HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 6 Nov 92 16:42:27 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4eymoHu00iUxM8x25l
Organization: Heinz School, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 6-Nov-92 Trade War? by J Storrs
Hall@foglet.rut 
> Well, I'm surprized not to see some discussion of the "eminent trade
> war" (as CNN put it) here.  Does anybody know if champagne is
> considered white wine under the new tariffs?

The first salvo in the imminent and eminent trade wars is a tax on still
whites that does not include bubbly.  

And while I am on this subject I would like to note that all this is
covered by Von Mises, that it is another instance of silly meddling by
the govt. in our right to choose, that the current crop of politicians
are driving the country and indeed the world to imminent disaster, doom,
and destruction, that tax and spend liberals are the worst of the lot,
and that if you disagree with any of this, it only shows that you are
completely unschooled in economics and worthy only of the same contempt
that you profess to have for the culture of this great country, and
would do well to read von mises once again ....

cheers
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: dhall@trentu.ca (Derek Hall)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: Trent University Computer Services Department
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 20:04:00 GMT

In article <4eymoHu00iUxM8x25l@andrew.cmu.edu>, ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora) writes...
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 6-Nov-92 Trade War? by J Storrs
>Hall@foglet.rut 
>> Well, I'm surprized not to see some discussion of the "eminent trade
>> war" (as CNN put it) here.  Does anybody know if champagne is
>> considered white wine under the new tariffs?
> 
>The first salvo in the imminent and eminent trade wars is a tax on still
>whites that does not include bubbly.  
> 
>And while I am on this subject I would like to note that all this is
>covered by Von Mises, that it is another instance of silly meddling by
>the govt. in our right to choose, that the current crop of politicians
>are driving the country and indeed the world to imminent disaster, doom,
>and destruction, that tax and spend liberals are the worst of the lot,
>and that if you disagree with any of this, it only shows that you are
>completely unschooled in economics and worthy only of the same contempt
>that you profess to have for the culture of this great country, and
>would do well to read von mises once again ....

Excellent point.  It's astonishing how many people miss that bit in all 
those first year Economics texts about Von Mises' work comprising the sum 
total of all correct economics.  As we all know, a healthy science is one 
that permits no dissent.

-Derek
From: markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark t schmidt)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a swiss (was: german) standard of living!
Date: 8 Nov 92 06:23:29 GMT

In <1992Nov7.001002.5478@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

>Brett
>===============================================================================
>80s: 18 million new jobs, deficits down (%GNP), tax rates down, tax revenues up
>GNP up, inflation down, unemployment down, interest rates down, cold war won
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yes, trillions of dollars will buy a lot of jobs and allow taxes to
decrease for most everyone. it's just a deficit, right? leave it for
the younger generation.

now wait a second. i am the younger generation. _hey you bastards!
thanks for the trillion dollar gift!_

sorry, just venting.

mark.

(german standard of living? please...make it swiss.)
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Protectionism as investment
Date: 12 Nov 1992 02:54:50 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov12.001025.22299@beaver.cs.washington.edu>, pauld@cs.washington.edu writes:
> In article <1ds4heINNg1j@fido.asd.sgi.com> livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey) writes:
> >Now it's 1992, and there are less that 50,000 men employed
> >in British coal-mining, and some of these men were not even
> >born when the effort tp protect "existing" jobs started.
> >Taxpayer protection has created new unproductive jobs in an
> >uncompetitive industry.     What's more, there is still a
> >pressure group, headed by Arthur Scargill, the leader of
> >the Miners' Union, who want to "invest" yet more taxpayer
> >money in the industry, and the argument is still that we
> >should keep "existing" jobs around.
> 
> The British coal industry is faced with two specific problems:
> 
> 	- declining coal quality
> 	- more expensive extraction costs due to deeper	mines	

It has been facing these problems for the last forty years,
and they don't show any signs of going away.

> 
> Both of these can be largely attributed to the age of the industry.
> If you do the figures, you will find that in all likelihood, in
> approximately 10-15 years time, neither of these factors alone will
> impede the industry from being profitable, since most other nation's
> industries will be facing similar issues.

Most other countries *which* industries?   You are falling
prey to a fallacy which is being hotly promoted by the
British Miners' Union, namely that British Coal's
competition is overseas coal.

It's not, coal is just energy, and energy is obtainable
from more things than coal.    These other forms of energy
may, or may not, encounter rising extraction costs: we
simply don't know.   However, we have to imagine that by
some mechanism, the overall world energy cost is going to
rise to the current cost of British deep-mined coal, before
that coal can become economic.

