HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:39:16 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <121943@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr07.145312.24509@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
|> 
|> >Don't like the sound of 'ends justifying the means?' From a logical
|> >standpoint, any effective means to get a job done should produce the
|> >desired end, or else the means will be unjustified.  However, I would go
|> >a step further and say that some of the 'ends' that the means must
|> >satisfy are that people's rights have not been violated along the way. 
|> 
|> I was trying to get away from the notion of "rights", and substitute a
|> notion of "values".  I just find it harder to get a handle on "rights",
|> whereas my values are available to my inspection, at least to some
|> extent :-).  That is, I try to make values the more primitive concept,
|> and define rights in terms of shared values (which may change, since
|> values are inherently emotional and personal and can easily be
|> contradictory).  I have never seen any satisfactory intellectual defense
|> of the notion of "rights" as axioms.  "We hold these truths to be self-
|> evident..." is nice prose, but a statement of faith, not logic.  I share
|> the *values* expressed -- just don't buy the reasoning.

Actually, the word 'values' implies a standard by which actions are
measured.  The concept of 'rights' is just a standard by which values
are defined.  Like 'values,' 'rights' seem to vary from society to
society.  

The expression that "we hold these truths to be self-evident" is a
statement about what the framers believed their society should look
like -- as in opposition to societies with aristocracies, legislation
without representation, violations of privacy, etc...  That doesn't
mean that those views would not have been considered outrageous in
England, for instance...

|> 
|> >If one disregards some of the ends in order to justify other ends, then
|> >one hasn't really computed the cost correctly (I've seen lots of
|> >managers underplay some elements of costs to justify a project they
|> >think was 'worth while').  In that context, I don't think there's any
|> >problem with the idea that the 'ends justify the means' except that one
|> >must look at ALL the 'ends.'
|> 
|> Or, stated another way, the ultimate effects of all the means...

The total effects of just one 'means' is enough to measure the
validity of that mean... if I've violated someone elses rights (a
*value*), then I've incurred a cost that doesn't justify that means of
solution to the problem...


Dan
From: steve@stss.uucp (Steve Temcheff)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Is this a No-Profit World?
Summary: On a world-scale there is no profit ( loss )
Date: 10 Apr 92 17:41:58 GMT
Organization: Steve Temcheff

Is it true that there is no profit ( loss ) on a world-scale?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: thant@horus.esd.sgi.com (Thant Tessman)
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Organization: sgi
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 23:30:20 GMT

In article <46291@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

> Try to be a little more clear with terms here. "Anarchism", like
> "libertarianism" is an word with several referents. The 
> Anarchism of Kropotkin and Bookchin, for example, is  a political
> philosophy which seeks to replace private-property/centralized-state
> systems with those based on communalism and personal liberty. 

And what personal liberty actually means without private property
is left as an exercise for the reader.

thant

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: met@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Subject: MUTUAL FUND INDICES
Reply-To: met@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Organization: Computer Center, CUNY Graduate School, New York NY 10036
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 22:01:43 GMT

Since I realized that firm-specific data about mutual fund performance
was so infrequent (annual, bi-annual, or at the most quarterly) I
started wondering whether there are any indices for mutual funds which
are quoted on a more regulat basis.
Are you familiar with any mutual fund indices? If you know any, is 
the data available on diskettes?
Thanks very much!
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians, slaves and company towns
Date: 7 Apr 92 13:55:52 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <121899@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
>In article <46060@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor
>yodaiken) writes: 
>>>No, that is a contract entered into under duress. 
>>
>>So, if I sign a contract with the bank under the pressure of paying my rent, 
>>I can just break it later 'cause it was made under duress?
>>Sounds like a great system.  Sign me up.  
>> 
>
>You can do better than that, victor.  
>
>"Duress" implies a tangible, serious threat, not an inconvenience.  High
>probability of starvation is a serious threat.  You impulsively jump off

I'm just trying to understand the limits of contract enforcement in the
libertopia. Who determines what is "duress"? If I bounce checks so that
my family can eat, is that ok? Does it depend on how well they eat?
"Too many cases of brie, obviously you weren't under duress, into the 
libertopian, well we can't call it a "jail" 'cause only states have jails,
so we'll call it a "penal enterprise". Can I be forced by the libertopian
"non-state" to work for someone else's profit in order to pay off a debt
which was entered into voluntarily? Do I get a trial by a jury of my peers
to determine whether or not high probability of going without Dom Perignon
for a week is a "serious threat", or will there be little booklets in which
what each individual entreprenuer can expect from life will be written down
in a clear fashion?  -- Page 1785 Para 5: A contract may be considered to
have been entered into under duress if at least one party to the contract
had consumed less than 1000 calories a day for the previous 5 days.



