HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iccsap020@spacm1.spac.spc.com (David Cohen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:28:13 GMT
Organization: Security Pacific Automation Co., LA, CA

In article <1992Apr07.145312.24509@watson.ibm.com>, platt@watson.ibm.com (Daniel E. Platt) writes:
> Don't like the sound of 'ends justifying the means?'  From a logical standpoint,
> any effective means to get a job done should produce the desired end, or else
> the means will be unjustified.  However, I would go a step further and say that
> some of the 'ends' that the means must satisfy are that people's rights have not
> been violated along the way.  If one disregards some of the ends in order to
> justify other ends, then one hasn't really computed the cost correctly (I've
> seen lots of managers underplay some elements of costs to justify a project they
> think was 'worth while').  In that context, I don't think there's any problem
> with the idea that the 'ends justify the means' except that one must look at ALL
> the 'ends.'
> 
> Dan

This is very similar to the way Milton Friedman put it (can't think of the
source off-hand): One of our ends is not to use bad means.

David
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 13 Apr 92 11:34:02 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute

And let us not forget some of the other utopian movements,

	Stalin @ ~40 million dead
	Mao    @ ~60 million dead
	Pol Pol @ ~20% dead

Being unpopular or utopian does not confer correctness.
Xref: sparky sci.econ:3586 alt.individualism:2300
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Newsgroups: sci.econ,alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Why competition ? Please justify economically....
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:18:25 GMT
Article-I.D.: cancun.rdippold.702587905
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA

ecwdb@wombat.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>In article <rdippold.702331460@qualcom>, rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:
>> ecwdb@wombat.newcastle.edu.au writes:
>>>	I ask again: What is the ECONOMIC justification for regarding
>>>competition to be superior to a mixed economy?
>> 
>> Incentive.  Companies have to be competitive.  Government doesn't.

>	SO.........?

So companies have an incentive to perform in a superior fashion.
Governments don't.  They have incentives to perform in an inferior fashion.

>>--
>> You're doing a whole lot of good here. Why don't you just lapse into a coma?

>	Considering the energy required to come up with such a comprehensive
>and devastating critique, you're not so far away from a coma (or indeed perhaps
>brain death) yourself.

It's a random quote mod (see the little .sig marks?) .  If you wish to
be offended by it, I'll send it to you and you can spend all day
running it and being offended.
-- 
I see a good deal of talk from Washington about lowering taxes.  I hope they do
get 'em lowered down enough so people can afford to pay 'em. -- Will Rogers
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 7 Apr 92 19:32:08 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <9204071252.AA24637@xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM writes:
>
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
>>>  No concrete instances of a society structured along lines 
>>>  consistent with the variety of Marxism espoused by Mr.
>>>  Langer have been shown to exist in a stable form.   And
>>>  I claim that economics is not a sufficiently rigorous science
>>>  (in the sense of being able to create nontrivial theoretical
>>>  models with reliable predictive power) to tell us WHAT the
>>>  characteristics of a marxist society might be.   So it comes
>>>  down to the same "cars -vs- magic carpets" arguments we were
>>>  having on libertarianism.
>>
>>
>>By this logic, the American Revolution, the labor movement, and the
>>invention of electric lightbulbs were all intellectually dishonest.
>>Proposals for change have to be evaluated on their own merits, on their
>>logical consistency, and on extraplations from the current reality. 
>
>
>  "Logical consistency" requires a set of formal knowledge to which to
>  apply rules of logic.  Such knowledge exists in rigorous form in, 
>  say, mathematics, or in physics and chemistry.   But not in economics.

Not true. Much of  mathematics is far from rigorous and relies on intuition.
What can be formalized is rather trivial. And mathematics deals with something 
a lot simpler than human society.

>  What can Mr. Yodaiken possibly mean by evaluating proposals for change
>  "on their own merits" ?  How does he propose that we determine what 
>  those merits might be?   I say, as I did above, that there are only
>  two intellectually honest methods:  develop a concrete instance, or
>  demonstrate that economics has sufficient rigor on which to base an 
>  abstract model.