Now that might happen.   The *cheapest* form of other energy
available worldwide might just rise to the price of British
coal.     And by then I just might have clear title to this
bridge I want to sell you.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 10:32:04 GMT

In article <markts.721352037@mcl> markts@mcl.ucsb.edu (mark.) writes:
>
> flat taxes for everyone. people and corporations.
> the 13% idea from jerry brown was the only
> good idea out of the democratic primaries.
>
> you think this lets the rich off the hook?
> check out how much the really rich actually
> pay in taxes now.
>
> flat taxes will benefit the middle class.


shouldn't people who use a service, pay for it?

Are the rich's children more expensive to educate in the same public
schools (vouchers are still better)?

Do the rich get sicker?  (ok, maybe all that Haagen-Dazs and Cognac and
imported cigars, BUT...) 

Do the rich actually use more services?

I guess I'm in favor of progressive tax systems:

- people who use progressively more services pay progressively more taxes!!!

I think the rich should pay more taxes in some areas: it costs more in 
policing to keep the rich at a comparative level of safety. After all,
they are more of a target. Rich people should probably pay more for
fire fighting: all those big houses take more firemen to put out
big fires when big houses catch on fire. (OK, perhaps I'm assuming
alot about crime patterns. But it does seem like there is more incentive
to rob and kidnap well off people)

Perhaps the rich and middle class should pay a certain amount to 
subsidize the health , education and welfare of the poor. You could
call it compassion, or you could call it self interest, since I think
it is cheaper to subsidize the poor, than have the poor turn into
violent, rioting, gang joining criminals who will  car-jack your
BMW or sell crack to your innocent middle-class teenagers.
(funny, sounds just like the USA)

Of course, off hand I don't know of any studies that prove this.
But it seems intuitive that there is a point where paying for more
police to suppress the poor, is not as cost effective as giving
the money to the poor for basic health and shelter, and so the children
of the poor get out of the poverty cycle. (spending more to hire that
1 more policeman, might not buy as much safety as spending the same 
amount worker training, you get the gist)

I think some attitudes towards the poor are more out of spite , than
out of economically rational arguments. (ie let the bums rot!, vs
give them a break, help them to get out of poverty)
>
>
> mark.


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: josh@Happy-Man.com (Joshua_Putnam)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Reply-To: Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 23:39:35 GMT

In <thompson.721675299@daphne.socsci.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu (T. Scott Thompson) writes:

>Why make artificial
>distinctions between dependencies that cross lines on a map and ones
>that don't?

>Taking your argument to its logical extreme, California should stop
>exporting food to the rest of the country.  And none of you would get
>any of those heart pace-makers that are manufactured here in
>Minneapolis.  Texas should keep whatever oil it has left for itself.
>And I should stop teaching, go home, and work in my garden.  My wife
>should quit her job at the local public hospital and concentrate on
>keeping our family well instead.

What's this artificial "family" distinction?  Shouldn't the
argument extend to the two of you working entirely on your
own, and let the kids fend for themselves?  If small is
beautiful, the only way to get smaller than that is killing
yourself to go from 1 to 0.  Families are awfully dependent
institutions, you know.
-- 
 Joshua_Putnam@happy-man.com    Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x102
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399  fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.  NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20: Send POSTAL addr: Solid-Value@happy-man.com
From: lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton Advisors
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:46:42 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:

>In article <1689DB722.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:
>>Does anyone know if Robert B. Reich at Harvard has an Internet address?
>>This guy's book, "The Work of Nations", is at odds with what Clinton has said
>>about what he'll do about the export of American jobs, yet Reich pops up
>>frequently as a talking head for Clinton's economic team.

>I would agree with you.  I think Robert Reich is much more "free-trade" than
>Clinton.  Of course, Clinton is a politician and needs to realize that some
>of the electorate aren't in favor of free-trade if they're losing jobs.

>Charlie

	Exactly... ANYTIME a policitcian says something and you don't think
they mean it because one of their close friends or associates is at odds -
you're probably right.

	Case in point - George Bush and abortion - his wife is pro-choice. Now
now, you can't honestly expect me to believe he goes to bed every night with 
a wife who "condones infancide." NO! When he waffled in abortion in 1980 so that
he could join Reagan, he didn't really change his mind!

