HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords:  free trade 
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 92 19:30:02 GMT

>parkem@susan.cs.rose-hulman.edu (Eugene M. Park) writes:
>
>There are two issues which are prominent with Perot.  He's against
>the North American Free Trade Association, NAFTA, and his electronic
>public opinion polls.  The US MUST work towards a more open market,
>not only in Japan and EC through GATT, but also in North America.
>If we put up protectionist barriers, the cost of our consumer
>goods will significantly increase.  When industries struggle in
>the face of competition, this is an incentive for them to rethink
>their global strategy.  I believe that its too late to be
>thinking nationalistic.  American industries control a large part
>of the global arena, and trade blocks will hurt us.  

I see this viewpoint as one of the largest fundamental flaws in thinking in
American politics today.  It represents at best a incredible
misinterpretation of an elementary economic principle, and at worst just
plain foolishness.

What does economics say about free trade between two regions?  It says that
if free trade between two regions is allowed, _overall_ efficiency will
be increased (i.e. the _sum_ of the two region's production will increase).
What economics does _not_ say is that each region will be individually
better off!  Indeed, it is highly probable that one of the regions will be
made _worse_ off by the agreement.

Will the NAFTA make the United States worse off?  Hard to say. ( A very , very
complicated general equilibrium analysis would be required...)  If I were to
hazard a guess, I would say that free trade with Canada is probably to 
our advantage, but free trade with Mexico is probably not.  (Not even 
considering environmental issues.)  But the important fact to take from this
discussion is the fact that free trade has a number of potential problems
associated with it, and anyone against free trade may well have some damn good
arguments on their side.

-Bill Shepherd
"Amazing how many folks talk about things they know nothing about."
						-Author Unknown
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot, Free Trade
Keywords: free trade
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 09:02:56 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.074307.3313@leland.Stanford.EDU> whynot@leland.Stanford.EDU (William Shepherd) writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.130655.28253@chinet.chi.il.us> pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>>2)  Statistics quite easy to find reveal that countries with high trade 
>>barriers have very poor economies(barriers made the economies obviously
>>worse off in many of these cases that I have knowledge of.)

>Sorry, but I doubt your statistics.  Japan is _not_ noted for its free trade.

Japan is also not noted for its high standard of living.  Japan is an
example of a government-industrial policy which contributes to the
strength of the corporations which produce industrial products at the
expense of virtually everyone else in the country.  Add to that the
gerrymandering which gives Japanese farmers disproportionate power,
which keeps high trade barriers against food importation alive,
and thus makes it impossible for the Japanese to buy cheap American
food instead of expensive Japanese food.

The fact is that the Japanese spend too much for basic necessities and
are forced by high land prices to live in spaces which Americans
wouldn't use as closets, while the government spends the tax money of
Japanese citizens to ensure the position of Japanese corporations.
Hardly a model to use in defending an industrial policy or
protectionism, as it puts the cart before the horse.  Americans favor
such policies only insofar as they believe that they would benefit the
citizenry, and in Japan that simply is not a major consideration or
they wouldn't _have_ the policies they do.  In terms of purchasing
power, the US still has the world's highest standard of living, in
large part as a result of having low trade barriers.

And we've tried the experiment with extremely high barriers: it was
called the Hawley-Smoot Tariff, and was the major factor in
precipitating the Great Depression.  The idea that we should protect
our citizens from paying lower prices and protect our industries from
the evolutionary pressure of competition is an invitation to high
prices and self-satisfied, stagnant corporations (which pretty well
describes the American auto industry prior to the Japanese onslaught--
of course, thanks to "voluntary" restraint agreements, not much was
done about the high prices, but at least the quality of the domestic
product has improved significantly).

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: pete@helena.rice.edu (Louis Wu)
Subject: Re: Ross Perot
Organization: Whatsamatta U
	<1992Apr6.055137.6789@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
	<1992Apr7.192135.415@leland.Stanford.EDU>
	<1992Apr9.010141.5817@igor.tamri.com>
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 04:49:45 GMT



donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) says:
> Speak for yourself, bud.
> 
> I don't WANT or need a paternalistic government runing my life any
> more.