Let's apply your argument to the American revolution. How many working models of
republics were in existence in 1776? How rigorous was the development of the science
of government? Well, the answers are obvious, so, by your logic Jefferson, Adams,
and Paine were intellectually dishonest for proposing such a radical new system.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Xref: sparky sci.econ:3808 misc.taxes:2290
From: jwh@citi.umich.edu (Jim Howe)
Subject: Re: So what's your alternative to Social Security?
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 92 13:34:44 EDT
Organization: IFS Project, University of Michigan
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: jwh@citi.umich.edu

|>In article <8863@alvin.mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
|>>In article <7c2j02AtbdxC00@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> fierro@uts.amdahl.com (Doug Fierro) writes:
|>>>  Since Social Security is meant to provide assistance to people when they
|>>>retire, why not just mandate some sort of contribution plan where individual
|>>>contributions would be on behalf of that person only, not a big pool of
|>>>revenue to be re-distributed.  It would be called Individual Security, 
|>>
|>>This money has to be invested by the government; if an individual has
|>>loaded up on Eastern Airlines, then we are going to bail him out -
|>>that's the whole idea behind this to start with. If the gov is covering
|>>the mistakes, it must be in charge, or wild speculation will ensue.
|> 
|>  I thought I said in the original posting that the Govt. would indeed
|>control such investment for individual retirees; in fact I'm sure I said
|>that because I said that this program would ensure that the Govt. could 
|>still finance its debt.
|> 

While I would agree that your 'Individual Security' plan would be better
than what we have now I think it would only be marginally better.
I don't have much of a problem with a government mandate for people
to contribute to a retirement plan.  I strongly disagree with the notion
that the government should control where that investment should go.
In the first place, the government should not be in a position to
require people to fund its deficit spending.  Under current SS, and
under your IS plan, this is exactly what happens.  An investor should
be free to invest in any plan that meets his needs.  I believe most
people would be conservative in their investments simply because
they wouldn't want to end up being wards of the state.

|>  I agree that only safe investments should me made in such a retirement
|>plan, and Govt. securities are about as safe as them come...

As I stated above, I believe that a person should be free to invest
in whatever they want.  The prudent thing to do is to invest in
higher risk, growth oriented investments when you are younger and
gradually shift capital to more conservative investments as you
near retirement.  The government can't possibly know what is best
for all the people that would be covered by the plan, and they
shouldn't try.


James W. Howe                  internet: jwh@citi.umich.edu
University of Michigan             uucp: uunet!mailrus!citi.umich.edu!jwh
Ann Arbor, MI   48103-4943
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Chartism -- charlatans?
Date: 15 Apr 92 17:51:30 GMT



Satya Prabhakar (satya@ssdc.honeywell.com)

> 1. There was no consensus among the technicians
> 2. About 70% of their predictions were off by more than 20%.
> 3. A simple extrapolation (using regression,perhaps) came
>    closer to actual prices than 50% of the technicians.
>
>So much for technical analysis.
>
>p.s. I recollected the experrimental setup from a book I read a while
>ago. It may be a little off in the details. Another academic team
>did the same for earnings forecasts by Wall Street security
>analysts with identical results. So much for fundamental analysis. 

 
  Yes, I've seen reports of similar studies to these and
  they all seem to confirm my own anecdotal observations that
  most stock picking methods are religious bunk.  

  And yet there are still these nagging doubts:  Someone is
  bound to ask, "What about Value Line?".  Over time they
  do seem to have a pretty good record of categorizing 
  stocks (i.e., their "1"'s in general do seem to outperform
  their "5"'s.)  How do we account for this?  Self-fulfilling
  prophecy (i.e., people see  a Value-Line "1" and buy it)?
  I should also ask if it's really true -- I only know it
  from word-of-mouth and Value Line adverts.  Or one might
  ask about the extraordinary success of certain fund
  managers like Peter Lynch who made the Fidelity Magellan
  fund almost legendary in the 1980's.

  Of course I should note that just because an individual
  can get some kind of "gestalt" on the market and pick
  winners does NOT mean that there's anything systematic
  or algorithmic going on.   He may not be able to articulate
  what he's doing.   But if it can be done AT ALL this should
  cause us to doubt efficient market theory and similar dogma.


---peter

                                            

PS -- BTW I have run simulations on my PC with a (weekly)
      DJIA database and a large array (typically 4000-8000)
      of stock pickers with all their parameters initialized
      with random numbers.  The interesting thing is how, while
      the majority will lose money very quickly, a small
      percentage will "beat the market" for years on end.
      My conclusion is that even by random chance we might
      expect the securities industry to generate the occasional
      Peter Lynch or Value Line.   In other words long term
      winners might still just be "lucky".  And if there's
      feedback (the self-fulfilling kind I referred to above)
      it wouldn't surprise me if this would even extend their
      success.  


   
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser)
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Organization: TECHNET, Singapore
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 05:10:31 GMT

In article <8859@alvin.mcnc.org> ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek) writes:
>In article <1992Apr7.052044.25065@nuscc.nus.sg> ipser@solomon.technet.sg (Ed Ipser) writes:
>
>Ed Ipser thinks that lowering the net assets of the government is good,
>I asked him for an estimate of the current level, he gave no estimate,
>but thought that it must be high, and
>opined that the National Parks and interstates were worth at least
>"trillions".