	(anyone who wants to take this argument up post it in a different base)

	Bill Clinton is a Rhodes Scholar - you don't get that without some
economics education - and from the first econ class they beat you to death
with free trade. Clinton is just saying what he's saying because he wants to
empathize with out of work Americans. 

	AND what would you do? Tell them (labor unions, etc) to take economics
101? Well, that is your only option if you don't want to "waffle." - because
it takes an education to really understand why free trade is such a wonderful
and desireable thing.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison)
Subject: Re: Incarceration and the macro-economy (was: I want a GERMAN standard of living)
Organization: University of BC, Electrical Engineering
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 23:08:10 GMT

In article <BxGC30.ECA@NeoSoft.com> claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird) writes:
>
>One point that I've been mulling over lately is the extent
>to which US penologic practices depress productivity.  The
>crudest back-of-a-small-envelope scratchings suggest to me
>the secular trend which has given the US world leadership
>in imprisoning its own population has lowered economic
>productivity growth by about %0.1 / year.  My crude model
>assigns a null output to those in jail, and uses rough,
>rough estimates for the costs to maintain them there.  I
>take no account of demographics.

But have you factored in positives of putting people in prison?
Couldn't putting people (who deserve to be there!!) in prison
contribute to economic productivity?

Your model assigns null output to people in jail, but does it
assign negative output those people if they'd been let out 
(assuming that they repeat their offenses). Theft and fraud are
probably easier to estimate economically. Rape, murder, child abuse, assault
all diminish the productivity of the victims, both short term
while they are recovering from violent crime; and long term,
if psychological effects distress them for years later.
But these effects are trickier to estimate.

>
>I write "has lowered" in the sense of statistical regres-
>sion, rather than public policy.  At this point, I'm not
>arguing that we can gauge alternative trajectories re-
>alistically, only that estimating magnitudes might be
>instructive.
>
indeed. There are a lot of alternatives to consider, from preventing
crim with social and education spending, to cheaper rehab techniques
that reduce repeat offenders etc.

>-- 
>
>Cameron Laird
>claird@Neosoft.com (claird%Neosoft.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713 267 7966
>claird@litwin.com (claird%litwin.com@uunet.uu.net)  	+1 713 996 8546


-- 
__________________________________________________________________________
 John Paul Morrison                     |  
 University of British Columbia, Canada |  
 Electrical Engineering                 |   .sig file without a cause
 jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca              VE7JPM |  
________________________________________|_________________________________
From: josh@planchet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 7 Nov 92 21:37:45 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

ashish+@andrew.cmu.edu (Ashish Arora) writes:

->Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 6-Nov-92 Trade War? by J Storrs
->Hall@foglet.rut 
->> Well, I'm surprized not to see some discussion of the "eminent trade
->> war" (as CNN put it) here.  Does anybody know if champagne is
->> considered white wine under the new tariffs?

->The first salvo in the imminent and eminent trade wars is a tax on still
->whites that does not include bubbly.  

Good thing I didn't listen to you.  According to local wine merchants,
champagne IS included.
-j
Newsgroups: sci.econ,sci.anthropology
From: stcmille@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen C. Miller)
Subject: Re: Questions about the Economics of the Family
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:26:55 GMT

In article <3852@key.COM> rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
>One of the results of modern economic inquiry has been the evidence
>that family size tends to decrease as family income increases(at least
>up to some income point which is fairly high).
>

(eg: children become objects of consumption and not investment)


>
>Something that has troubled me a bit about this analysis: the studies I
>seen do not take into account the growing tendency for wealthier men in 
>America to get married multiple times. My current sense is that wealth
>tends to have a positive effect on men's fertility and a negative effect
>on women's fertility. 

Nice idea.

>
>Does anyone have any references to some good studies that they could share
>on this area?
>
I know that it is often remarked that men generally have a higher
desired fertility than women - chekc the World Fertility Survey data or
DHS survey data for confirmation of this.

Perhaps Becker has addressed this question?  In general it is a question
that sociologists or even economists would tend to address before
anthropologists.

-- 
--------------------
=
(former grad star turned rock student)
Steve Miller	 		    stcmille@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Organization: Indiana University
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 16:11:16 GMT

>|Note well that truth is not a majoritarian issue.  Indeed, the
>|inference 'Many people believe X is false --> X is false' is
>|clearly invalid.  It is the truth (or falsity) of libertarian ideas which 
>|must be debated, not the popularity.
>
>No, since the objection that libertarians have to other ideologies is
>that they may work in theory, but in reality it "leads to" socialism
>and so on. 

