HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: The Economist on Pollution Taxes.
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:01:05 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin


Pollution Taxes:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Everyone should read "Environmental Taxes: Muck and Money" in the Dec.
5 - 11 issue of The Economist?  It's about the very sort of taxes I've
been hoping someone would advocate: taxes on pollution *instead* of on
income, savings, etc.

This article is actually a review of a report that was recently
released by a think tank called World Resources Institute:

	"Green Fees: How a Tax Shift can Work for the Environment and
	the Economy", by Robert Epetto, Roger Dower, Robin Jenkins and
	Jaqueline Geoghegan.

The report argues that by moving $100 billion of tax burden from
incomes and savings to things like pollution, America's real income
would be 40-60 billion dollars higher. The Economist article points out
some problems with these type of taxes (EX. a tax on garbage by volume,
tried in some cities, has lead people to buy garbage compactors that
make very dense bricks out of garbage, allowing them to reduce the
volume of garbage without changing the quantity they actually produce),
but with proper adjustments these kinds of taxes would work just fine,
and think of the advantages.

I intend to try to get hold of this report.  I also want to look at the
report published by the Democratic Leadership Council called a "Mandate
for Change".  It is supposed to contain a lot of interesting
specifics.


-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:40:18 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1703@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>In article <1992Dec11.113742.21191@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:

>>With regard to 'potential', just how far back is it reasonable to go?
>>After all, ever sperm cell and every egg cell has the 'potential' to
>>become a baby (with real brainwaves).  Just where is it reasonable to
>>draw the line, and just what makes that stage 'magical'?

>How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
>the potential begins.

Oh no.  The potential begins much further back than that.  What makes
the fact that you've put to cells together 'magical' insofar as
'potential' (which was the basis of your prior argument) goes?

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:57:51 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.231229.14255@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>Have you read Louis Leclerc's paper, "Does America Say Yes to Japan?"?  
>Somebody recently passed it on to me, and I found it fascinating what they
>do in Japan to keep out foreigners.
>I think the Japanese government throws us a bone now and then
>to make us go away, without really changing anything.
>
	Maybe we could shoot for something between free trade and 
protectionism, call it equal trade. Just mirror whatever restrictions
are placed on our exports?

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 01:53:37 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.152523.14580@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
> And you don't know that the current situation is causing all this
> damage you claim, either.  That would seem to leave YOUR argument
> pretty flawed, too, and I would say that unless you postulate
> corporate insanity that it's a safe bet to say that big steel users
> would act in their own interests.  Now, looking at the history of the
> auto industry with regard to getting things done by government that
> are in their interests, it simply doesn't seem credible that they
> would drop the ball on this one.
 
So your assertion is that higher steel prices don't really hurt the car
industry?   Even a small increase in prices is going to hurt an industry
like the car industry, where small savings can mean big money.
 
How about facts.  One study estimates that steel quotas have increased
steel prices in the US between 15% and 18%. In 1982 a Commerce Dept study
found that Europe's two most efficient steel producers, Germany and
Holland, received minimal subsidies (less than the US).  In 1984, prices
for cold-rolled sheet steel were 40% higher in the US than in other
markets.  The US's chief negotiator on steel trade in 1984, Linn Williams,
said that the US was "one of teh world's least efficient steel producers".
 
Bill Lane of Caterpillar said "In 1985, U.S. steel prices were
significantly higher than world prices, 59% greater than competitors in
Germany, 22% higher than in Japan".  Stanley Tools estimates that steel
prices make up 58% of the price of a hammer, 21% for screwdrivers, etc". 
Can't see how 59% higher prices could hurt them, can you Fred?
 
The former head of the International Trade Commission Paula Stern said
"Inflated U.S. steel prices were an important factor in the erosion of
U.S. manufacturing preeminence and employment from the 1960s to the mid
1980s.  The Institute of International Economics estimates that steel
quotas cost US consumers approximately $6.8 billion a year.
 
