HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ecopaulz@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Paul Zarembka)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Research in POLITICAL ECONOMY, Volume 13, published (Contents)
Keywords: economics, politics
Date: 7 Nov 92 16:18:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

JUST PUBLISHED--PLEASE CHECK YOUR LIBRARY FOR ORDERS:



                         RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY                        

                             Paul Zarembka, editor                            
                                 JAI Press Inc.                               

                                   Volume 13                                  
                                                                       Page

1. "Free Trade" Unions and the State: Trade Liberalization's             1
Endorsement by the AFL-CIO, 1943-1962 
     by Peter Donohue, University of California at Berkeley 

2. Economics of Shortage or Specificity of Capital Accumulation:         75
The Soviet Case--A Marxian Perspective 
     by Paresh Chattopadhyay, University of Quebec at Montreal 

3. The Development of State Capitalism in the Soviet System             123
     by Paul Zarembka, State University of New York at Buffalo 

4. Deng Xiaoping's Reform and the Chinese Workers' Participation        163
in the Protest Movement of 1989 
     by Shaoguang Wang, Yale University 

5. The State and Social Appropriation: The Case of Nicaragua,           199
1979-1989 
     by Janet M. Tanski, New Mexico State University 

6. Late Industrialization and Class Formation in East Asia              245
     by Val Burris, University of Oregon 

                              -----------------                              

LIBRARY and INDIVIDUAL ORDERS (professional discount at 40%):
  JAI Press Inc., 55 Old Post Road--#2, P.O. 1678, Greenwich, CT 06836-1678
  Phone (203)-661-7602; FAX (203)-661-0792 (credit cards by phone accepted)

Paul Zarembka (ECOPAULZ@UBVMS.BITNET)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 92 18:20:02 GMT

In article <1dcrs9INN5fg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:
>
>The title says it all. Perot got 14 million, Lullani F???ani got
>19,000, the Peace and Freedom people got some 10,000. Clearly
>Libertarians are a lunatic fringe....

Bzzt. Unless you're giving figures from some state only, you're way
out of line. Here are numbers:

 Bill Clinton, Dem 43,688,671 - 43 percent
 George Bush, GOP (i) 38,109,410 - 37 percent
 Ross Perot, Ind 19,089,432 - 19 percent
 Andrew Marrou, Oth 278,528 - 0 percent
 Lenora Fulani, Oth 211,742 - 0 percent
 Bo Gritz, Oth 97,601 - 0 percent
 John Hagelin, Oth 44,521 - 0 percent
 Howard Phillips, Oth 39,391 - 0 percent
 James Mac Warren, Oth 27,464 - 0 percent
 Lyndon LaRouche, Oth 25,688 - 0 percent
 Ron Daniels, Oth 25,404 - 0 percent
 Drew Bradford, Oth 4,605 - 0 percent
 Jack Herer, Oth 3,452 - 0 percent
 Helen Halyard, Oth 3,068 - 0 percent
 J. Quinn Brisben, Oth 2,789 - 0 percent
 None of These, Oth 2,525 - 0 percent
 John Yiamouyiannis, Oth 2,316 - 0 percent
 Honest Jim Boren, Oth 980 - 0 percent
 Earl Dodge, Oth 953 - 0 percent
 Delbert Ehlers, Oth 876 - 0 percent
 Eugene Hem, Oth 395 - 0 percent
 Isabell Masters, Oth 395 - 0 percent
 Robert Smith, Oth 290 - 0 percent
 Gloria La Riva, Oth 178 - 0 percent

Bothersome than Fulani was close to Marrou after only a year or two of
snake oil salemanship.

-- paul
-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: cmh004@cck.coventry.ac.uk (Dave)
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Organization: Lanchester Polytechnic
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 19:08:43 GMT

In article <1992Nov11.224507.3505@ee.ubc.ca> jmorriso@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>A flat % tax is like saying: for you, this candy bar costs $0.50, but
>for you sir, only $1.00, since you earn twice as much. Is that fair?
>Same candy bar isn't it?

The allternative is to say "We will tax everyone X amount". This form of
taxation has a special name - Poll Tax. Now who seriously (except the UK
Tory party) advocates poll tax?

>It all depends on what your concept of "fair" is. If you think the
>rich should pay more taxes, but only get the same level of service,
>that is one opinion (and is quite widely held).