This is hardly the libertarian objection to other political theories.
Who told you this?

--Jimbo
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mjones@bk-kgnaix11.aix.kingston.ibm.com (Mike Jones)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: American Culture and Why "Intellectuals" Hate It with Passion
Date: 5 Nov 92 16:51:17 GMT
Reply-To: mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com
Organization: IBM, Kingston NY


In article <Bx32r9.MKM@quake.sylmar.ca.us>, brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
| In article <jyc.720463373@Leland> jyc@leo.Stanford.EDU (Jon Corelis) writes:
| >ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
| 
| >>Often, American culture is derided by the so-called "intellectuals".
| >>(And by that, I do not mean the traditional definition of those who
| >>use their intellect to make a living as, in a increasingly service
| >>economy, there are today few people today who would not fit into that
| >>category but, rather, people who fancy themselves as in some way
| >>gifted to impose their views upon the rest of us, to save us from
| >>ourselves.)
| 
| >   I would like to point out that according to this definition America's
| >leading intellectuals are Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Dan Quayle, Pat
| >Robertson, Pat Buchanan, and Jesse Helms. 
| 
| I find it curious that you mention those guys while ignoring those on the
| other side who seek to impose their views on us on principle.

Care to post a comparable list? I actually can't think of anyone on the left
who has the "legitimacy" (e.g., is covered regularly in mainstream papers)
and political clout of, say, Robertson or Helms and has nearly as repressive
an agenda on the left.

|                                                                I certainly 
| wouldn't defend the guys on your list as advocates of freedom (particularly
| not Robertson) but they at least CLAIM to be opposed to government 
| meddling and actually propose less of it than their political opponents.

In economics. If you're a "good American".

| I should also add that the kinds of restrictions your black-list guys 
| would like to impose have not been successfully implemented (eg. anti-porn
| laws, religious laws, sex, etc.) whereas the other guys have their hands in my
| pocket and their eyes looking over my shoulder every day in every aspect of
| my life.

Tell it to any bookstore owner who's been shut down. Any gallery owner who's
had to defend his right to show Mapplethorpe photos in court. Any Native
American who's lost his job for taking peyote. Anyone who's been subject to
any of the various "anti-sodomy" laws. 
  
   Mike Jones  |  AIX/ESA Development  |  mjones@donald.aix.kingston.ibm.com

Everyone can be taught to sculpt:  Michelangelo would have had to be taught
how *not* to.  So it is with the great programmers.
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:58:24 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Nov9.201244.10258@nntp.hut.fi> v37262d@kaira.hut.fi (Mancko H|glund) writes:



|>US government is obviously just flexing their muscles, telling everyone
|>that if you do not follow me - I will do my best to break you. According
|>to resent information the European Community will not match the taxes,
|>but tries to reach an agreement through negotiations before the tax hikes
|>come into effect in December.

I suppose the fact that an arbitration board (sorry I can't remember the
name) has twice ruled against France is irrelevant to you.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: Bruce.Scott@launchpad.unc.edu (Bruce Scott)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 21:31:35 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.211627.13181@beaver.cs.washington.edu> pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis) writes:

>You might like to consider a vaguely analagous situation in the US.
>Suppose that Iowans want subsidies, but Vermonters don't ? The federal
>government gets to impose the will of other states on the dissenters,
>in many cases, expecially those involving export.

Lest we forget, the Civil War was fought over just this issue. Slavery
was only a cover both sides used to make them more accessible to their
respective masses. Behind it all was the impasse between the Southern
states, who wanted tariffs and subsidies to protect their cotton-based
(tobacco, too, or was that only later?) cash-crop economy, and the
Northern states, whose emerging industry needed primary products to be
as cheap as possible and cared less about their origin (they did in fact
protect industry, however).

Gruss,                                  The deadliest bullshit is
Bruce D. Scott                           odorless and transparent
bds@spl6n1.aug.ipp-garching.mpg.de                 -- W Gibson
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:48:22 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <BxIKtG.5A1@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:

|>>Unfortunately, reducing military expenditures will also increase unemployment
|>>--both in military forces and in defense industries.

|>   Right.  We know this.   What does it have to do with the topic at
|>   hand?

Higher unemployment usually causes those who believe in protectionism to
scream louder.  Higher unemployment generally increases the protectionist
tendencies of our government.

-- 
Mob rule doesn't become any prettier, just because the mob start to call itself
a government.
It ain't charity if you are using someone else's money.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