HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: helz@ecn.purdue.edu (Randall A Helzerman)
Subject: Re: Hey! Libertarians only got 37,000 votes
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 03:30:41 GMT

In article <10302@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM>, mwilson@ncratl.AtlantaGA.NCR.COM (Mark Wilson) writes:
|> 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.
|> 

While the Libertarian presidential ticket had, uh, "disappointing" results,
our candidates for congress did outstandingly well.  In Georga, they forced
a runoff race between the Republican and Democrate candidate, because neither
one got 50% of the vote.  Other races varied from .1% to 5-6%, which is
really encouraging.

Also, don't forget that there are now >4< Libertarians in the New Hampshire
house.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:36:39 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

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

  Hey, it gave us Bill Clinton didn't it?   ( <-- note: sarcasm )


>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.

  In fairness to the US it should be noted that GATT *did* find
  that France was in violation and under GATT, signatory states *do*
  have the right to impose punitive tariffs.  What I was questioning
  was whether this was wise and moral, not whether it was legal.


---peter
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: 8 Nov 1992 04:10:11 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov7.005500.17637@news.acns.nwu.edu>, ssc@nwu.edu writes:
> 
> 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.

The obvious response to that is that Health Care isn't just medical
care.   The big drops in mortality in the last century, for example,
came about partly through improved sanitation, not solely through
the development of wonder drugs.   Countries like Britain and Germany
have national health care in part to make sure that health problems,
as far as possible, are not added to the economic problems that the
poor already suffer.

If the US has a large urban underclass with high mortality, that is
*still* part of the US's Health Care problem.   If Germany, for example,
does not have such an urban underclass with high mortality, then that
means that Germany has largely solved that particular problem, not
that Germany is magically exempt from it.

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 13:55:24 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <louis.721365535@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca> louis@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Louis Schmittroth) writes:
>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. 
>
>Not at all.  I happen to farm in Canada.  Grain farmers in Canada and
>the U.S.  have been hurt badly by depressed world prices, due *mainly*
>to the *insane* subsidies paid by governments in the EC.

   They're only insane by your particular set of arbitrary standards.

   I have no problem with a particular nation wanting to protect
   their farming industry/culture.   Maybe they just want to ensure 
   that they retain a domestic source of production and not have
   to depend on outside sources for something as basic as food.
   Or maybe it's a cultural issue -- their cultural or national
   identity is somehow tied up in having a farming or bucolic 
   aspect to their society and they want to retain elements of
   this.  This is certainly an issue in Japan.  In small, crowded
   places like Japan and Europe there is almost no way that farms
   can compete in terms of efficiency with the huge US and Canadian,
   (and maybe someday Russian) agri-businesses.  

   The only thing that's (ever) insane is for someone to not act
   consistently with their goalls and objectives.  In terms of their
   goals it may be perfectly rational for nations to have agriculture
   subsidies.

   What's insane is for France to be a member of GATT which clearly
   calls for elimination of agriculture subsidies.   Since they
   clearly prefer subsidies why did they sign an agreement which
   calls for ending them?  That would be as if I, a member of the
   NRA, contributed to HCI.  

   And it's also insane for the US to promote a trade war when 
   we're all desperately struggling to emerge from a recession.
   A lot more people in the US work at companies that depend on 
   foreign trade than work in oilseed farming.   My employer,
   HP, for instance, does nearly half their business overseas.
        

---peter
From: ip_boss@degsyd.syd.deg.csiro.au (Jack Churchill)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: The global recession will last until 2000
Date: 8 Nov 92 09:30:35 GMT
Organization: CSIRO, Exploration Geoscience

> So, does anyone out there see any way to come out of this recession/
> slump?

