HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 17:20:13 GMT

From article <1992Aug16.204251.29075@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, by n8640664@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Richard Nixon):
> ......   If you remember correctly, the libertarian view is that
> the only legitimate purpose of government is to control/punish the very
> fraud you speak of above, along with the control of violence/property
> crimes, etc.

Well, does that include implicit misrepresentation of consumer
products, dispersal of pollutants into the commons without
compensation to the public, takebacks of retirement benefits under
cover of fine print, etc.?

Be assured that the present government safeguards against those
fraudulent and effectively criminal practices are woefully
inadequate.  If you want to prevent them, some agencies of the
government will have to be made much larger, and will have be be much
more intrusive into private business, than they are today.

What I am saying is that all this Libertarian fluff about minimizing
government is totally incompatible with the basically liberal aim of
preventing fraud against the public, and you Libertarians are going to
have to decide to tell us which you really mean.

> It is possible, Mr. Tolman, that the source of your mistatements is
> your own imagination, and that rather than a intentional lying problem, 
> you merely have an unitentional 'imagination' problem, one of filling 
> in the gaps in what you know with fantasy images and scenerios.

Well, then, let's have the gaps filled in by a Libertarian, so we
don't have to use our imaginations.  We have seen what Republicans
mean by reducing government and getting government off people's
backs.  It means letting business have free rein to rip off the
public.  It's hard to imagine that Libertarians mean anything
different by the same slogans, but I'm willing to listen.

							Marty
marty@hoqaa.att.com		hoqaa!marty
Martin B. Brilliant		(Winnertech Corporation)	
Newsgroups: sci.econ,talk.politics.misc
From: rja@redwood26.cray.com (Russ Anderson)
Subject: Republican Controlled Congress
Originator: rja@redwood26
Organization: The 1991 World Champion Minnesota Twins!
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:46:22 CDT


From 1981 thru 1986 the Republicans controlled the White House, Senate, and
had a working majority (along with conservative Democrats) in the House of Reps.

In billions (%GNP):
year  GNP     receipts     outlays        deficit     N Debt     admin
====  ====    ==========   ===========   =========   ======     ======
1980  2674    517 (19.3)    591 (22.1)    74 (2.8)    908(33.9) Carter
1981  2986    599 (20.1)    678 (22.7)*   79 (2.6)    998(33.4) Reagan
1982  3130    618 (19.7)    745 (23.8)*  127 (4.1)  1,142(36.5) Reagan
1983  3325    601 (18.1)    808 (24.3)*  207 (6.2)  1,377(41.4) Reagan
1984  3688    666 (18.1)    852 (23.1)*  185 (5.0)  1,572(42.6) Reagan
1985  3958    734 (18.5)    946 (23.9)*  212 (5.4)  1,823(46.1) Reagan
1986  4177    769 (18.4)    990 (23.7)*  221 (5.3)  2,125(50.9) Reagan
1987  4442    854 (19.2)   1004 (22.6)   150 (3.4)  2,350(52.9) Reagan
1988  4771    909 (19.1)   1064 (22.3)   155 (3.2)  2,602(54.5) Reagan
1989  5121    976 (19.1)   1137 (22.2)   161 (3.1)  2,857(55.8) Bush

* Republican controlled White House, Senate, & working majority in the House.

Notice how spending (%GNP) *increased* when the Republican's were in control.

-- 
Russ Anderson    |  Disclaimer: Any statements are my own and do not reflect
------------------              upon my employer or anyone else.  (c) 1992
EX-Twins' Jack Morris, 10 innings pitched, 0 runs (World Series MVP!)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: coppin@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Subject: Re: Comparative Advantage
Reply-To: coppin@argo.acs.oakland.edu
Organization: Oakland University, Rochester, MI
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 19:28:24 GMT

I find it hard to believe some of the comments I see on this subject of 
comparative advantage.  WHY do we need a manufacturing sector?  Maybe for
national security reasons...  Why else?  There is NO economic argument for
preserving same.  And why do services get a bad rap?  Education is one 
of our leading export services, and financial services, and increasingly
health services, and consulting services, and lots of other services.
It IS important that someone in the world manufacture the goods that we
need for living, but why should I care who makes them?

Services get a bad rap because folks immediately think of non-export-
oriented services, and politicians (some of them more than others) get
crazy in exercises in hyperbole to dramatize how our economy will go
to hell in a hand-basket if we are services-oriented.  Ferguson mentioned
the Bahamas (registered ships) in his post.  Sticking with the Bahamas,
I cannot think of any goods that the Bahamas exports (well, I could if I
searched the Bahamas export stats, but why?), yet the Bahamas is the 
richest country in the Caribbean (?) region,  per capita income $11,320
in 1989.  Just below UK, Australia and New Zealand (source: World Devel
opment Report, 1991).