Should I continue?
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
From: miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 11 Dec 92 16:05:35 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Western Geo. - Div of Western Atlas Intn'l Inc., Houston, TX

In article <1992Dec10.164207.29787@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>fred j mccall 575-3539 (mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com) wrote:
>: Use of deadly force against a human being comes under a number of
>: restrictions under the law.
>
>I don't think "deadly force" is applicable.  If I leave my front door unlocked
>and you come walking in and superglue yourself to my wall, I'll probably kick
>you out.  If it's 20-blow-zero outside and you end up freezing to death, have
>I used deadly force on you?  I claim not.

But John, this has nothing to do with babies. To compare an unborn child 
to an uninvited guest is completely ludicrous. The baby didn't just come 
in, for one thing - he was created on the spot. It was not their intention, 
perhaps, but the responsibilities are the same.

>The way I see it, the issue is WHERE 'X' is, not WHAT 'X' is.  If a 40-year-old
>stockbroker snuck up to you while you slept and attached an umbilical cord 
>between he and you, I would support your right to have him removed -- even if
>he died as a result.  I've never seen anyone argue that a 40-year-old
>stockbroker isn't a person.

This is silly. Babies don't "sneak up". We KNOW where they come from.
--
Griff Miller > miller@monarch.wg3.waii.com < use this for email.

          *** My opinions are mine, not Western's. ***

   "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but 
    fools despise wisdom and discipline."   - Proverbs 1:7
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Date: 15 Dec 92 14:41:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc

In <1992Dec14.231443.19649@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:

>Griff Miller X7114 (miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com) wrote:
>: But John, this has nothing to do with babies. To compare an unborn child 
>: to an uninvited guest is completely ludicrous.

>Why?  The "parents" didn't want to conceive a child, they wanted to have
>sex.  I didn't want you to come into my house, I left the window open to get
>some fresh air.

No, because my only connection with fresh air is breathing it.  It's
more as if you invited me to park my car in your garage, take a shower
with your daughter, but then got upset that I turned up for breakfast.

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:04:24 GMT

In article <1714@airgun.wg.waii.com>, reed@rd08.wg2.waii.com (Michael Reed) writes:
> Fred is incapable of presenting facts, but I will help him out in this
> case.  
> 
> The recent tariffs on steel introduced by the US were set to compensate
> for any government subsidies the steelmakers in the country of origin
> received.  Consequently,  German steel only had a small (10%) tariff,
> while heavily subsidized Mexican steel had a very large (300%) tariff.
> 
> If other governments are subsidizing their steel production, while
> we are not, our steel manufacturers will go out of business in the
> long term, that's just simple micro-economics.  Consequently, we
> imposed subsidies of our own in the form of tariffs.  If we did not
> impose tariffs, only those countries which got a price advantage through
> government subsidies would retain steel industries.  
 
I don't agree.  Japan subsidizes software development, yet American 
companies don't seem to have any problem not only controlling the US
market, but the European and Japanese ones as well.  It does make it
tougher to compete, but let's face it, 95% of the problem isn't that other
countries subsidize industry, it's that US industry fell down on the job.
I mean, US agriculture isn't in trouble because the EC is very
restrictive, US agriculture is in trouble because South America is very
quickly becoming cost competitive with the US in many crops.
 
> 
> Doug and Curt, you seem to argue that the barriers American companies
> encounter in exporting products are solely due to poor quality and
> marketing.  Can you sell rice to Japan?  Wood baseball bats?  Real
> trade barriers do exist.  We can ignore them to our nation's detriment,
> or we can try to force their removal by playing some hardball with
> our trading partners.  If rice is a "sacred" product in Japan, why 
> can't flat computer screens be a "sacred" product here?  If we hit
> them where it hurts, they will open their markets.  Unilateral
> free trade on our part hurts only ourselves.
 
I think we should pressure countries to open trade.  But let's face it,
US companies are going to use the government to gain a competitive edge
(over consumer mind you, not just over competition) anytime they can.
Once you start down the slippery slope, you're history.
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 23:12:29 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Doug Andersen (hari@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: That's a blanket statement that simply isn't true.  There are clearly
: markets that are totally closed, like rice.  And there are some industries
: that are fairly open.  Look at how much business IBM and Apple and Coke
: and companies like that do in Japan.  Cars are a horrible example since a
: lot of Americans won't even buy American-made cars.

