HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The Moral Basis of Property   was Libertarian history
Date: 23 Jul 92 14:25:09 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <JACKSON.92Jul23084636@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:
>w.r.t.
>As Joe Slovo, longtime head of the South African Communist Party, pointed
>out, the record of capitalism is not so damn wonderful either. The
>interesting question is why a system which has made it profitable to 
>tear holes in the ozone layer in the cause of selling air-conditioners
>should be considered to be the best way of organizing human society or even
>a viable way of organizing human society.
>
>
>Since aparteid was created by white socialist trade union members to
>prevent black workers from competing with white workers, I find the Slovo
>comment amusing.

I can't decide whether to attribute this bizzare reading of South
African history to the usual propertarian ignorance of history
orthe usual propertarian owellian redefinition of words. The Apartheid
system, as implemented by the Nationalist Party starting from its
1948 election victory is only considered "socialist" by members of
the right-wing fringe. The South African Communist Party, for all its
faults, has an exemplary record in the struggle against racism in
south africa since the 1940s. Of course, there was a period when the
SACP was actively racist -- in the early 1920's when black mine 
workers were brought in to break the Afrikanner mine union by the
English mine owners. But well before the start of the apartheid era
the SACP was one of the very few non-racial organizations in South
Africa and its members have often paid a very high price for advocating
basic human rights.


>
>As to air conditioners, the profit is made or not made in selling air 
>conditioners.  The flourocarbon emissions probably occur when the air
>conditioner is operated by the owner rather than during manufacture.

Probably, not. The emissions generally come from dumping CFC's during
cleaning or disposal. The manufacturers gain a competitive advantage
by evading the costs of designing and manufacturing environmentally
safe systems and the manufacturers of the CFCs have an investment in
retaining a market at the expense of the entire planetary ecosystem.
This is not a sensible way to run a society.

>The environmental record of the 'non-capitalist' regimes is something
>to behold, e.g., Mao's anti-bird campaign and the ~ex-Aral Sea.

Fortunately, one is not required to either endorse Chairman Mao or
the Dupont Corporation unless one is a member of an extremist
political party, e.g. Sendero Luminoso or the LP.

>
>If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels,
>Then environmentalism is the current refuge of totalitarians.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: steiny@steiny.com (Don Steiny)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: recessions (was: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark)
Date: 27 Jul 92 01:34:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Don Steiny Software, Santa Cruz CA

rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson) writes:


>> Assuming this recession is over (since the economy is growing again that
>> seems a good assumption) then it will have been shorter than the previous
>> recessions as well.

>I don't think so.  I'll look it up.

	According to The Economist, the recession ended in April 1991 and
was the shortest since WWII.   There was no "double dip" and that is just
media bullshit.

-- 
Don Steiny
Don Steiny Software
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
(408) 425-0382
From: bhorne@hpbs2066.boi.hp.com (Broward Horne)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Kondratieff Long Waves
Date: 31 Jul 92 13:54:50 GMT
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA16627; Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:54:43 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-2.pa.dec.com; id AA07725; Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:54:42 -0700
X-Received: from hpdmd48.boi.hp.com by hp.com with SMTP(16.8/15.5+IOS 3.13) id AA17082; Fri, 31 Jul 92 06:54:41 -0700
X-Received: from hpbs2066.boi.hp.com by hpdmd48.boi.hp.com with SMTP(16.6/15.5+IOS 3.21+OM) id AA06907; Fri, 31 Jul 92 07:54:40 -0600
X-Received: by hpbs2066(15.11/15.5+IOS 3.12) id AA23121; Fri, 31 Jul 92 07:54:55 mdt
X-To: sci.econ.usenet
X-Mailer: Elm [revision: 64.9]


    Have there been any recent studies which debunk or support
    the theory of Kondratieff Long Waves?

    
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ctopp@ugly.UVic.CA (Chris  Topp)
Subject: Computer Modelling
Organization: University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 20:29:03 GMT

I am working on an economics project involving computer modelling of simple
economic models.  I am interested in source code(preferably in C)/algorithms
for either the Meadows-Forrester or the Extended MIT models.  If you have
any information regarding these or know of any other good models please 
e-mail me at:

ctopp@sirius.uvic.ca

Thanks in advance.

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: EC tax policy
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 23:28:05 GMT

In article <10255@scott.ed.ac.uk>, guy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Guy Barry) writes:
|> The EC has just imposed a minimum VAT rate of 15% throughout the
|> Community, on the grounds that a single market would be unworkable
|> without it.  Yet the USA has a single market despite the fact that
|> individual states can levy their own sales taxes.  What's the
|> difference?

VAT:    value added tax-  applied at each stage of production;  i.e., whenever
	value is added,  and on only the value added.   If the miller buys
	wheat at $1/lb from the farmer and sells it for $2/lb to the baker,
	the VAT at this stage would be $0.15,  paid by the miller.