-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 15 Apr 92 00:42:42 GMT


From: jlacey@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (james.w.lacey) 

>some reading or research, Prof. Steven Morrision of
>Northeastern University in Boston has done a lot
>of work in this area (books, articles), and is one
>of the leading economists in the industrial economics
>of the airline industry.
>
>The general conclusion of Morrison's work is that
>deregulation has lowered fares for air travel.  I 
>suggested consulting some of his articles for the 
>detailed analysis. 

 See, *this* is what annoys me about what passes for some
 economics research.    It's like the "My Theory by Miss
 Ann Elk" Monty Python sketch which concluded that
 dinosaurs were thin on one end, wide in the middle,
 and narrow at the other end.

 I don't think that there is any major or serious body
 of opinion that deregulation DIDN'T lower fares in 
 general (allowing for inflation).  Certainly as
 someone who reads AW&ST religiously and who's in
 several different airlines' frequent flier programs,
 and who follows the airlines from an investment standpoint
 I've heard very few complaints that fares are higher than,
 say in 1977.  (which is not to say that there aren't some
 economists somewhere who can "prove" Morrison wrong)

 The really interesting questions, like whether the airlines 
 can SURVIVE with these low fares or whether there are
 significant barriers to entry, whether Bob Crandall is 
 right that long Chapter 11 protection is responsible for the 
 ongoing decline of the remaining airlines, how to promote
 more genuine competition in pricing and services (or even
 whether this is desirable), how many major airlines the
 economy can support and what the fare structures are 
 likely to look like when the dust settles, or even basic,
 practical questions like how much airport capacity Boston
 (or Chicago, or Denver, or wherever) will need in 10 or
 20 years are much harder to answer.    What does he say
 about these things?  


---peter
From: iccsap020@spacm1.spac.spc.com (David Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:30:10 PST
Organization: Security Pacific Automation Co., LA, CA

In article <9204101732.AA00669@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com>, nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
> 
>   (libertarians
>   should take careful note that a society with a minimal government
>   but with powerful religious or other cultural forces which restrict
>   individual choices is NOT a libertarian society).  
> 
>   
> ---peter
> 

I would like to know why you say this--this is not a challenge, but
I really wonder what you mean.   For my part, I think it depends
on precisely how individual choices are restricted by cultural
and religious institutions: do they use physical force, or is
it more along the lines of indoctrination, brain-washing, threat
of ex-communcation, or is it simply persuasion.  There is a 
continuum here, but as I see it a society could be characterized
as libertarian with even very heavy machinery to influence behavior
and opinion, as long free expression existed, and as long as
behavior was not forcibly constrained by extra-governmental forces.

David Cohen
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians, slaves and company towns
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:27:47 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM

In article <121899@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
|> In article <46060@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor
|> yodaiken) writes: 
|> >>No, that is a contract entered into under duress. 
|> >
|> >So, if I sign a contract with the bank under the pressure of paying my rent, 
|> >I can just break it later 'cause it was made under duress?
|> >Sounds like a great system.  Sign me up.  
|> > 
|> 
|> You can do better than that, victor.  
|> 
|> "Duress" implies a tangible, serious threat, not an inconvenience.  High
|> probability of starvation is a serious threat.  You impulsively jump off
|> a cruise ship in the middle of the Atlantic.  I offer to throw you a
|> life preserver, if you agree to pay me 95% of your salary for the rest
|> of your life.  That's a contract made under duress, and would not be
|> valid in court. 

I'll remember that, regardless of what the person offers, it
wouldn't be worth my while to throw a drowning person a life
preserver... especially if it were *MY* life preserver (they get
all salty and waterlogged; a real mess to clean up...)

Of course, if the person agreed to *pay* for the life preserver, and
had it notarized with an atorney present, then I'd throw it to them...
 
|>                 It doesn't matter that I didn't push you in, or that
|> you made a stupid, life threatening mistake in the first place.  You are
|> under duress even if it was your own action that put you there.  The 
|> important criteria is the seriousness of the consequences.  And of course
|> evaluation of the seriousness of the consequences is exactly where the
|> crux of the legal issues lies.

