public agency of
regulation, which is itself regulated by the people.  The press is a
general agent of scrutiny which, for a price, will pry into anything
that appears remotely public, especially government.  I suggest we
strengthen that system, not give up on it.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: triple dip?
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:22:57 CDT


In demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

> Most of the following is taken from _Forbes_, August 17, 1992.
Interview with Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.

> FORBES: How's the economy?

> 	Friedman: If you look closely, and pay attention to the short-term
> money supply movement, it looks very scary.
> 	President Bush has a policy I've been calling reverse Reaganism.  It
> promises slow growth in the 1990s.  Now, on top of that, the short-term cycle
> came down sharply, then started to go up, but has been severely retarted by
> slow monetary growth.  It may indeed turn into another recession.
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 	[Federal Reserve Chairman Alan] Greenspan has ben more successful than
> Volcker in avoiding excessive volatility in the money supply.  But while I
> share his objective of long-run zero inflation, in the short run the money
> supply has grown much too slowly....

      Money Supply Growth Rates (Source: Federal Reserve Board)

M2 growth (4Q/4Q)  M3 growth (4Q/4Q)
-----------------  -----------------
1988  5.2%         1988  6.4%
1989  4.8%         1989  3.6%
1990  4.0%         1990  1.7%
1991  2.8%         1991  1.2%
 *    1.4%          *   -0.3%   (* 11/91-6/92)
-----------------  ------------------

Even more ominous is that the 3 month growth rates through June 1992 
(from the chart) shows:   M2 -1.8%  M3 -3.0%

Now I may not be a rocket scientist, but if M2 and M3 growth rates are
going negative, the Fed will have to respond with *yet another* drop
in interest rates (M1 3-month growth rate dropped from 20% in March
to 6% in June) to try to increase M2 & M3.

I also find it hard to believe that the economy can maintain positive
economic (GDP) growth in the face of negative M2 and M3 rates.


What do all you net.economists think?

-- 
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!)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Corporations (was Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality)
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Date: 18 Aug 92 14:08:51 EST
Distribution: usa
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

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?

	Or was it intended to let people ask "have you stopped beating your
wife" style questions.

	The corporation exists for several reasons:

	To get capital
	To allow people to conduct business separate from their private
intereests
	To allow other people to share in the profits (by assuming some of the
risk).
	etc.

	It's pretty far-fetched to think that someone sat down and thought "if
only I had public investors, I could abuse my workers even more!!"

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:55:35 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug11.163527.22273@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:

>SAY WHAT?  There are so many businesses now successfully ripping off millions
>of people in scams it is unbelievable.  Not every consumer has the omniscient
>eyes of God at their disposal.  I myself- a well informed consumer- have
>been ripped off a few times from corrupt businesses.  I don't know what world
>you live in, but it isn't the real one.

>The recent scam with auto-shops is a good example- there needs to be regulation
>to avoid wasted resources.  An unregulated society would quickly lead to
>runaway problems -environmental scourge, consumer rip off, etc.  The typical
>business man with a small business would GLADLY rip off a few hundred
>thousand people before being noticed and take the money to live happily ever
>after.  

I believe companies like United Labs (UL tm) are the perfect refutation to
this argument.  Without government regulators giving the veneer of
respectability to companies that don't deserve it, there would be many
more companies that would for a fee, inspect and certify a company on
any number of factors.

Competition between the certifiers would serve to keep them honest.
What consumer would pay a premium to buy a certified product after the
certification had been shown to be worthless.

>>and the only reason any business owners seem to cheat now is that
>>government regulations confuse the issues.

>This has got to be the biggest bunch of crap ever written.  If you have
>ever worked for a business, you will see them trying to glean every penny
>from any possible source available.  It should be a requisite that any
>person attempting to make economic statements should be employed in 
>ordinary businesses, from small to large.

Have you ever worked for a business of any size.  I notice that you are
posting from a .edu sight, this makes me wonder.  I will state categorically
that I have worked for several companies, of all sizes and I have never
seen the type of behavior that you describe.

BTW, a business owner who is convicted of defrauding hundreds of thousands
of customers would not be able to retire in comfort, he would probably
spend a significant portion of the rest of his life in jail.

No Libertarian that I have ever talked to has favored legalizing fraud.
Instead it is one of the few laws that they would keep.

-- 
--Mark
From: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM (Todd Hoff)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Corporations (was Re: Libertarians liv
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:57:47 GMT
Reply-To: tmhoff@oogoody.Corp.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oogoody.corp.sun.com

> 
> 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?
> 

Nothing. In an interactive dynamical system a steady state does not exist.
The system moves from one metastable state to the next. 

In general I think libertarians who support corporations are trying play both sides 
of the freedom from coercion idea. Corporations are not people, they cannot have
rights unless the state uses force to create these rights out of thin air.
You can argue corporations are good from a business standpoint, but 
corporations certainly are not derived from first principles.