Sales:	applied on the price of an item at the time of retail sale;  not applied
	at every stage.  Middlefolk don't pay sales tax.

Let me hazard a guess as to why the EC did this.  If stages of production are to be
efficiently split up amongst the EC members,  the VAT must be normalized to limit
strategic behavior based on differential VAT rates.  In other words,  they don't want
firms deciding to do business in a locale based on the VAT.  This could result in
(horrors!) a competitive lowering of VATs to entice production from one member to
another.  Smart folk,  these Eurocrats.
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 10:31:13 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Social Security, Pension plans, and Ending the national debt
Distribution: usa
 <7496@public.BTR.COM> <92204.081135DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <JACKSON.92Jul23084008@kaos.stsci.edu> <92205.112505DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <JACKSON.92Jul24163452@kaos.stsci.edu>

In article <JACKSON.92Jul24163452@kaos.stsci.edu>, jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob
Jackson) says:

Earlier posts deleted...
>
>The insurance rationale means if you don't pay in then you
>don't receive benefits, i.e., no welfare aspects.
>
>The welfare rationale means only the poor should get benefits,
>which is not the case where benefits are related to contributions.

It's only your bias that insists that there must be no mixing of
poverty and insurance programs.  What I've argued is that most nations
find that combining these two in one program produces a politically
palatable mix of re-distribution and risk reduction.

>How can the reduction in poverty be attributed to Social Security?

There are a number of studies on this in the economic literature.

>What about the economic consequences of the net transfer of wealth
>between those paying and those receiving benefits.  It is more of
>an intergenerational transfer than a transfer between rich and poor.

It's both.  If you doubt that Social Security is a transfer from rich
to poor, then I'd suggest you like at the Census Bureau publications
which show the enormous effect Social Security payments have on the
Gini ratio, a common measure of income inequality.  I don't have the
numbers here with me, but I believe it reduces the Gini from something
like .55 to .42, a HUGE drop, if you know how the Gini is computed.

Dennis Shea
Xref: sparky sci.econ:6512 talk.politics.misc:35443
From: bks@alfa.berkeley.edu (Bradley K. Sherman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Smith Corona plant closure
Date: 23 Jul 1992 03:20:34 GMT
Organization: Tight-rope Walkers, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: alfa.berkeley.edu


Per the radio:  875 U.S. workers are being laid off at a Smith
Corona plant and the plant is moving to Mexico.  The plant is
turning a profit.  The profit is not big enough for the stockholders.
Goodbye jobs. Goodbye tax revenue. Goodbye community.

Per the radio:  General Electric and Rockwell International have been
found guilty of fraud.  Not one U.S. contract has been cancelled, nor
have these companies been barred from getting future U.S. contracts.
-------

    --Brad Sherman (bks@alfa.berkeley.edu)

Per Webster's:
 treason
  1: the betrayal of a trust:  TREACHERY
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:25:04 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Social Security, Pension plans, and Ending the national debt
Distribution: usa
 <7496@public.BTR.COM> <92204.081135DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
 <JACKSON.92Jul23084008@kaos.stsci.edu>

In article <JACKSON.92Jul23084008@kaos.stsci.edu>, jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob
Jackson) says:
>
>Social Security has the basic problem of trying to be both
>
>        Insurance
>and
>        Welfare
>
>Those are mutually incompatible goals.
>
>If one is entitled to benefits because one 'paid' into it,
>then the welfare aspect is suspect.
>
>If one is entitled to benefits because you are poor, then
>the benefits being related to contributions is suspect.
>
>Kind of like a fried snowball - Internally Contradictory

Suspect in what sense?  Most effective poverty reducing public policies
in industrialized nations have been designed as social insurance programs.
Combining insurance with poverty reduction or prevention appears to be
a politically acceptable, and quite administratively efficient means
of simultaneously reducing risk and re-distributing income.


Dennis G. Shea, Penn State <<USUAL DISCLAIMER>>
"I believe that there is social and psychological justification
for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth....But it
is not necessary....that the game should be played for such
high stakes as at present."  John Maynard Keynes
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:41:25 EDT
From: <DGS4@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: cost-of-living change for period of 8/91 to 8/92?
Distribution: usa

In article <9207310411.AA07740@valis.biocad.com>, joseph@valis.biocad.COM
(Joseph Truitt) says:
>
>I just subscribed to this group to ask a few questions; I apologize if
>they are elementary, and/or have been hashed over, recently.
>
>Does anyone here know how much the cost-of-living has changed from
>8/91 to 8/91 in the San Francisco Bay Area?  How does it compare to

Hey, that's an easy one, it's 0%.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics does the
CPI numbers for SMSAs, so I would try stopping by the library and checking
the actual dates you need.  You might also be able to find it in the
Statistical Abstract of the US or the City and County Data Book.