The actual level of assets held by the federal government is irrelevant
to the discussion and any estimate of their value is largely speculative
in the absence of a market for them. At best, you argument supports the
assertion that the government is already at negative net worth and so
the deficit/debt must REALLY not matter; the federal government can
spend and borrow as much as it wants. Fine. Boogyman exposed.

>  I stated that 100K miles of interstate@ $10M/mile was only
>$1T.  I haven't obtained interstate mileage, but 100K seems generous.
>He failed to respond to this, but upholds the relative worth of the
>National Parks.

On the value of assets, generally, I previously noted:

> >This depends entirely on the value of the assets held by the federal
> >government and the method of evaluating them. The appropriate method of
> >evaluating the government's assets is to consider what they would be worth
> >in the hands of private citizens. In the event of an equity for debt
> >swap, bond holders will find themselves in possession of federal assets
> >and the bond value they would be willing to relinquish for the title to,
> >say, federal park land, would bear little relationship to the amount of
> >income generated by that parkland under federal administration.
> >
> >An alternative perspective is provided by the continued willingness of
> >lenders to buy bonds. The idea that government bonds are of the highest
> >rating by definition or such is entirely without foundation. There are
> >many states and cities, for example, where it is considered more
> >dangerous to lend to the government than to coroporations operating
> >within the government's jurisdiction. Yet federal bonds remain of the
> >highest reputation. The market seems to consider them quite safe
> >investments despite a $4 trillion debt and $300 billion annual interest
> >payments. If bond holders are not worried about default or inflation, why
> >should we?

By no means do I represent myself as knowledgeable of the value of the
assets of the federal government, but the methods you and others have
suggested for placing a price on these is guaranteed to underestimate
them.

The only true test of value is what the asset will fetch on the open
market.

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cl@lgc.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Re: economic skeptics
Organization: Landmark Graphics Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:14:26 GMT

In article <ARG.92Apr6143113@huxley.bitstream.com> arg@bitstream.com writes:
			.
			.
			.
>For macroeconomic policy, this is impossible.   The smallest division which
>would  constitute   a fair test is  the   national level.  The  separate(!)
>economies of the individual states  or metropolitan  areas are too  tightly
>coupled in this country.
>
>How can  you "do an  experiment" of low inflation  or competitive monies in
>New York when New York is forbidden to coin money?  Would Congress agree to
>exempt Florida  residents from paying most of  their federal income  tax to
>"test" the  idea of a  smaller government?   Or exempt  Massachusetts banks
>from some  federal banking regulations?   Moreover,  such "tests" would  be
>meaningless since people, goods,  and capital can  move freely  between the
>states, e.g., if one  state were  to eliminate SS  as a  "test", old people
>would move out and young people would move in.
			.
			.
			.
How can you do the experiment?  I understand
at least some of Jane Jacob's writings to claim
that we do it, all the time, at the level of
The City.  I maintain a lot of reserve about
her ideas--like you, I am skeptical about what
content "the monetary policy of Baltimore" can
have--but reading her works might reward you.
--

Cameron Laird				+1 713-579-4613
cl@lgc.com (cl%lgc.com@uunet.uu.net)	+1 713-996-8546 
claird@Neosoft.com
From: amigan@cup.portal.com (R Michael Medwid)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Smoking and social security (Was: Reply to Gary Strand)
Date: 6 Apr 92 18:08:19 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: The Portal System (TM)

The interesting comparison would be the offset of decreased medical costs
vs the increase in social security payments.  Health care costs for
emphasima, lung cancer, cancer of the mouth, hypertension, heart disease
are likewise astronomical.
From: arg@huxley.bitstream.com (Adam R. Grossman)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Confronting the Deficit/Debt Boogyman
Date: 14 Apr 92 17:46:49 GMT
	<1992Mar30.061109.26002@nuscc.nus.sg>
	<1992Apr7.205923.2212@clipper.ingr.com>
	<1992Apr8.034323.3954@nuscc.nus.sg> <920409080133@pericles.ftp.com>
Reply-To: arg@bitstream.com
Organization: Bitstream, Inc. - Cambridge, MA
In-reply-to: jamie@[128.127.2.100]'s message of 9 Apr 92 12:01:33 GMT

jamie@[128.127.2.100] (Jamie O'Keefe) writes:
   Newsgroups: sci.econ
   Date: 9 Apr 92 12:01:33 GMT

   someone writes:
   >> the runaway national debt portends ultimate economic disaster.

   The US government debt is ~50% of GNP.  After World Ware (sic) II it was
   100%.  While the 90's are not likely to be boom years like the
   50's/60's, this does not mean that we can not reduce the deficit...

~50%? You must be using last year's data!  At the  end of  FY '93 (which is
currently being planned  in Congress) the US debt  will be closer to 80% of
GNP.