Have you read Louis Leclerc's paper, "Does America Say Yes to Japan?"?  
Somebody recently passed it on to me, and I found it fascinating what they
do in Japan to keep out foreigners.

: I believe that internal forces in Japan will have more to do
: with opening their markets than any US government actions.  Japanese
: consumers are really starting to wake up to how much of a raw deal they've
: gotten and they are starting to demand some return on all their work.

If you say so.  I think the Japanese government throws us a bone now and then
to make us go away, without really changing anything.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: root@moller3.austin.ibm.com ()
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 05:51:54 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Damn little.

In article <1992Dec11.121142.21939@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <Bz2zn6.28zM@austin.ibm.com> root@moller3.austin.ibm.com () writes:
>

[SS tinkering discussion deleted]

>
>>The difference is that it at least makes a stab at returning this idiot 
>>system to more or less the condition under which it was established in
>>the first place, i.e., generally limiting the average interval between 
>>elegibility and death to just a few years.  If we can't abolish SS
>>outright, at least we can try to make it more actuarially sound.  Since
>>we can't retroactively raise SS "contributions", the only way I can see
>>to do that is by reducing benefits somehow.
>
>In other words, you want to do exactly what we've BEEN doing -- the
>last changes to the Social Security law and benefits schedule make it
>actuarially sound until out around 2024 or so.  I, on the other hand,
>think the whole idea of running this as some actuarial betting scheme
>is a bad one and that we should simply acknowledge that we've been
>funding benefits out of the current revenue stream, make the change to
>fund them from general tax revenues (adjusting benefits and taxes as
>necessary to make that work), and let the rest of us opt out.  For
>those who don't opt out, make it into a real annuity administered by
>the government.
>

Understand that what I _really_ want, as I think you do, is to get rid of
SS, or at least to abolish the compulsory aspects of it.  All I'm trying
to do in this thread, and in a few comments I made in this forum several
months ago, is to explore politically feasible means of ending SS for those
of us who don't want to be involved with it.  I don't much care what those
means are.

>-- 
>"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
> in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.


-- 
Chris Moller (moller@austin.ibm.com)

IBM pays absolutely no attention to my opinions, ergo the 
foregoing cannot possibly represent its position.
From: bboerner@novell.com (Brendan B. Boerner)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: 19 Dec 92 21:16:37 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Novell, Inc. --Austin

In article <Bz9Mxt.22Du@austin.ibm.com> dewey@vpdbox.austin.ibm.com writes:
> [Dewey points out that the young will feel screwed for making
> sacrifices to bail out the U.S. but sacrifices must be made...]

Sure, but you're screwing the young to continue to benefit the geezers'
who are collecting the entitlement (SS) who got us in this mess in the
first place, _that's_ what I object to.  Actually, I'm not adamantly
opposed to some sacrifice to fix the debt problem, but your SS plan
seemed to be putting the greatest burden on the young (if I recall
correctly those already collecting get to continue to collect, those
within 20 years of collecting get paid off what they've paid in and the
young get to continue to pay in with no pay off).

Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail exterior to Novell.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: hari@NeoSoft.com (Doug Andersen)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: usa,tx
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:08:03 GMT

In article <BzHAFI.It1@NeoSoft.com>, rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
> to me that a protectionist policy on steel, for example, would hurt
> in some areas (cars), while helping in others (American steel). If the
> American car Co.'s costs go up by 15%, and the cost is passed on to
> the consumer, and sales drop 25%, what effect would this have on the
> profits/sales at the steel companies, who employ comsumers? 
 
Actually, it only helps the steel industry in the short run.  In the long
run the company just gets less and less competitive.  It happens to anyone
who depends on the government, whether it's a welfare family or a company
in a protected industry.
 
Look at the car companies.  They had protected markets for years.  What
did they do?  Give lots of raises and dump money into unrelated
businesses (EDS, aerospace, defense, etc).  
-- 
Doug Andersen
hari@Sugar.NeoSoft.com
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti)
Subject: Re: Protectionism and Japan
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 22:29:26 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM Advanced Workstations and Systems, Austin, TX
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Doug Andersen (hari@NeoSoft.com) wrote:
: Japanese companies are well known for studying markets extensively before
: entering, how many US companies have really studied the complicated
: distribution networks in Japan?