Actually, the issue involving the bank CAN be a factor.  My uncle
(mother's sister's ex-husband) had a significant loan from multiple
sources -- including my grandmother's bank.  She was put in the
position of securing the debt.  My uncle seriously mismanaged his
finances, and wasn't making interest payments.  If my grandmother
didn't want to loose everything she had, she was forced to pay for
*HIS* interest payments (this wasn't the actual terms of her securing
the loan, but it was an agreement extracted by the bank later -- I
suppose as a compromise to not loosing her colateral).  So, was that
later agreement made under duress?


Dan
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 6 Apr 92 16:09:57 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204052014.AA05137@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>  The same objection can be made to cmf851@huxley.anu.edu.au
>  (Albert Langer)'s positions in support of Marxism as I've
>  made to Ed Ipser's pro-libertarian positions:
>
>  No concrete instances of a society structured along lines 
>  consistent with the variety of Marxism espoused by Mr.
>  Langer have been shown to exist in a stable form.   And
>  I claim that economics is not a sufficiently rigorous science
>  (in the sense of being able to create nontrivial theoretical
>  models with reliable predictive power) to tell us WHAT the
>  characteristics of a marxist society might be.   So it comes
>  down to the same "cars -vs- magic carpets" arguments we were
>  having on libertarianism.


By this logic, the American Revolution, the labor movement, and the
invention of electric lightbulbs were all intellectually dishonest.
Proposals for change have to be evaluated on their own merits, on their
logical consistency, and on extraplations from the current reality. 

>
>  


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:3792 misc.taxes:2275
From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Capital 'R us
Date: 13 Apr 92 21:04:58 GMT
Article-I.D.: darkstar.32807
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <JACKSON.92Apr13111250@kaos.stsci.edu> jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson) writes:
|Can you describe who will and who will not live with the
|"consequences" of the investment decisions?
|
|I can imagine many investment decisions which have global
|consequences.  Who decides then?

I am not sure about the context of the discussion, but it should be pointed out
that industrial policy is nearly a part of capitalism itself,
since no modern industrial economy is without some form of industrial policy.
Since the war, the US was unique in saying it did not have an industrial policy
althought you could consider the war efforts themselves as a kind of industrial
policy.
-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jke2@Ra.MsState.Edu (Joselito K. Estrada)
Subject: Re: theory of consumer behaviour
Organization: Mississippi State University
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:30:05 GMT

yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

>The  first false assumption is that there are no big players in  a stock market
>dominated by institutional investors and a small group of brokerage
>houses/bankers.  

I am inclined to differ on that statement. The installation of programmed trading in the stock exchanges back in late '87 or early '88 was prompted by the mass
selling of stocks by `consumers'. These people reacted to actions undertaken by
the so-called `big players.'
From: amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Industrial Policy
Date: 6 Apr 92 23:44:24 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

To be certain, there is much I do not understand.  Would you (Jim) care to 
address the issues raised in my post rather than being sad about one 
person's lack of comprehension and full appreciation?
From: jmo@courant.princeton.edu (Mike Orszag)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Airline Deregulation
Date: 14 Apr 92 23:20:57 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Princeton University
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU


Another economist who has done a great deal of work on the
airline deregulation issue is Severin Borenstein of the
University of California at Davis. He has constructed a database
of various flights and fares with several million entries
and has done a lot of work looking at the effects of deregulation.

In historical perspective, there was a trend towards regulation
of industry dating to the late 19th century which reversed
itself largely in the mid70s. In the late 1980s as the excesses
of deregulation in for instance the banking industry became
clear, we see the beginnings of a little bit of deregulation.
I think the trend away from regulation has been good and further
deregulation is required in some areas (such as to remove Glass-Stegall
barriers in banking-securities). However, we should not be blind
to the fact that in some industries with natural increasing returns
and scale economies some regulation is called for and that there are
some deficiencies in the current regulatory system which need
attention and amelioration.
Newsgroups: sci.econ

I'm *no* tax expert but I thought there was an exemption for the profits
made from the sale on a primary residence. I thought that if you sold
it within 18 months you didn't need to pay tax on your profit.

Yes? No? Guesses?

megana.
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: re  Communitarians
Date: 9 Apr 92 16:22:07 GMT



> I've read somewhere about a new school of philosophy, sociology and
> economics which refer to themselves as 'Communitarians'.
  
  Personally, I don't think there IS any "new school of philosophy"
  That's the whole trouble with philosophy; hardly anything
  genuinely new has been postulated in centuries.   The
  closest thing I can think to a new idea might be quantum
  physics, which was developed back in the 1920's.   But in
  areas like ethics, man-and-society, etc, most philosophers
  have been finding new ways to state, or new justifications
  for, old ideas, chiefly from the Greeks, dating back millennia.