Still, this only tells part of the story; other factors seem to indicate we
are significantly worse off than post WWII.  While  total federal debt as a
percentage of GNP is not as onerous as 1950, the interest payments--or debt
service--as a percentage of   GNP  is at  an  all  time high: about  7% now
compared to about 3-4% peak debt service of the  1950s, or nearly  twice as
high.  I believe this is a more significant measurement.

Also, in the 1950s we had capital to burn (compared to now): interest rates
were low and we were a net creditor nation.   Now, interest rates  are high
and we have to borrow from abroad.

[Btw, I agree the 1990s are not likely to be boom years like the 1960s.]

   Both Germany and Japan have high government deficits...

So what?   Their  high government deficits do  not  make our  situation any
better.  Maybe we are all making the same disastrous mistakes.
--
Adam R. Grossman
arg@bitstream.com
From: drg@bubba.ma30.bull.com (Daniel R Guilderson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Wage Slavery (Was: BIG LIE about the market)
Date: 17 Apr 92 14:49:31 GMT
	<DRG.92Apr16175959@bubba.ma30.bull.com> <46698@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Organization: Bull World Wide Information Systems, Billerica MA USA

In article <46698@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:

   Well, you'd like the "market" to "guide the economy". We have several
   choices in understanding this. First, we can see "the market" as being
   a complex social construct in which such forces as consumer demand, legal
   strictures, national borders, wars, and culture are all involved. But, 
   you seem to find "market" as something completely other than "government".

Maybe I should have said that I want people (no tiny fonts here) to
freely guide the markets rather than have government guide the
markets.  I think your being picky about semantics.  Saying that I
want the people to guide the markets rather than governments does not
imply that I favor no government at all.  As an analogy, consider a
hockey team which has four average players and one great player.
Saying that I want the great player to set the pace does not imply
that I want the other players to get off the ice.

What is clear to me is that (sci.econ cliche alert) "people of your
ilk" want the government to have the most influence on the game.

   Thus, any social mechanism depending on laws, police forces, 
   public spending, bureaus of weights and measures, public schools, post
   offices, or any other one of the many facets of "government" can't be
   a "market".

Government is a lousy way to create markets.  Let's minimize the
influence of government on markets.
From: nelson_p@APOLLO.HP.COM
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Libertarianism and Government
Date: 10 Apr 92 16:35:31 GMT


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

>And what personal liberty actually means without private property
>is left as an exercise for the reader.
>
>I don't want to offend anyone here, but rather than exercising one's
>imagination, it is possible to go to a library and read a book or two.
>Murray Bookchin has published quite a bit, "Remaking Society"
>is a recent one, and "The Ecology of Freedom" is another interesting one. 
>Peter Kropotkin's work can be found readily,  and ditto for Emma Goldman

  Right.  So instead of exercising *our* imaginations we can indulge
  the imagination of someone else.  But why should we place any faith
  in *their* imagination?    Especially when they talk about "rights"
  and "robbery", and "justice" and "good sense" and similar terms as
  though these have any absolute meaning.   Indeed, why should I accept
  imagination as a basis for any point of view?

  Need I remind readers (and posters!) again?   This is "sci".econ.

  Any social or economic system must function in the REAL WORLD.  
  The real world includes physical realities, like the weather, 
  minerals in the soil, tempurature and all that.  But it also
  includes CULTURAL, SOCIAL, and POLITICAL circumstances and
  various poorly understood features of human psychology and
  social psychology.  Any alternative has to funtion within
  that context.

  Ideas for societies based on extreme individual liberty and
  ideas for ones based on communalist principles, and ideas 
  for societies based on anarchy have been around for centuries.
  During that time *thousands* of governments have come and gone
  hundreds (thousands) of nations and peoples have existed, and
  easily thousands of small, intentional communities have been 
  formed.  I'm not aware that any significantly successful systems
  based on the above concepts have been produced.  (libertarians
  should take careful note that a society with a minimal government
  but with powerful religious or other cultural forces which restrict
  individual choices is NOT a libertarian society).  

  A popular but disingenuous technique seen on sci.econ from *both*
  sides of the spectrum is to point out the flaws in the current
  system as though this somehow supports the alternatives.  (Mr.
  Yodaiken warns of ecological disaster, Mr. Ipser warns of threats
  to individual liberty, etc)  But this is the "cars -vs- magic
  carpets" problem again.  I fully acknowledge the flaws in the
  current systems just as I acknowledge the flaws in cars.  But
  what evidence do I have that the proposed alternative would
  correct them, would not replace them with other, equally grievous
  ones, or would even FUNCTION in the real world?

  
---peter

   

  




Xref: sparky sci.econ:3803 talk.politics.theory:2022