HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: cindy@solan10.solan.unit.no (Cynthia Kandolf)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Organization: /home/ludviga/cindy/.organization
Date: 26 Aug 92 20:57:40

John D. Mathon writes:
>I have a good friend from Norway, but, frankly, I don't know
>much about Norway.  PLease remove my comments with respect to
>Norway.

You were the one who put Norway on the list, not me.  I apologize
sincerely for calling you on something you knew nothing about.

>On the other hand, I could add a half dozen other countries from
Europe
>which have undergone the transitions I am talking about.

Let's see, you said they underwent a major change in control of
government, and had an unemployment rate double that of the US,
correct?  Okay, then could i ask you to give the names of these
half a dozen countries, the changes of government they went through,
and their unemployment rates?  Some indication of where you got the
information from would be handy, too.  And since you said "add", i am
assuming these countries were not on the original list.  If i
misunderstood you, please let me know.

-Cindy Kandolf
 cindy@solan.unit.no
 Trondheim, Norway


Xref: sparky misc.headlines:6033 talk.politics.misc:42478 alt.activism:15581 sci.econ:7211
From: tony2@prefect.uucp (21131-gozdz)
Subject: Re: Photo of grade-crossing accident
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 23:50:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug31.195527.24174@Rapnet.Sanders.Lockheed.Com> babb@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Babb) writes:
>Stupendous Man (demon@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
>: 
>: 	Train A is approaching at 20 mph.  (Ahhh, okay, 32 kph :).  Person B,
>: with tensile capacity X stand in the path of train A.  Assuming Train A
>: ignores
>: idiot B, with what force will train A pulverize person B?  Train A masses 40
>: metric tons.  Person B has standard human tensile strength and explodes like a
>: baked potato(e) when mashed.
>: 
>: :)
>: 
>: 	Engineering physics was never this fun.
>:                             
>: Brett                                                      
>
>40 metric tons is a mildly overloaded tractor-trailer!  I've seen many
>coal train cars that specify loaded weights in the 100 metric ton range.
>
>If idiot "B" were to stand in the path of one of our local coal trains,
>the he would be attempting to defy a mass more in the 10000 metric ton
>range.
>
>If you want to see *really* fun engineering physics, you should go
>to a coal fired power plant.  Our local plant has a forklift-type
>mechanism which grabs one of these 100 (+/-) metric ton coal cars
>off the tracks, lifts it up over the plant input hopper, dumps the
>coal into the hopper, and replaces the car on the tracks.  Impressive.
>
>--
>   Lockheed Sanders may disagree so these are solely the opinions of:
>             Scott L. Babb - babb@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com
>              "We didn't inherit the Earth from our parents,
>                   we are borrowing it from our children."


WARNING! Leave Brett alone; He's an (in)famous
instigator of various flame wars! Just look how he
formulated his 'physics' problem...

Tony
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship,soc.rights.human
From: sethb@fid.morgan.com (Seth Breidbart)
Subject: Re: Scudbusters
Organization: my opinions only
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 1992 03:44:24 GMT

In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug26104554@bullwinkle.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.130442.5282@linus.mitre.org> m23364@mwunix (James Meritt) writes:
>>   In article <EGGERTJ.92Aug23005934@moses.atc.ll.mit.edu> eggertj@atc.ll.mit.edu writes:
>>   }In article <1992Aug21.211113.630@bony1.bony.com> jake@bony1.bony.com (Jake Livni) writes:
>>   }>   The Israelis said that if it's not American, then perhaps it's
>>   }>   Russian, Egyptian or something else and we're gonna send it away.  
>>   }
>>   }Sounds like you don't agree with the official story.  The Israelis
>>   }officially didn't ever identify the ship as an American ship.
>>
>>   Huh?  Looks like Jake said that it wasn't identified either...
>
>Let's check Jake's posting to see what you may have overlooked:
>
>>   }> Israel found a ship that looked suspiciously like an American spy
>>   }> ship.  They asked the Yanks who, after checking into it, denied that
>>   }> it was American.  So the Israelis looked at it again and the Yanks
>>   }> continued to insist that all American ships had been pulled out of
>>   }> there.  The Israelis said that if it's not American, then perhaps it's
>>   }> Russian, Egyptian or something else and we're gonna send it away.  The
>>   }> Yanks said "Be my guest".
>
>It sounds like Jake said that the Israelis initially identified the
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
>USS Liberty as an American ship, an identification that was verified
                                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^          ^^^^^^^^
>by a second recon, but denied by the US.