Perot might have two different effects. First, he'd be likely to do his
damdest to get rid of waste, pork, and entitlement programs. He'd be
dismantling the "paternalistic government" in this sense, not creating it. 

Secondly, I had always assumed that Perot would be a right-wing moralist,
judging from the facist way he runs his company. However, he's pro-choice.
Does this bode well for other civil liberties? I don't know, but I don't
think the jury is in, yet.



--
=============================================================================
Pete Keleher   "Relax! Don't worry! Have a homebrew!"        pete@cs.rice.edu
=============================================================================

Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc
From: visser@convex.com (Lance Visser)
Subject: Re: Why vote Libertarian?
Organization: Engineering, CONVEX Computer Corp., Richardson, Tx., USA
Distribution: usa,local
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 22:46:26 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.

In <1992Apr6.190958.27793@Princeton.EDU> niepornt@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Marc Nieporent) writes:


+>Maybe in the long run the market *would* deal with these companies, but
+>30 or 40 years is too long to wait for most people.  (We hear some libs
+>pointing out how even major companies are ephemeral; even GM is losing power 
+>now, they say, thanks to the market.  This is true, but it took a really
+>long time for this to happen.

	I think the market has already dealt with the problems of such 
companies.  The market did so by using the government.



+>Which brings up a question I've had, which I hope the net.libs can
+>answer.  What's the Libertarian position on incorporation?  

	The current platform refers to incorporation as a "right".  

+>As far as I
+>can see, a true Lib should oppose the concept; a company is a bunch of
+>people getting together to do something, not a government defined person.
+>Incorporation prevents accountability; in the example someone gave about
+>a factory which leaks carcinogens, they pointed out that the EPA limits
+>liability, but that without it, the company would have incentive to NOT
+>pollute.  But as long as you have corporations, in which they can declare 
+>bankruptcy if too many people sue them, and in which the executives are 
+>not responsible, then Libertarian liability-accountability doesn't work.

	Well, I would like to hear what libs think of the following 
changes:

	1. Shareholders are directly liable for actions of the company.
	Shareholders will function as the "deep pockets" for corporations 
	who cannot meet their obligations.  Shareholders who, for example
	held the stock for any period of time while a company was
	polluting (for example) a river, would be liable.....not just
	the "current" set of shareholders.

	2. For all companies, public or private, there is no such thing
	as limited liability for owners, officers or directors.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Gillespi & Saddam
From: mpye@vmsb.is.csupomona.edu
Date: 14 Apr 92 05:57:17 PST
Organization: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
Nntp-Posting-User: mpye

Does anyone happen to have the text of the meeting between Ambassador
Gillespi(sp?) and Saddam in July 1990?  I used to have it, but can't
find it now.  Or perhaps point me in the right direction?

Thanks!

---
Michael Pye
email: mpye@csupomona.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 17:24:49 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.071317.19709@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
c9e-am@danube.Berkeley.EDU (William F. Tell) writes:
 
>In article <1992Apr12.205332.21357@kpc.com> emmett@kpc.com (Emmett Kilgariff) writes:
>
>>
>>What is Bush's economic program? From where I sit, it looks like this:
>>	1) Keep interest rates low.
>>	2) Reduce Capital Gains.
>>	3) War endlessly with congress  so #2 never happens.
>>
>>Is there more to his plan than this?
>
>Perhaps it is Congress that should get down to business.  Bush gave his
>state of the Union address back in January.  He set the March 20 deadline..
>well, where has the Congress been?
>
>William F. Tell
>
Bush set an arbitrary deadline for Congress to pass his previously
rejected ideas....not a good way to get along with a co-equal branch of
government.
 
Bush as no right or authority to set such deadlines, and Congress has
no obligation to respect them.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger)
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Reply-To: pmetzger@shearson.com
Organization: Lehman Brothers
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:59:58 GMT

In article <1992Apr6.182713.26556@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:

   There's also a fair amount of Libertarian
   Utopianism going on.