One other point.  A couple of generations ago, when the farmer did his
own book-keeping, and taught his children (often farming rather than
physics), and IN GENERAL WAS SELF-SUFFICIENT, the GDP (then GNP in this
country) statistics showed a much higher proportion of activity as 
AGRICULTURE.  Since GDP (GNP) counts only ACTIVITY WHICH PASSES THROUGH
THE MARKET, i.e. for which money is exchanged, then a less market-orien
ted economy has (i) little that gets counted, even though there's a lot
going on, and (ii) an inherent bias toward primary agriculture and
manufacturing.  That it takes less than five percent of our labor force
to feed the entire nation reflects a lot of accumulated labor (physical
and mental) in the capital stock, and the diversity of activities that
have more recently passed through the market.

To make the point one last time, imagine what would happen if we could
finally agree to count HOUSEHOLD WORK in the GDP.  Not only would the
economy be made to look larger (sleight of hand), but everything that
now exists as part of that GDP pie IMMEDIATELY becomes a smaller piece
of that pie.

Such are the hazards of longitudinal stats in economics.  Reminds one
of Congress' budget balancing acts of the past few years.....
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.individualism
From: pcm@cs.brown.edu (Peter C. McCluskey)
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Organization: Brown Computer Science Dept.
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 14:38:37 GMT

In article <1992Aug17.172013.10835@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
|> From article <1992Aug16.204251.29075@henson.cc.wwu.edu>, by n8640664@henson.cc.wwu.edu (Richard Nixon):
|> > ......   If you remember correctly, the libertarian view is that
|> > the only legitimate purpose of government is to control/punish the very
|> > fraud you speak of above, along with the control of violence/property
|> > crimes, etc.
|> 
|> Well, does that include implicit misrepresentation of consumer
It certainly includes deliberate misrepresentation. It doesn't
include situations where the consumer could have figured out the
truth with a modest application of brainpower.
|> products, dispersal of pollutants into the commons without
Yes.
|> compensation to the public, takebacks of retirement benefits under
|> cover of fine print, etc.?
No. Libertarianism assumes that people are willing and able to read
contracts upon which they depend.
|> 
|> Be assured that the present government safeguards against those
|> fraudulent and effectively criminal practices are woefully
|> inadequate.  If you want to prevent them, some agencies of the
|> government will have to be made much larger, and will have be be much
|> more intrusive into private business, than they are today.
|> 
|> What I am saying is that all this Libertarian fluff about minimizing
|> government is totally incompatible with the basically liberal aim of
|> preventing fraud against the public, and you Libertarians are going to
|> have to decide to tell us which you really mean.

Most of the disputes that you are talking about are disagreements
between 2 entities, which can be handled by private arbitration boards
using traditional contract law principles. Competing judicial systems
will make justice faster and less expensive, thereby making it easier
for the average consumer to sue for fraud.
Pollution is one case where you might have a point about more
government being needed, although there are many ways in which
the libertarian solution is less statist than current policies.
First, libertarians want to turn commons into property wherever
possible, so that contract law could be used. Where the commons
is unavoidable, the government would presumably have the following
roles under the libertarian solution:
1. determine the quantities of pollution emitted by each pollutor.
2. determine the amount of harm done.
3. determine whom the compensation should be paid to.
This solution avoids much of the statism involved in deciding what
pollution technologies are practical, which polluters made socially
valuable products, etc.
-- 
         hardcore signature virus: "As a juror in a Trial by Jury, 
         you have the right, power and duty to acquit the defendant 
                 if you judge the law itself to be unjust."
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 13 Aug 92 14:44:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1992Aug11.151010.18532@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:

>>But if a "Business Owner" can do all these nasty things, what makes you
>>think your local regulator doesn't do them?

>Because there is investigation into them as well.  As long as you have two
>opposed regulation agencies, they will watch each other for problems.
>In our system, one of those regulation agencies is the media- but that is
>not a sufficient protection alone against business.

This makes a lot of sense, the media will be able to investigate injustices
within a regulatory agency, but it will fail when investigating a business.

Please offer some proof of this assertion.

-- 
--Mark
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Date: 21 Aug 92 17:25:56 GMT
 <1992Aug18.135550.3571@desire.wright.edu> <52203@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <52203@dime.cs.umass.edu>, yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
> In article <1992Aug18.135550.3571@desire.wright.edu> exit writes:
>>> Right, but what kind of jobs? Everything I've read on this topic suggests
>>> that the 80's saw a process in which high-wage skilled labor was replaced
>>> by low-wage unskilled labor: replacing 400K industrial skilled labor
>>> jobs with 500K burger flipping jobs is a massive net loss to the economy.
>>
>>	Not true.  During the Reagan years, the number of jobs paying less than
>>$10/hour decreased 25% while the number of jobs paying more than $10/hour
>>increased 67%.  [USA Today, Op-ed piece, Monday, August 17th]
> 
> Boston Globe reports today that real-wages have been declining since 1972

	Sure.  Inflation does that :).