Last week, I saw somebody who looked suspiciously like a guy who lived
down the hall from me in college.  I called out his name (that of my
classmate), but the guy didn't answer.  I looked at him again, called
out the name again, and he still didn't answer, even though he
obviously heard me.  Would you say that I "identified" the guy I saw
as my classmate?  I wouldn't, and I think eggertj is intentionally
misunderstanding Jake Livni's statement.

All I saw in Jake's posting is that the Israelis made a *tentative*
identification, one which was discarded when the US said it was wrong.

Seth		sethb@fid.morgan.com
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,sci.econ
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 92 10:23:49 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

In article <183265@pyramid.pyramid.com>, pcollac@pyrnova.mis.pyramid.com (Paul Collacchi) writes:
|> In article <1992Aug27.043330.11723@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM
|> (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
|> |>
|> |> 
|> |> 	All these theories, and yet not a single person saw a 
|> |> correlation between the tax cuts and the following recessions. Amazing.
|> |> Well, I'm going to advance a theory that I am sure everyone will 
|> |> disagree with, on both sides. Here goes...
|> |> 
|> |> 	The government cuts taxes, therefore allowing more money
|> |> to circulate in the economy. Hence, economic growth.
|> 
|> The reduction of taxes WILL impact the amount of circulatable money,
|> but it doesn't necessitate economic growth.  Why?  Not all people
|> spend their money.  Some save it.  Why else?  People may be in debt
|> and are paying down the debt.  Interest is not really a produced good
|> in the same sense as a car or bike.  Paying off interest doesn't
|> necessitate growth.  Why else?  Foreign competition.  Who is to say
|> that the extra cash will go to domestic production?
|> 

There are several false statements in the above paragraph that I would
like to address.  First, a reduction of taxes *WILL NOT* impact the
amount of circulatable money.  It will only change *who* is spending
the money.  Second, you seem to imply (correct me if I'm wrong) that
spending money will generate economic growth whereas saving won't.
This is completely false.  Saving (investment) creates a pool of
capital which allows new businesses to be created, allows businesses
to buy capital which allows them to be more productive, which allows
them to hire more employees, etc., etc.  Saving is a crucial element
in generating economic growth.  What about people who are 'spending'
money on interest payments.  The payment doesn't generate growth
but who gets the money?  What do they spend the money on?  Follow
the money fully to see its impact on the economy.  A payment from
A to B is not the end of the story.  Finally what about foreign
purchases.  One obvious benefit is the creation of jobs related
to the importation of goods.  Transportation workers, for example.
Also, money spent on foreign goods gets returned to this country
when foreigners purchase our domestic goods, services, and 
investments.



James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943         
From: victor.yodaiken@iphase.UUCP (victor yodaiken)
Sender: FredGate@iphase.UUCP
Newsgroups: misc.headlines
Subject: Re: STUDY: NAFTA TO CAUSE U.S. JOB, INCOME LOSS
Date: 18 Aug 92  13:04:50 EST

Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Aug14.202016.3830@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.153525.14298@ils.nwu.edu> hooker@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu (Bob Hooker) writes:
>>But lets say that I am a country that produces rubber very well.  Jobs in
>>the rubber production pay like shit,  they are dangerous,  they pollute the
>>country side and they do not require that my country educate people.
>
>>I can buy tractors for rubber from a more industrialized country.  And if
>>there is a competetive advatage I am better off in the short run buying the
>>tractors and keeping my country a rubber producer.  
>
>>The result is I have a poor, polluted, uneducated country.  If I want to
>>start industry,  but my trading partners all have a comparative advanatge
>>in industry,  I had better put up some trade restrictions of some kind, in
>>order to protect by domestic market.
>
>The point you miss is that although a few people will be better off -
>for example the owner of the factory and the people who work in it -
>many more will be worse off - tractor buyers, people who need things
>that are produced using tractors, people who sell materials that are
>used with tractors, etc.