Just to be clear, Libertarians don't claim our system would be
anything near utopia; just better than the alternatives.

Utopia is not an option. Things will be imperfect in a libertarian
system. Injustices will occur. Our only argument is that things will
be better than in any known alternative.

--
Perry Metzger		pmetzger@shearson.com
--
"That government is best which governs least."
		-- Thomas Jefferson, former US President and early libertarian.
Restore the American Dream: Andre Marrou for President! Vote Libertarian!
Libertarian Party info: Phone 1-800-682-1776, E-Mail 345-5647@mcimail.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Flat Tax lowers taxes on poor
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: usa
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 1992 05:45:10 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.170022.14356@Csli.Stanford.EDU>, dmr@roadkill.Stanford.EDU (Daniel M. Rosenberg) writes:
|> weverka@csn.org (Robert T. Weverka) writes:
|> 
|> >Why has the call for a flat tax rate been taken up by liberals?
|> 
|> >The reason we find some liberals against flat tax and some conservatives for
|> >flat tax, is that they don't realize that the current system is regressive.  The
|> 
|> Whether or not the current system is regressive, I think it's guaranteed the
|> Brown flat tax proposal will be even *more* regressive. See below...

*sigh*  I don't like Brown particularly, but if we could get just _one_
misconception less in the universe this will be worth it.

|> Brown's flat tax proposal includes a value-added tax. That means that
|> lower-income consumers -- who spend most of their disposable income
|> instead of investing it by necessity on things like food and clothes --
|> will be taxed on all of it. Meanwhile, the rich get to avoid the value-added
|> tax on the money they don't save.

The flat tax would replace the current 35% income tax for corporations--which
gets passed on now.  VAT's arn't necessarily the evil of the universe if
they replace an even higher tax rate!

|> The lower income folks would get *reamed* under this scheme, I think.

Well, I'm a low-income grad student and I feel pretty *reamed* as it is.
From: strat@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (Steve Davis)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Perot, Clinton, OR Bush?
Date: 11 Apr 1992 22:32:16 -0500
Organization: Kansas State University
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: matt.ksu.ksu.edu

pat@chinet.chi.il.us (Patrick Louis Sugent) writes:

>  I even agree that Perot defintely bears looking into.  I think I disagree
>that "Perot doesn't want to run for president".  I suspect that it is a likely
>"campaign stunt" (am I too cynical?)

The actual quotation is:  "I don't want to do this and if I ever had to
do it, I would only do it as a servant of the American people.  I would
not compromise or sell out or make deals with anybody or anything."
This was in his conclusion to the national press club.  A "campaign
stunt"?  For one thing, he isn't officially running yet.

>  Trouble with Perot is that, unlike Clinton and Bush, he can say anything
>and we have to "trust" that he isn't just telling us what we want to hear.
>With Bush and Clinton, we can look at their record and say "well that
>isn't consistent." (Too skeptical again? Perhaps, perhaps not.)

Perot has a record.  He has been in the public eye all his life.  You
can look at his dealings in Texas, with Iran, in his business with
companies you might have heard of... IBM, GM.  It's not like he is
walking in from a dark void and saying "Oh by the way, you've never
heard of me, but I expect you to vote for me on what I have said since
I decided I'd like to be President."

>  The editorials I've seen so far (Economist and Chicago Tribune) aren't
>particularly favorable.

The articles that I have seen are split about fifty-fifty between those
that encourage us all to rush out and vote for him sight-unseen, and
the Monitor op-ed that flamed him to crisps...  Unfortunately, media is
nothing but gossip.  The only things I've learned about him are through
longer pieces, discussions here, C-Span, and listening to his
speeches.