>California and the United States in general?  If you are kind enough
>to answer this, please include the source of your information.
>
>--Thanks, Joseph (joseph@biocad.com)
>
>
From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower)
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 16:56:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The Moral Basis of Property   was Libertarian history
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: sci.econ

>   It is worth noting that we live in a country where private property
>   is heavily written into the constitution by our founding fathers.
>   The record is clear that property rights were a subject of great concern
>   for them. This being a founding principle of the land I dont feel it
>   needs more justification. 

<Rationality and human rights were certainly held as more important
<principles by the writers of the US constitution, and blind reverence
<for the past was not highly valued by them.

 Ah yes, but if you know your history well you know that the founding
 fathers would clearly have much sooner dispensed with free speech, and in
 fact toyed with the idea, than property rights. Property rights would have
 taken priority I'm sure, they were extremely important to the founders, and
 were seen as a basic human right. 
 

<As Joe Slovo, longtime head of the South African Communist Party, pointed
<out, the record of capitalism is not so damn wonderful either. The

  Joe "KGB" Slovo.... I really dont care what he thinks.

  Now that the numbers are coming in on the pure Socialist Soviet Union
  its interesting to note that GNP per capita is higher in South Africa,
  So Joe probably liked the increase in living standards. In fact the estimates
  I saw somewhere implied that the black population in south Africa actually
  has higher GNP per capita than the Average Russian. I note that these numbers
  are in considerable flux due to exchange rates etc but the essential fact is
  that the Russians had a 3rd world standard of living. If You want to trade
  for that OK but I dont want any part of it. 

  Socialist societies have not had a better record on ecology, actually much 
  worse as snapshots like Chernobyl have shown. You realize that much of the
  food grown in that region is being dispersed throughout russia and sold.
  Check out some of the pollution stories like Irktusk (sp?) they clearly
  exceed by far what has occurred in any Eurpoean, US, or Japanese large
  city. Their CFC record owes more that they are not producing the goods
  yet than any ecological sensitivity. 
  
  I make no bones about capitalism being humane, its a disciplined system
  that is set up with incentives and penalties that can be extremely rewarding
  or quite severely punitive. Its a tough system, applied darwinism.
  But when we are talking about a more than 10 fold improvement in GNP
  per capita for US citizens relative to Soviet citizens over 70 years, I'd
  say thats pretty strong advantage. Yes you can get screwed, most people 
  experience some of this, some alot, but even this result is quite an
  improvement.
  
 
Graham Flower ms 90-TT               |  Better to have convictions and act on 
Hewlett-Packard  350 W Trimble Rd    |  them, even if they are wrong, than to  
Microwave Semiconductor Division     |  waffle in indecision endlessly.
San Jose, California, 95131          |
 graham_flower@sj.hp.com             |

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Subject: Re: The Libertarian Party will wreck the US ?Re: Perot drops out!!!!
Reply-To: whg@INEL.GOV (William H. Gray)
Organization: Idaho National Engineering Lab
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 92 15:30:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.165143.5084@clipper.ingr.com>, ald@clipper.ingr.com (Al Date) writes:
|> ...  The idea of limited govt is not radical, it is the
|> real basis of the United States which has been subverted by the politics
|> of the Left and Right.
|> ...

Yes,  it is radical.  "Radical" means "tied to roots."
========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:6505 talk.politics.misc:35085
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: recessions (was: Question about Clinton's "didn't inhale" remark)
Date: 21 Jul 92 22:14:12 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Originator: rja@redwood26


In article <1992Jul21.124423.16866@iti.org>, aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer) writes:
> In article <1992Jul20.173527.19026@Princeton.EDU> pswanson@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Paul Swanson) writes:
> 
> >>>Correct me if I'm wrong... aren't we ALREADY in the biggest
> >>>recession since the 1930's?
> 
> >>consider yourself corrected. The recession in the middle 70's and the
> 
> >Gee, isn't this shortly after the first oil crisis?
> 
> I believe it started a tad before the Arab embargo.

It should be noted that there was a rapid increase in the money supply
(due to action by the Federal reserve) leading to an increase in inflation
(1971-73), before the first oil crisis (1973).

> >>one in the early 80's where each far worse. This one is actually pretty
> 
> >And this one was right after the second oil crisis.  Think there is some
> >sort of correlation here?  I certainly do.

It should be noted that there was a rapid increase in the money supply
(due to action by the Federal reserve) leading to an increase in inflation
(1977-79), before the second oil crisis.

It should be noted that there was a decrease in the growth of the money supply
(due to action by the Federal reserve) leading to an slow down in inflation
(1979-85), before the oil price crash (1985).