	The point is/was that most of the jobs were not burger-flipping type
jobs (unless McDonalds pays a lot more than they used to :).

	Whether a $10/hour job buys as much as it used to is a whole 'nother
argument.

Brett                                                      
_______________________________________________________________________________
Proconsul Computer Consulting                                        CHA-CHING!
Better, Cheaper, Faster					       (Pick any two :)
Disclaimer:								   NOT!
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 21 Aug 92 11:38:46 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


  steve@thor.isc-br.com (steve Hendricks) writes:
:
: In short, most libertarians outgrow it. :-)

 Funny, I don't think that Thomas Jefferson ever did....


Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: STUDY: NAFTA TO CAUSE U.S. JOB, INCOME LOSS
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
	<1992Aug14.164722.1361@tandem.com> <51901@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 13:34:52 GMT

w.r.t.
>B) The "science" of economics is a highly ideological one, and until
>someone demonstates that his/her econoic theories are verifiable by
>independent experiment, polls tell us only what ideology funders favor.

IMHO, you cannot conduct physics-style experiments in economics,
BECAUSE, you can not hold all-other-things-equal.  
Heck you can't even know much less count all the other things
which could effect the results of your experiment.

At best, economics can make plausible arguments and explanations.
Admittedly some arguments are more realistic than others, i.e., they
make more realistic assumptions and leave out fewer considerations.

But Economics is NOT Physics.

	DEATH TO PHYSICS ENVY
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Regional currencies
From: dsims@leo.ece.uc.edu (David Lyle Sims)
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1992 19:35:23 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Cincinnati

I just found out about a group in Ithica, New York that prints and
distributes its own currency.  This currency, called "Ithica HOURS," is
apparently being used to "decrease the dependence on dollars" and "promote
the local economy."  (paraphrases taken from "Ithica Money," the newspaper
promoting Ithica HOURS)

The August-September '92 issue of "Ithica Money" basically claimed that
evil multi-national corporations are controlling communities with their
dollars.  Hence, by using a currency independent of dollars, local
communities can free themselves of the tyranny of these evil corporations
(the polluters, discriminators, exploiters, etc)

Would someone care to comment on regional currencies such as Ithica HOURS
and provide some more general information?

I recall that way-back-when banks actually issued their own currency.  Is
this practice still legal, feasible, or useful?
-- 
David Lyle Sims                 Dept. of Electrical and Computer Engineering
dsims@thor.ece.uc.edu           University of Cincinnati
(513) 556-2499                  Cincinnati OH  45221-0030
                                USA
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 19 Aug 92 04:13:50 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <Aug.18.21.55.30.1992.7744@foglet.rutgers.edu> josh@foglet.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Aug18.133518.3570@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
>...
>>>	Milton Friedman, economically.
>
>>The favorite economist of Gen. Pinochet and like minded great leaders the
>>world over.
>
>I believe that this remark gives us a great insight into the thought
>processes of Mr. Yodaiken.  It is certainly the clearest example of a
>recursive ad hominem I've ever seen.  We should not believe libertarian
>ideas, because Friedman espouses them.  What's wrong with Friedman?
>Pinochet likes him.

Try again. It's not that Gen. Pinochet has a soft spot in his evil
heart for Milt, it's that Milt and his boys were willing to run down
to Chile to help organize freedom while before the blood was washed
off the streets and while the torture chambers were in full swing.
The alacrity with which the Chicago school boyz took jobs for a
military dictatoship that had just shot the elected president should
provide some insight into what Milt means by "freedom".
"Free to choose" indeed.

>Keep up the good work, Victor.

Thanks.


>
>-j


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 12 Aug 92 19:28:22 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug11.163527.22273@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>>> Libertarians fantasize that as soon as one becomes a business owner,
>>> one is by definition holy, saintlike, etc.
>
>SAY WHAT?  There are so many businesses now successfully ripping off millions
>of people in scams it is unbelievable.  Not every consumer has the omniscient
>eyes of God at their disposal.  I myself- a well informed consumer- have
>been ripped off a few times from corrupt businesses.  I don't know what world

Let's see, what have been the biggest ripoffs I have experienced:
	1. first wife, stealing everything and using the court system.
	2. former best friend, sleazy bankruptcy.
	3. LAPD - response to crank call, threat with gun, handcuffed, then
	  beat up, threatened phoney charges.  Had to pay for lawyer.
	  They were lying, but no refunds or complaints possible.
	 (LAPD also caused LA riot.  $1B damage, not refundable.)
	4. Nasty takeover of a co-op by Derek Shearer, Tom Hayden, etc., in
	   their bid to take control of City of Santa Monica caused a 
	   significant loss.
	5. Hassled by IRS for some forms I couldn't get.  After 3 years they
	   subpoenaed them.  Proved they owed me refund, as I had said.
	   Sorry, no refunds after 3 years.