Remember that a pound to a poor person is worth more 'utils' than a pound
to a rich person. So progresive income taxes are justified.
-- 
Dave                                                       cmh004@cck.cov.ac.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Call this place what you like - Coventry University, Coventry Polytechnic or
Lanchester Polytechnic it is all the same and is called school.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:11:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov10.160010.21690@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>
>However, I expect we'll see a lot more protectionism in the years ahead.
>With the large U.S. budget deficit, sending military aid to the rest of the
>world and allowing them to send products to the U.S. in competition with
>our producers will become politically undesirable in the years to come.

   How does it follow that this will result in more protectionism?

   Isn't the logical conclusion from this that it would result 
   in less military aid, especially reducing the large US forces
   on foreign soil?

---peter
From: ywang1@husc8.harvard.edu (Yongkang Wang)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Looking for Prof. Etienne Losq.
Date: 5 Nov 92 04:56:44 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Hi,

I want to contact professor Etienne Losq of McGill University, Economics
Department or Business School (?), concerning his (or her) paper. Anyone
know him ( her) or know of him (her) , please Email me. Thank you very
very much in advance.

   
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: stcuster@beach.csulb.edu (Stephen Custer)
Subject: Re: Breakup of the United States
Organization: Cal State Long Beach
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 05:47:26 GMT

I understand that the Texas constitution mandates that the electorate
periodiclly vote on staying in the Union.  Are there similar provisions in any
other state constitutions?

Thanks,

-Steve



Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Date: 7 Nov 92 01:49:17 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA

In <1dcrs9INN5fg@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright) writes:


|>The title says it all. Perot got 14 million, Lullani F???ani got
|>19,000, the Peace and Freedom people got some 10,000. Clearly
|>Libertarians are a lunatic fringe....

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but your appear to be comparing
Perot's national figures with some states figures.  The actual number for the
Libertarians was closer to 270,000 to 280,000.

Not as good as 1988, but still pretty good when the media pretends that
you don't exist.

-- 
Views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of my employer.
Sometimes they don't even reflect the views of the author.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: tlai@cs.toronto.edu (Tony Wen Hsun Lai)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
Date: 6 Nov 92 20:01:28 GMT

In article <BxB4ME.9BC@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>  Why haven't I seen any comments on sci.econ about the trade sanctions
>  the US is imposing on the EC?  I mean it's "economics", and it's got
>  the usual elements of bluster, brinksmanship, etc, that would seem
>  to appeal to a Usenet crowd.   Too esoteric for you guys?
>  
>  I think US policy is stupid and indefensible on 3 counts:
>  
>  1.  The entire world economy is very shaky just now; the last
>      thing it needs is a trade war.   We should all be trying 
>      to INCREASE the volume of world trade.
>
>  2.  France, et al, are democracies.  Their voters have made it
>      clear that they WANT some of their tax money to be used for
>      agricultural subsidies.   What the US is, in effect, saying
>      to the EC officials is that they should ignore the wishes of
>      their own voters and instead follow OUR dictates.  This
>      sounds "imperialistic" to me.  I don't see how we can 
>      morally justify this while at the same time allegedly trying
>      to promote democracy around the world.

There are some accusations in the US that France is trying to sabotage
GATT world trade talks; the current EC commissioner is French.  If French
voters don't believe in GATT, they can always ask for France to pull out of
GATT.

>  3.  If French taxpayers are willing to subsidize MY purchase
>      of canola oil, in effect taking money out of their own 
>      pockets and putting into mine, why should we/I object? 
>      In doing so they are conducting a transfer of wealth to
>      the US economy.   They are also providing the motivation
>      necessary to encourage US oil-seed makers to become more
>      efficient, lower their prices, and so forth.   It sounds
>      like a net win.    

I had the impression the US farming is already more efficient than European
farming, because the average land area per farmer is larger.  Anyway,
if European and US farmers provide massive subsidies to their farmers,
a lot of other countries can't compete, even if they are really more
efficient.

>   3b.  While the US may be protecting some jobs in their oilseed 
>        industry, they are threatening jobs in other industries.
>        Specialty food and wine importers, restaurants, etc in
>        the immediate term, and just about any industry you can
>        name if this spins out of control.  