False.  The success of the tractor business may have a positive
effect on the entire economy: for example, while repairs on foreign
made tractors might be most easily done in in the foreign country,
repairs on local made tractors might be the basis of thriving
local machine-shop industry, and these machine shops might provide the
foundation for the growth of, say, a bicycle industry ... etc. 
Thus, trade barriers and public investment may may make it cheaper
to make high-value added goods locally and help the domestic economy
move from a low-wage colonial status to a higher wage independent
status. Of course, this is not a hypothetical example, the history
of the last 4 decades makes it very clear that encouraging domestic
manufacturing is a far more sensible status than encouraging 
export of raw materials and agricultural goods. Nations like Jamaica
which were lead by IMF economists to exploit the comparative advantage
theory find themselves hostage to an international commodities market
while nations which have subsidized domestic manufacturing, e.g. Korea,
find themselves creating skilled jobs.

>What comparative advantage tells you is that the net result of all
>this will be a loss of wealth from your country.  

As Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, and Chile, stand out as counter-examples, 
one might want to question the validity of the theory.

>Now where does it go wrong?

In practice.

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
 * Origin: Gated from uucp to Fidonet by FredGate (1:112/28.0)

Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5992 talk.politics.misc:42208 alt.activism:15510 sci.econ:7175
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,sci.econ
Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
Summary: Maybe, but not quite
Date: 27 Aug 92 03:18:53 GMT
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1

In article <1992Aug26.130122.3753@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>In article <1992Aug26.040745.3040@pony.Ingres.COM>, garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>> In article <1992Aug25.224147.3744@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>>>In article <1992Aug25.173645.16913@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>>>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>>>	In the last 100 years we've have four "boom" periods.  Each and every
>>>>>one resulted from (in part) taxes being lowered.
>>>> 
>>>> We got 1920's (1924-1929, Coolidge tax cut) 1960's (1964-1969, Kennedy
>>>> tax cut) and 1980's (1983-1989, Reagan tax cut).
>>>> So what's the 4th boom period?

>> This isn't meant as a flame, but I seem to remember that after everyone
>> one these "boom" periods there was a severe recession. 

>> 1920's	followed by the 30's.
> 
>	Remarkable, given that a failure of government to keep the economy
>going resulted in the largest period of government intervention ever.  And it
>took a World War to get us out of it.

Some of what you said made sense, but this doesn't. The economy hit bottom
in 1932. The "New Deal" didn't go into affect until the later part of 1933.
When I say "hit bottom", I mean unemployment and GNP.

>	We had a massive crash in 87 also, but the market recovered.  We had
>bank failures in the late 80s but the market is (slowly) recovering.  It would
>be even faster if the RTC scam hadn't been done.

I'm not sure what the RTC scam is, but I can tell you that your bank failure
comparison is faulty. When banks went under in the early 30's ALL the 
investors lost ALL their money, now they are at lest partially reimbursed.
When a large bank goes under, and thousands lose all their savings, it
doesn't take an economist to know that there will be a significant shock
to the local economy.
I'm not trying to preach the wonders of the FDIC, I'm just making a 
significant point.

-Garrett
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:6001 rec.autos:20836 rec.railroad:6931
Organization: Bar-Ilan University Computing Center, Israel
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 14:53:24 IST
From: <P88037@BARILVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.autos,rec.railroad
Subject: Re: Photo of grade-crossing accident
 <1992Aug25.143939.3737@desire.wright.edu>
 <1992Aug26.013120.6377@leland.Stanford.EDU>


Hi!