Courts, easy bankruptcy , police dept., corrupt politicians, IRS.
What do those have in common? (hint: select business or government)

The phoney bills, get rich quick schemes, inflated auto repair estimates, etc.,
start around number 20.  Most can be avoided with a little common sense,
wariness, and remembering TINSTAAFL.  Government ripoffs come without
warning, can take everything you have, and are backed by force.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarians live in Virtual Reality
Date: 19 Aug 92 02:39:51 GMT
Article-I.D.: hacgate.22948
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Aug16.164130.11590@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
>From article <1073@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, by mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson):
>> In <1992Aug11.151010.18532@hellgate.utah.edu> tolman%asylum.cs.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Kenneth Tolman) writes:
>>>.....  As long as you have two
>>>opposed regulation agencies, they will watch each other for problems.
>>>In our system, one of those regulation agencies is the media- but that is
>>>not a sufficient protection alone against business.
>> Please offer some proof of this assertion.
>I couldn't resist the urge to respond, because the answer is so easy.
 
>Private business is by definition private, and can not be compelled to
>submit to public scrutiny except by edict of government.  If the press
>were to try to scrutinize it, it would be one private business trying
>to regulate another.
>
>So we keep it clean.  Government is supposed to be a public agency of
>regulation, which is itself regulated by the people.  The press is a
>general agent of scrutiny which, for a price, will pry into anything
>that appears remotely public, especially government.  I suggest we
>strengthen that system, not give up on it.

Are you proposing that the press should be prohibited from investigating
business fraud?

Would that increase or reduce the price of buying politicians and bureaucrats?

As to the original assertion, here is a comparison of business and 
government:

"Hello, I am your friendly sleazy businesscritter.  I have a great opportunity
to offer you today only.  For a mere $20,000 payable by cashier's check
today, you can have a 20% interest in this bridge in New York."

"Hello, I am The Law.  You have been accused of
hiding income from  20% of a bridge in New York.  You will put up $20,000 in
bail and hire a lawyer or rot in prison.  Meanwhile we are confiscating
everything you own."

You can walk away from one.  Guess which.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
What is the world's largest government subsidy to agriculture,
terrorism, speedboat manufacturing, organized crime, and prison
construction?
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Simplistic Analysis usually yields false conclusions (was Liber...)
Summary: Wow! What a Comeback
Date: 21 Aug 92 18:50:13 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <1992Aug21.014111.3670@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:

            [52 lines of quoted material deleted]
>
>	Just as I thought.  Vaporware.
>
>Brett                                                      

I'm impressed.  Is this an example of...
(a) cogent analysis that furthers discussion?
(b) a telling zinger?
(c) a waste of bandwith to quote the entire previous discussion?
(d) all you could think of to say?

Steve
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
From: root@lyra.scg.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Call for ideas to survive economic chaos
Date: 14 Aug 92 18:45:04 GMT
Reply-To: fisher@lyra.hac.com (Dave Fisher)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., Carlsbad, CA

I've notice that the soothsayers have started picking up steam on
their predictions of economic doom.  I'm not ready to panic, but
considering that major economic chaos could occur in our lifetimes,
I wonder if people would like to post some ideas for preparation for
economic survival during a Major Depression?

One source of ideas, I suppose, would be to consider the wisdom of those
who survived the last great depression.

Here are the ideas I have so far:  
  1. Buy a trailer.  If times are good, it's an RV, if times get very rough
     one can live in it.
  2. Buy some items of "relatively intrinsic" value as a hedge against
     hyperinflation: precious metals, tools, guns, a computer, etc..
  3. Develop some kind of small income source, as an alternative to a
     regular job.
  4. Get a job in a depression-proff industry; entertainment, necessities,
     health-care, etc.
  5. Diversify in job skills.
  6. Invest in foreign currency?

Dave
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: whitlock@vaxb.gbus.virginia.edu (Reid E. Whitlock)
Subject: DEBT vs. DEFICIT
Organization: Darden Center, University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 21:36:59 GMT

Can someone explain to me the difference between the U.S. "national debt" 
and the "budget deficit". If I use the analogy of a checkbook, I understand 
the deficit to be the difference between making a deposit of my salary check 
into my checking account, then writing checks for my daily expenses. The 
parallel is the revenue put in the treasury from tax, tariff and other 
collections, that is later spent for entitlements, social programs, disaster 
relief, the overhead of running the government, defense procurement, etc... 
O.K. at the end of the year, more goes out than has come in. That's the 
deficit, right ? Then is the debt simply the accumulated deficit? If there 
were ever a budget surplus, would it automatically be used to pay down the 
debt? 

Help!!
Newsgroups: sci.econ