US policy may be stupid, but I think it probably is defensible, as far as
GATT is concerned.
From: ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:55:00 GMT
Article-I.D.: news.1992Nov7.005500.17637
Organization: Northwestern University, Evanston Illinois.
Originator: schung@casbah.acns.nwu.edu

In article <BxBJAD.5oF@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
# >I wonder how much the average lifespans and health care costs would move
# >when you factor out gang violence, drug abuse, crack babies, and so forth,
# >which are pretty much endemic to inner cities in America.
# 
#   People always raise this issue.  But I'm not clear what the 
#   relevance is.   I mean, for comparative statistical purposes
#   if we get to subtract our lowest scores, then so should they.
#    
#   In any case, what is the point?  Human societies are complex
#   systems -- massive urban poverty and alienation are part of
#   our system it's not at all clear that it could be excised
#   without some fundamental changes in our culture so it's academic.

The point is mostly that for any specific person, the figures on mortality
and medical costs could be misleading.  Whether or not these urban problems
are part of the system, their effect on much of the population is minimal
(I mean real, measurable effect).  The original poster was favorably
comparing other countries to the US in various characteristics; unless he
contemplates becoming part of the urban underclass, their death rate has
little bearing on any such comparison.

I'm not sure, but I doubt that there is a real equivalent to the US urban
culture of death in any first world country.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 19:00:51 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA


In article <1992Nov10.164345.22578@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>In article <BxICzy.I5p@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>In article <1992Nov10.160010.21690@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>
>>>However, I expect we'll see a lot more protectionism in the years ahead.
>>>With the large U.S. budget deficit, sending military aid to the rest of the
>>>world and allowing them to send products to the U.S. in competition with
>>>our producers will become politically undesirable in the years to come.
>
>>   How does it follow that this will result in more protectionism?
>
>Clinton ran on a ticket of increasing U.S. jobs.  One way to indicate that
>he's serious about this would be to propose laws that would decrease losing
>jobs to other countries.  Thus protectionism would increase (he also had
>serious questions about approving NAFTA).

   Only if you think protectionism protects jobs.   I don't know how
   stupid Clinton is, so I won't speculate on what he might do, but
   considering the hundreds of billions of dollars in goods and
   services the US exports every year, and the millions of US jobs
   that depend on this, he would need to have an awfully good 
   crystal ball to guess whether any particular protectionist act
   would actually save jobs, or cost jobs due to the effects of
   foreign retaliation, not to mention the effects on the domestic
   economy of having to pay more for whatever the product in question
   was.   Studies of the "voluntary" import quotas on Japanese cars
   indicated that the cost to the economy for every job saved was
   far greater than the income generated by that job.


>>   Isn't the logical conclusion from this that it would result 
>>   in less military aid, especially reducing the large US forces
>>   on foreign soil?
>
>I would expect that the U.S. forces in Europe would decline substantially
>(although the Europeans have already complained that we're not doing enough
>about solving the Serbian-Crotia issue).

   So let them complain.  I don't see them doing anything.   


>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?



---peter
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 23:44:37 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Nov6.222402.14999@news.acns.nwu.edu> ssc@nwu.edu (Steven Chung) writes:
>In article <BxB3t5.8Ar@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>
>#                                              On the other hand 
>#   Both Germany and Japan have longer average lifespans and
>#   lower % of GDP spent on health care than the US, and both
>#   have lower crime rates.     So the situation is complex.
>
>I wonder how much the average lifespans and health care costs would move
>when you factor out gang violence, drug abuse, crack babies, and so forth,
>which are pretty much endemic to inner cities in America.

  People always raise this issue.  But I'm not clear what the 
  relevance is.   I mean, for comparative statistical purposes
  if we get to subtract our lowest scores, then so should they.
   
  In any case, what is the point?  Human societies are complex
  systems -- massive urban poverty and alienation are part of
  our system it's not at all clear that it could be excised
  without some fundamental changes in our culture so it's academic.


---peter
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Questions about the Economics of the Family
Date: 13 Nov 92 09:32:35 EST
Followup-To: sci.econ
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <Nov.12.16.09.29.1992.19324@remus.rutgers.edu>, matthew@remus.rutgers.edu (matthew bernardini) writes:
> I recently read a book called "Rethinking Social Policy" by
> Christopher Jencks.  Although the point of this book is not totally
> what you are looking for, the early chapters sound like exactly what
> you requested.  Jencks analyzes the growing underclass in America, and
> in doing so presents statistics and studies the differentiate them from
> the middle and upper classes.  There are a great deal of studies cited in
> the text as well as in the endnotes that fit the bill. 

	Does it detail how welfare programs lock people into poverty?