  The name 'Communitarian' sounds like some idea which places
  the role of the "community" first (compared with a "liber-
  tarian", for whom individual "liberty" is paramount).  So 
  in my best I-don't-know-anything-about-this-but-that-won't-
  shut-me-up Usenet style, I'll predict that it's a typical
  bunch of European Social Democrats, ex Communists, and
  other random leftists, trying to dress up their old ideas
  in a new suit of clothes.   Alternatively, given Europe's
  current (and alarming) drift to the right, maybe it's a
  bunch of fascists trying to dress up *their* old ideas
  in a new suit of clothes.   Just remember that "community"
  is almost always a euphemism for "the state" in modern societies
  (i.e., natural ethnic, geographic and cultural communities
  hardly exist in most modern post-industrial societies)
  and ask yourself what political philosophies tend to
  emphasize the role of the state.   

  When you find out anything about Communitarianism please
  post it to the net so we can bash it, er!, "discuss it on
  its merits".  

  Thanks in advance.


---peter
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: economic skeptics
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:31:13 GMT
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com's message of 31 Mar 92 15:20:56 GMT

nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
   Newsgroups: sci.econ
   Date: 31 Mar 92 15:20:56 GMT

   [...Peter Nelson insists that  a more laissez-faire economic policy must
   first be tested on a local level first...]
   
   [...Adam Grossman says   that  it is   impossible  to  reliably  test  a
   macroeconomic policy on granularity less than a national level...]

   [...Peter Nelson replies:]  my  stated  objection was  to...  suggesting
   radical [macroeconomic] changes at  the *national*  level  without first
   trying  out their ideas on a  smaller, local  scale....  just do it on a
   small, local scale first.

For macroeconomic policy, this is impossible.   The smallest division which
would  constitute   a fair test is  the   national level.  The  separate(!)
economies of the individual states  or metropolitan  areas are too  tightly
coupled in this country.

How can  you "do an  experiment" of low inflation  or competitive monies in
New York when New York is forbidden to coin money?  Would Congress agree to
exempt Florida  residents from paying most of  their federal income  tax to
"test" the  idea of a  smaller government?   Or exempt  Massachusetts banks
from some  federal banking regulations?   Moreover,  such "tests" would  be
meaningless since people, goods,  and capital can  move freely  between the
states, e.g., if one  state were  to eliminate SS  as a  "test", old people
would move out and young people would move in.

The bottom line is that in the case of macro-economic  policy, the economic
system is so complex that we cannot accurately model these  changes  to any
degree of reliability on a   smaller  scale  than national,  and  even  the
national level is  not much  of a controlled  test.  Our only valid working
models (since  you  insist  we have  them) are  ourselves!  To  continue to
insist that all new  national policies  be "tested"  on  a  local level  is
unrealistic.
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt)
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:44:56 GMT
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

In article <122494@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV>, kent@phoenix.ocf.llnl.gov (Kent J Crispin) writes:
|> In article <1992Apr07.193916.11693@watson.ibm.com> platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
|> >
|> >Actually, the word 'values' implies a standard by which actions are
|> >measured.  
|> 
|> Not to me.  I was using the word 'value' in the sense of "I value having free
|> time to do what I please", or "I value freedom of speech."  It just implies
|> that the named item has some "importance" to me.  I might value standards of
|> various kinds, but the notion of "valuing" something is more primitive than
|> anything about standards.

Valuing freedom of speech involves a standard by which actions to
limit your freedom of speech are measured.

Valuing your free time involves a standard by which the quality of
life is measured.

A set of priorities or rankings indicates a standard.

|> 
|> >The concept of 'rights' is just a standard by which values
|> >are defined.  Like 'values,' 'rights' seem to vary from society to
|> >society.  
|> 
|> The idea of defining "rights" as standard values is very interesting.  In
|> fact, I think that is a very good way to think about it.  How do we set
|> standards (well, we call in IEEE, or ANSI, or ISO :-).

You are using the word 'standards' equivocally.  In the case of
'rights,' the standard is a measure of freedom.  In the case of
IEEE standards, it is a criterea of conformance so everyone can
make the same products (violating the standard doesn't have much
to do with how good the work was -- it doesn't even imply that
what you design won't work; it just becomes 'proprietary').

Or are you suggesting that you only accept one meaning of the word?
Perhaps you have a pocket abridged dictionary?

Dan