Stratocaster

-- 
  Steve Davis  |    Contact me at ...            | The Boarding House BBS!
               | Internet:  strat@cis.ksu.edu    | 9600 baud (v.32/v.42)
               | FidoNet:    Steve @ 1:295/3     | America: 913-827-0744
   *** What shall we use to fill the empty places where we used to talk? ***
From: MCMASTER@LSTC2VM.stortek.com (Jim McMaster)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: The Democratic Candidates: New Yorkers' Opinions
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:16:04 GMT
Organization: StorageTek SW Engineering

In article <1992Apr8.140932.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) writes:
 
>In article <1992Apr7.234954.27482@igor.tamri.com>, donb@igor.tamri.com (Don Baldwin) writes:
>> In article <1992Apr6.201207.1@violet.ccit.arizona.edu>
>> f67709317@violet.ccit.arizona.edu (Greg Franklin) quotes from the NY Times:
>>>  WHY THEY'RE FOR NONE OF THE ABOVE...
>>>
>>>  * None of the candidates will lead to true reform
>>>  * All of the candidates have character deficits, be it scandal or flakiness
>>>       or not enough gumption to take command
>>
>> Of course, EVERYBODY has character defects.
>>
>> Do you really think people are expecting to find people who don't??
>
>Well, yes, I do.  Some voters are looking for JFK all over again....
>
>We know (i.e., we were told) that Dan Quayle is no Jack Kennedy.
>
>Sometime, somewhere, somebody will say to Bill Clinton, "Bill, you're
>no Jack Kennedy" in attempting to dismiss him.
>
>For better or worse, he is the standard against which all political
>aspirants are compared.  That is why voters consider modern candidates
>a collection of evils, not a collection of goods.  That's the way it is.
>--
>Greg Franklin                             "Death is everywhere,
>f67709317@ccit.arizona.edu          there are fries on the windscreen."
 
But even Kennedy was an adulterer, and had other character flaws as
well.  He has been canonized since his assassination, but even John
Kennedy was no John Kennedy.
 
For better or for worse, Bill Clinton is the Democratic nominee this
year.  Now we all have to decide if he is better than Bush.  I
personally think he is.
 
Jim McMaster
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: bjmccall@cco.caltech.edu (Benjamin John McCall)
Subject: PEROT mailing list!!!
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Distribution: world, local
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 01:44:10 GMT

Announcing the availability of a mailing list for issues pertaining to
the candidacy of H. Ross Perot for President.

Views in support of and in opposition to Perot are encouraged, as is any
information about Perot (transcripts, etc.).

To subscribe, send mail to bjmccall@ugcs.caltech.edu with the word
SUBSCRIBE in the Subject: line.  To post, send mail to the same address
with the word POST in the Subject: line.

In addition, an ftp site now contains files pertinent to Perot.  The host
is cco.caltech.edu in directory /pub/bjmccall/Perot.  For help on how
to use ftp, finger ftp@ooo.caltech.edu.  If you do not have ftp access,
send mail to bjmccall@ugcs.caltech.edu with the words FILE REQUEST in the
Subject: line.

If you have any questions, feel free to mail me - I only ask that you
put the word QUESTION in your Subject: line.

Ben McCall
bjmccall@ugcs.caltech.edu
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: solman@athena.mit.edu (Jason W Solinsky)
Subject: Re: Regulations
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 11:16:37 GMT

In article <1992Apr11.022315.29066@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, egl1@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (Elizabeth G. Levy) writes:

|> Perhaps the original poster could have come up with better "freedom-
|> furthering" regulation.  However, the reply did show the usual
|> Libertarian lack of concern about people's health and safety.
|> 
|> May I point out that anti-trust regulation does increase competition.
|> Does freedom = competition?  There certainly would be more free choice
|> in goods and services for the consumer.  Though, of course, it reduces
|> the freedom of corporations from forming cartels, so I guess I just
|> must be wrong.

Freedom does not equal competition, the coexistence of freedom and limited
resources cause competition. Freedom is being able to do whatever you want to.
Obviously, complete freedom for one individual results in the taking away of
the freedom of other individuals. Laws should only be made when there exists an
action that a person can take which would limit the freedom of another person,
and there is avenue through which the wronged party can pursue just compensation.

To site the three examples given in the last two posts:

  If we had no anti-trust laws, I could do everything I can do now. Companies
  would have more freedom.