Leclerc claims that the "complicated distribution networks" are set up 
specifically to keep out foreign competition.  If this is true, then it won't
make any difference how much you "study" it.

--
John Iacoletti       IBM AWS Austin       Internet: johniac@austin.ibm.com
        My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
"Look, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a
 system of government"
From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Social Security Buyout Plan.
Date: 11 Dec 1992 18:38:41 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1992Dec11.121142.21939@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>For those who don't opt out, make it into a real annuity administered by
>the government.

Remember, though, that the US government has the Midas Muffler touch:
everything it touches turns to shit. Why would this be any different?
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
  "All [Windows] NT has is a lot of journalists fooled." -- Brian Button
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: John Haugh's Brain redux (was - Re: Clinton has won...watch your
Organization: Texas Instruments Inc
Distribution: tx
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 14:48:58 GMT

In <1711@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:

>In article <BzBr0x.Kw5@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>In article <1703@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>>Fred: (sic: Where does human potential begin?):
>>
>>>How about all the way back to the first signs of pregnancy? That's where
>>>the potential begins.
>>
>>	Why? If a man wears a condom, and it works, hasn't he terminated a
>>potential human? No, not all intercourse ends in pregnancy, but certainly no
>>pregnancy occurs with an absolute form of birth control. Would an
>>absolute form of birth control (tubes tied) terminate potential humans?
>>No doubt about it. IMO.

>You are blurring the distinction between the potential for an egg to be 
>fertilized and the potential for a fertilized egg to be born. I was talking
>about the latter.

We understood what YOU were talking about, Griff.  The point (which
you sem to be missing) is that you can't mark a line in the sand and
say 'here starts potential'.  Each and every egg and each and every
sperm are 'potential human beings'.  All it takes is a chance meeting
and the right conditions.  So why do you think you can draw the line
where you do?  What makes a 4 cell blastoma 'human' when a sperm or
egg cell aren't?  In each of those cases, there is the potential for
a human being.  Without the sperm and egg, there would be no blastoma,
after all (barring some REALLY massive medical intervention, which
we're not sure we know how to do yet -- so where does that leave your
position when cloning from skin cells becomes possible?).

-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: tx.politics
From: curt@ekhadafi.austin.ibm.com (Curt Finch 903 2F021 curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com 512-838-2806)
Subject: PARENTS NEED GUIDANCE IN CHOOSING SCHOOLS
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 13:14:17 GMT
Distribution: usa,tx
Organization: IBM AWD, Austin


                   =====  TAKING STOCK  =====

*10  ST. PAUL:  PARENTS NEED GUIDANCE IN CHOOSING SCHOOLS
     An overwhelming need exists for someone to guide parents
through the maze of rules, deadlines and preferences they
encounter when deciding what school their children should attend,
according to a report by the St. Paul (Minn.) League of Women
Voters (Walsh, Minneapolis STAR-TRIBUNE).  "Parents perceive the
system to be 'unclear, unpredictable and/or unfair,'" writes the
newspaper.
     "I think it's ironic that we have more access to information
on how to select cars and refrigerators than we do to select
schools," said Joe Nathan, an education specialist with the
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at U-Minn.
     Each winter the district mails a magnet and specialty
brochure to residents that summarizes programs and contains a
calendar for the school year.  Other sources of information:  a
parent information fair, open-house schedules and workshops; and
the district's office of parent, community and volunteer
relations and magnet school and specialty planning.
     But the league said parents still must figure out a great
deal on their own.  Literature is provided only in English.  And
many parents don't understand how the district determines
schools' racial balance, waiting lists and the criteria that
determine acceptance to magnet schools.
     Nathan said there are better ways to inform parents.  Mass.,
for example, established a clearing house where parents could go
for information and counseling.  Also, multicultural outreach
workers visit parents in the community (12/16).


-- 
curt@aixwiz.austin.ibm.com (Curt L. Finch) | AIX NFS/NIS Field Quality 
My views are unrelated to my employer's    |        Austin, TX
 There'll be too many elderly in 30 years for your kids to afford all the FICA.
Newsgroups: tx.politics