The point is that inflation (the dollar declining in value) leads to oil 
price increases (OPECers raising the price in nominal dollars to reflect the
declining purchasing power).  Of course politically it is better to blame 
OPEC than the president/Fed's own mismanagement of the money supply for
the increasing oil prices.

> What's your point? The most recent recession (which now seems to be over)
> was triggered by the invasion of Kuwait and the accompying oil crisis.

The Kuwait "oil crisis" was not in the same league as the first two.
Prices, after taxes, quickly returned to their pre-crisis levels.

> >>mild, it just seems worse compared to the previous decade of growth.
> 
> >What about the length of this recession?  Is it longer or shorter than
> >the two that were pointed out by the previous poster?
> 
> Assuming this recession is over (since the economy is growing again that
> seems a good assumption) then it will have been shorter than the previous
> recessions as well.

I don't think so.  I'll look it up.
-- 
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
From: starr@genie.slhs.udel.edu (Tim Starr)
Subject: Re: Property in Prehistory
Organization: UDel, School of Life & Health Sciences
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:45:17 GMT

In article <JTURNER.92Jul30071717@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu> jturner@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Jeffrey Turner) writes:
}	Marx never equated capitalism with property ownership,
}unless you narrowly define property as the means of production
}(capital).  In which case, property (capital) ownership must
}have arisen after humans took up agrarian living (10-15K yrs
}ago, recent in the scope of 1 million years) because hunter-
}gatherers could not have owned the means of production (i.e.
}that which was hunted or gathered).

I understand that economists of the Austrian school do make this equation.
However, hunter-gatherers in the sense that you speak of would be relying on
what they term general conditions of human welfare, not capital.

Furthermore, even hunter-gatherers had private property, which is clear once
you realize that this means not only land, but things like spears, arrows,
bows, baskets, canoes, paddles, etc.


Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! - Think Universally, Act Selfishly

"True greatness consists in the use of a powerful understanding to enlighten
oneself and others." - Voltaire
From: flower@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Graham Flower)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 18:19:58 GMT
Subject: Re: Re: The Moral Basis of Property   was Libertarian history
Organization: the HP Corporate notes server
Newsgroups: sci.econ

>
>Many people were trying to justify
>private property on the basis of morality and on the basis of
>some economic formulation showing how ya gotta have private
>property or no one will work (suddenly, apparently, nobody gets
>hungry). I argued that the ONLY justification for p-p was
>by the use of force (ie I am taking this and I will fight to 
>keep it from you, etc.)
>

   It is worth noting that we live in a country where private property
   is heavily written into the constitution by our founding fathers.
   The record is clear that property rights were a subject of great concern
   for them. This being a founding principle of the land I dont feel it
   needs more justification. 

   It also appears clear that socialism has been something less than a
   rousing success. Very significant movement has occurred in the last 5
   years away from socialist concepts by countries which had adopted them.
   The Soviet Union being the classic example, eastern europe also, Sweden,
   Great Britain and numerous others have moved in directions away from
   socialism. It is curious that many would like to adopt policies which
   have clearly failed those who have previously adopted them. I ascribe it
   to some level of lack of awareness and the power of the appeal for 
   Utopia. I mean who is gonna be against Utopia, not me. The question is
   can it be achieved.


Graham Flower ms 90-TT               |  Better to have convictions and act on 
Hewlett-Packard  350 W Trimble Rd    |  them, even if they are wrong, than to  
Microwave Semiconductor Division     |  waffle in indecision endlessly.
San Jose, California, 95131          |
 graham_flower@sj.hp.com             |
From: joseph@valis.biocad.COM (Joseph Truitt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: cost-of-living change for period of 8/91 to 8/92?
Date: 31 Jul 92 04:11:52 GMT
Distribution: usa

I just subscribed to this group to ask a few questions; I apologize if
they are elementary, and/or have been hashed over, recently.

Does anyone here know how much the cost-of-living has changed from
8/91 to 8/91 in the San Francisco Bay Area?  How does it compare to 
California and the United States in general?  If you are kind enough
to answer this, please include the source of your information.

--Thanks, Joseph (joseph@biocad.com)


Xref: sparky sci.econ:6584 misc.invest:9994
From: ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,misc.invest
Subject: Re: Should we limit the shorts life time.
Date: 27 Jul 92 15:29:27 GMT
Organization: Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 27-Jul-92 Re: Should we limit the sho..
by Keith Hawkins@iscp.Bellc 
> My general view on shorting is that it is just as
> perfectly legit, fair, etc. as going long.
>  
> Should someone be restricted from going long
> by $1 million?  NO.  So why should someone
> be restricted from going short the same amount?
>  
> When you buy long, you are betting, and I repeat
> BETTING,  the stock, commodity, whatever, will
> rise in price.

On this point:  Is there a difference between short sales and options ?
More specifically, if short selling were disallowed, would the market
equilibrium be different ?

cheers