  If we had no worker safety codes, workers would be able to do everything that
  they are able to do now. Employers would have more freedom.

  If we had no health codes in restaurants, I would still be able to do everything
  I can do now. The restaurant owners and would have more freedom.

People keep on mentioning death as taking away from freedom. DEATH IS PART OF
FREEDOM. If I put you in a cage and fed you meals, you wouldn't have to worry
about death, but you would lack all freedom. Death is a natural thing. The more
choices you make in life, the more chances you will have to make a decision that
leads to your death. You can take away people's ability to decide, to give them a
better chance at staying alive, but I don't think that you should have the right
to take away that choice. I think that THEY should choose wether or not to take
risks.

Jason W. Solinsky
From: smithw@sage.cc.purdue.edu (Billiam)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: Why Vote for Bush?
Date: 6 Apr 92 22:32:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center

In article <1992Apr6.182713.26556@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> jhoskins@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (James M Hoskins) writes:
>
>George Bush will win the election.  I can identify his supporters among members
>of my family, co-workers, and acquaintances.  They are not very vocal on
>issues.  They are content, and content with Bush.  They will admit that he's 
>not the greatest president, but he is adequate, a known quantity, a good
>grandfather figure, stable...[ad nauseam].  These people will turn out in
>droves to reelect Bush.
>

    Just because your immediate family is in support of Bush doesn't mean
that he is going to win an election.  In the first place Bush has proven 
himself to be inadequate on most social issues.  He lacks any economic plan
as to the future of this country.  Those who are satisfied with this absolute
lack of leadership are the ones who need not be concerned (really wealthy 
people), and those who are Republican zombies following the whim of the party
wherever it leads them.  
 
    In the end, the winner will depend the economic situation of the country
at the time.   And of course whoever bothers to vote.  But the poles are
indicating Bush's approval rating dropping.  Bush is by no means a shoe in.

------
William T. Smith		smithw@sage.cc.purdue.edu
Computer Science
Purdue University
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
From: mss2@quads.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: A suggestion for presidential election reform
Date: 15 Apr 92 21:17:40 GMT
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

In article <DPASSAGE.92Apr15134137@eden.Berkeley.EDU> dpassage@eden.Berkeley.EDU (David Paschich) writes:
>In article <zw0t=5j@rpi.edu> goldm@sage4a.its.rpi.edu (Mitchell E. Gold) writes:
>
>   Do you mean to say that if the results turn up: 30% Libertarian,
>   27% Democrat, 27% Republican, 15% Perot, and 1% all others, the
>   Libertarian candidate would not win? If so, why wouldn't he?
>
>Because in the case of no candidate receiving a majority, the House
>decides from among the top 3 candidates.  This will almost certainly
>go to the Democrats, unless you expect the Libertarians to take more
>than 50% of the state delegations...

Or even if they do.  Because it's not the _next_ Congress which will
get to choose the President, but the current, Democratic majority
Republican minority Congress.  (While the notion of a Democratic
President with a Libertarian Congress is interesting, I'd take a bet
at any odds that it won't be seen during this decade, anyway.)

Mike
-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Never let your sense of morality prevent
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 you from doing what's right!"
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 --Mayor Salvor Hardin of Terminus
mss2@usite-next.uchicago.edu     Isaac Asimov, _Foundation_
From: thompson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Heidi Thompson)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections
Subject: Re: what does Clinton have to SAY?
Date: 13 Apr 92 14:53:31 GMT
Organization: University of Georgia, Athens

Again, we knock the "slick, contentless" TV news, but we imitate it every chance
we get when we say Clinton is all style and no substance. Bill Clinton has 
proven himself. If we repeat something enough times, we will begin to beleive 
it, and I beleive that is precisely the case with Mr. Clinton. Paul Tsongas and
Jerry Brown knew that they could take Clinton's appeal and turn it against him
by telling people that what glitters is _CERTAINLY_ not gold, and the newsboys
and gals picked it up because that's easier than reporting real news.