About this: there was an accident few years ago: a bus/train collision.
Dont remember numbers, but something like 20 ppl killed (is was a school
bus :(, poor children were going to there "Trip Of The Year") and huge
mercedes but totally destroyed.

so you can imagine amount of energy, if that bus was 20ton (20,000 kg)
and trains here are small (a locomotive and 3-4 carts) and going slow

i also can recall an accident in my place in Russia, when mid-size truck
was thrown 150 meters, and completely destroyed. the rear wheels (a pair
of them) destroyed a taxi. The train was a express (moscow-bucharest),i
think, and was going 60-70 mph!!! Poor truck driver was cut to small
pieces, and train drivers wasvery badly injured.




Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Intellectuals and totalitarianism (was Re: WORLD GOVERNMENT)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:44:52 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug25.151711.11213@oracle.us.oracle.com> mfriedma@uucp (Michael Friedman) writes:
>In article <1992Aug22.042821.23309@s1.gov> lip@s1.gov (Loren I. Petrich) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug22.013907.9370@tss.com> mathon@tss.com (John D. Mathon) writes:
>>>By what measure do you mean healthier?  The American is still the richest,
>>>most productive worker in the world BY A WIDE MARGIN.
>
>>	But then why have we lost major industries to the Japanese and
>>Europeans?
>
>Why not?  What does it matter if we lose and industry here and there?
>If we had rampant unemployment I might be a bit more worried. 

  Were there supposed to be smiley's here?     I think we *do* have 
  rampant unemployment.  Japan's unemployment rate is 3.2%.  Our official
  unemployment rate is 7.8% and that only counts people who show up 
  at the state employment office regularly.  It also doesn't reflect all
  the former high-wage, good-job workers who are now flipping burgers
  and driving cabs.   Michael Friedman is surely one of the few people
  in the US who doesn't think we have rampant unemployment.

  I'm NOT agreeing with the other poster's hopes for a social-democratic
  solution to this:  The unemployment rate in West Germany before unification
  was >8%, I'm sure the unified Germany's rate is higher still.  The
  unmplyment rates in Canada and the UK are also higher than the US and
  AW&ST said in the current issue that French aerospace industries will
  cut 32,000 jobs over the next 2 years; this on top of a very weak 
  economy there.   So it's clear to me that more government spending and 
  bigger deficits isn't the solution.  But on the other hand neither is
  Mr. Friedman's pollyanna attitude.


---peter





Newsgroups: misc.headlines,alt.activism,talk.politics.misc
From: garrett@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR)
Subject: Re: Boom Boom Boom Boom :)
Summary: 
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.4-b1  
Keywords: 
Organization: ASK Computer Systems, Ingres Product Division
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:07:45 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.224147.3744@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupend writes...
>In article <1992Aug25.173645.16913@oakhill.sps.mot.com>, pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>>	In the last 100 years we've have four "boom" periods.  Each and every
>>>one resulted from (in part) taxes being lowered.
>> 
>> We got 1920's (1924-1929, Coolidge tax cut) 1960's (1964-1969, Kennedy
>> tax cut) and 1980's (1983-1989, Reagan tax cut).
>> So what's the 4th boom period?
>> 
>	1890s.  (Thus "100 years" instead of this century.)  Sorry about that. 
>I thought I had put in the dates.                          
> 
>Brett                                                      

This isn't meant as a flame, but I seem to remember that after everyone
one these "boom" periods there was a severe recession. 

1920's	followed by the 30's.
64-69   followed by stagflation in the 70's (I remember a bad recession
					in 73-74, but I think there was 
					also one before then)
83-89	followed by the present recession.
I'm not sure of the exact date, but there was a depression in the
1890's as well.

Does anyone have a theory on this?