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: 11 Nov 1992 01:06:39 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov10.231040.8808@kestrel.edu>, king@reasoning.com writes:
> 
> The relevance is that you want to cure the right disease.
> 
> If the reason our health stats look bad is poverty,
> rather than a pathology in our health care system, i would
> not want to "fix" it with a socialized medicine
> system,.....

That does not necessarily follow.    It may be that the
issue, as indicated by health statistics, is that the urban
poor in the US don't have ready access to health care,
while the poor in Europe do.

In that case, you can't just say "Well, we have these urban
poor, so we'll just remove them from the health care
statistics, and count the people who *do* have ready access
to the system."   All that such sleight-of-hand achieves
is to compare the people on both sides of the Atlantic who
*do* have ready access to health care, which happens to be
different sets of people.

As to whether socialised medicine will fix this, this very
problem (health problems piled on top of economic
deprivation) was one of the motivations for the
introduction of universal health care in Europe.

And it does indeed seem to have solved *that* problem to a
large extent.   Comments about whether it serves the needs
of rich people aren't really  relevant since a) they can
afford to solve their own health care access problems, and
b) that wasn't the problem it was intended to solve.

jon.
From: lnosek@ux4.cso.uiuc.edu (Luke Nosek)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: NEVER MIND nipaq.zip!!!
Date: 14 Nov 92 04:37:50 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana


	This has been fixed, so never mind.
From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: NO! Re: flat taxes - yes!!!
Keywords: flat tax
Date: 12 Nov 92 17:29:54 GMT
Article-I.D.: beaver.1992Nov12.172954.20242
Organization: Precipitating Pendulums Postal Party Poopers

In article <V_C=LA+@engin.umich.edu> jwh@citi.umich.edu writes:
> [ ... ] This is also
>why private charity is better than government charity.  Private charity
>is much closer to the problem.  If the charity misuses funds, it will
>have a hard time attracting new funds.  Look at the United Way.  It
>didn't take long for their problem to correct itself.  Government
>charity has no such constraints.  It will get the money no matter what.
>It has no real incentive to do a good job.  

See "The Vermont Papers" by Bryan & McClaurghy (sp?). The properties
of government institutions that you allude to above are properties
only of a certain type of government institution, and are not
intrinsic to all possible government charity.

Of course, the types of solutions suggested in their work sufficiently
blur the line bewteen "private" and "government" so that its difficult
to decide which they actually are. Which is, of course, as it should
be.

-- paul


-- 
There is hardly anything in the world that some man cannot make a
little worse and sell a little cheaper, and the people who consider
price only are this man's lawful prey.
						John Ruskin
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: 10 Nov 92 14:31:26 GMT
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc
Organization: Demonic Possesions, Inc.

In article <1992Nov9.201244.10258@nntp.hut.fi>, v37262d@kaira.hut.fi (Mancko H|glund) writes:
> The import taxes imposed by the US government are quite unnecessary,
> but on the other hand this was something one could expect. 

	Why is it expected?

> I do agree that the last thing the world economy needs right now is
> a trade war. It is also true that the US is promoting democracy 
> around the world, as long as it serves US interests of course, and this
> is not doing a whole lot to improve that image. For some obscured

	Tell that to France, whose subsidies violate GATT.

> reason Americans tend to think that their form of democracy is better than
> others'.

	Maybe because we've had 42 peaceful transfers of power.
:)

> 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.

	The US did not start this.  Please get your facts in order before
pontificating.

> Even though the US economy is in bad shape, and even though many large
> American corporations have managed to keep up their profits because 
> their European operations have been successful, etc. one could still 
> expect this. Because this is just the way Americans tend to react when they 
> don't get it their way.

	Is it just Finland, or do a perponderance of posters from other
countries also hate the US?

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: claird@NeoSoft.com (Cameron Laird)
Subject: Payback, nationally (was: German and Japanese living standards)
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:39:41 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history

In article <1992Nov6.112437.8972@edinboro.edu> s462075d@edinboro.edu writes:
			.
			.
			.
>5.  Only one nation, Finland, paid back the money the U.S. govt.
>    loaned it.
			.
			.
			.
Czechoslovakia also had a good record in
this regard.  As one might imagine, there's
more complexity, and more interesting com-
plexity, to it than this, but it certainly
is both true and generally surprising that
the usual suspects--the UK, France, Germany,
...--got to cut some provocative deals.

Follow-ups to soc.history--or re-direct 'em
yourself.
-- 

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
Newsgroups: sci.econ