-Garrett
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:6062 talk.politics.misc:42704 alt.activism:15639 sci.econ:7234
From: underdog@leland.Stanford.EDU (Dwight Joe)
Subject: Re: Photo of grade-crossing accident
Organization: Miners for a Heart of Gold
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 03:13:54 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.013120.6377@leland.Stanford.EDU> tedebear@leland.Stanford.EDU (Theodore Chen) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.143939.3737@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>>	F=ma
>>
>>	Calculate the mass of the train, multiply it by how fast it was going,
>>then see what you'd look like after standing in front of it. :)
>
>KE = 1/2 mv^2
>p = mv

Those are fine equations, but we also need to know both
(1) the shear force and (2) tensile force that the human
body can withstand.  In layman's terms, does the human
body yield like a baked potato when it is smashed with a
hammer or does the body yield like a steel girder?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seikatsu no imi wa nan desu ka.            \|  |`      | Don't buy from Toyota;
Shitte itara oshiete kuremasen ka.          | -+-      | especially, don't buy
                                           /| / \      | from Capitol Toyota in
Copyright 1992.                                        | San Jose, California.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,rec.autos,rec.railroad
From: welty@cabot.balltown.cma.COM (richard welty)
Subject: Re: Photo of grade-crossing accident
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 01:13:42 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.181257.29029@news.columbia.edu> egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:
>Note that what Mr. Packer finds strange is the 90 degree angle at
>which the tail pipe is sticking out of the ground.  A simple
>explanation would be that the photographer chose to stand at that
>particular spot, with the tail pipe at that particular angle.  It
>would have looked nicer, perhaps, in his eyes.  Note tht that the
>actual angle of the tail pipe is probably not 90 degrees.

note also that according to the basic principals of statistics, in many
cases, all outcomes are equally likely.  e.g., 45 degrees is no more likely
than 90 degrees.  since the laws of physics also apply here, i'll wager that
90 degrees (or something near that value) ends up being more likely than, say,
30 degrees, even though 30 degrees would look less bizarre.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:6148 talk.politics.misc:43274 talk.politics.mideast:19492 soc.culture.arabic:3494 alt.conspiracy:10416 alt.censorship:7330 soc.rights.human:3258
From: matthew_c_zank@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: misc.headlines,talk.politics.misc,talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.arabic,alt.conspiracy,alt.censorship,soc.rights.human
Subject: Re: RUSH LIMBAUGH'S SECRET NON-AGENDA
Date: 2 Sep 92 06:34:45 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

Does your dad know you are using his ps/1, to put crap
out on the usenet?
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5944 alt.activism:15426 talk.politics.misc:41874
From: babb@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com (Scott Babb)
Subject: Re: Photo of grade-crossing accident
Organization: Sanders Associates
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 92 19:55:27 GMT

Stupendous Man (demon@desire.wright.edu) wrote:
: 
: 	Train A is approaching at 20 mph.  (Ahhh, okay, 32 kph :).  Person B,
: with tensile capacity X stand in the path of train A.  Assuming Train A
: ignores
: idiot B, with what force will train A pulverize person B?  Train A masses 40
: metric tons.  Person B has standard human tensile strength and explodes like a
: baked potato(e) when mashed.
: 
: :)
: 
: 	Engineering physics was never this fun.
:                             
: Brett                                                      

40 metric tons is a mildly overloaded tractor-trailer!  I've seen many
coal train cars that specify loaded weights in the 100 metric ton range.

If idiot "B" were to stand in the path of one of our local coal trains,
the he would be attempting to defy a mass more in the 10000 metric ton
range.

If you want to see *really* fun engineering physics, you should go
to a coal fired power plant.  Our local plant has a forklift-type
mechanism which grabs one of these 100 (+/-) metric ton coal cars
off the tracks, lifts it up over the plant input hopper, dumps the
coal into the hopper, and replaces the car on the tracks.  Impressive.

--
   Lockheed Sanders may disagree so these are solely the opinions of:
             Scott L. Babb - babb@rapnet.sanders.lockheed.com
              "We didn't inherit the Earth from our parents,
                   we are borrowing it from our children."
Xref: sparky misc.headlines:5995 talk.politics.misc:42215 alt.activism:15512 sci.econ:7177