There's always a way but the real question is will the governments of
the world work together to get us out of the mess.  The problem is they
brought or allowed us to get into the mess in the first place so I don't
have much hope.  Like past similar events the current economy has to run
its full path (all out depression) before we see boom times again. 
Perhaps this time it's different :-)

-- 
  Jack N. Churchill                         | J.Churchill@syd.deg.csiro.au
** Unless otherwise specified, the opinions expressed here are my own. **
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: I want a GERMAN standard of living
Date: 7 Nov 92 00:59:22 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1992Nov6.222402.14999@news.acns.nwu.edu>, ssc@nwu.edu 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.

I wonder why you should factor out gang violence, drug abuse,
crack babies, and so forth.   Aren't they just as much part
of the American Way as lack of universal health care?

jon.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: jobs, again
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:23:39 GMT

In article <BxIDKt.Isy@apollo.hp.com>
nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
 
>
>
>
>  I was looking over the jobs stats in yesterday's Wall Street
>  Journal.  It had earlier been announced that unemployment
>  had dropped to 7.4%.     But the Journal reported that this
>  was due strictly to an decrease in people showing up at
>  unemployment offices.   The actual number of jobs in the
>  US economy was *DOWN*.
>
>  Now, I've been accused by some net.optimists of being
>  unreasonably gloomy on economic prospects.   It makes no
>  difference to them that an increasing number of very
>  mainstream economists and businessmen are beginning to
>  echo my sentiments that the problems in the US and world
>  economy are structural, not cyclical, and very severe.
>
>  I just don't see any source for significant job growth
>  in any sector of the US economy.   On the other hand I
>  can think of plenty of economic and technological factors
>  that will continue to put downward pressure on jobs.
>  This is a very serious problem, not just economically,
>  but also socially since unemployment can be a major
>  force favoring crime, family and other social problems,
>  and political extremism.
>
>  I have repeatedly asked various people who think I'm
>  being too pessimistic to name the areas or industries
>  where they anticipate growth in good-quality jobs.
>  What would you advise a college freshman to major in
>  today?   What would you advise a laid-off autoworker
>  to seek training in?
>
>  Invariably, answer came there none.
>
>
>---peter
>
>
I would agree 100%. I recommend re-reading E. F. Schumacher's 1973 classic,
"Small is Beautiful" to see how thoroughly ignored he has been and how our
failure to see the error of our economic policy has brought us to the state
we now are witnessing. In my opinion, unless we reverse course our people are
doomed to downward mobility (rapid) as corporations seek the cheapest labor
on the globe for all tasks they can't figure out how to automate. What I wonder
is when all the masses have been reduced to poverty, who will buy the productio
n output generated by the giant multinational corporations? How will US real es
tate hold its value when laid off workers have to default on their mortgages an
d can't pay the high rents now so prevalent? ...and so forth. Any ideas?
From: livesey@solntze.wpd.sgi.com (Jon Livesey)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Protectionism as investment
Date: 11 Nov 1992 23:21:18 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.  Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: solntze.wpd.sgi.com


In article <1dpjm4INN7jm@network.ucsd.edu>, mbk@lyapunov.ucsd.edu writes:
> Re:  the articles that talk about how protectionism costs us 2x for
> each job saved.
> 
> 
> Could not one view this cost as an "investment"---in that if you save
> this job now from foreign competition, then perhaps the industry will
> survive long enough that sometime in the future it has the capability
> to compete in some new product area not yet invented?
> 
> By this measure, government protectionism and industrial policy is forced
> investment by citizens in these industries.

One problem with this argument is that in any country there
are industries spread over a spectrum of competitiveness,
from very competitive compared to foriegn industry, to not
competitive at all.

Now from which end of that spectrum does pressure for
protection emerge?   From the end where domestic industry
is already *very* uncompetitive.    These are then the
industries least likely to survive in the long run, with or
without the kind of "investment" you propose.   In other
words, the industries least likely to benefit.

A concrete example: when I was a kid, there were 700,000
men employed in the British coal-mining industry, and the
Govt.  was already "investing" taxpayer funds in the
industry "to keep the jobs of men currently empoyed in the
industry alive".

Now it's 1992, and there are less that 50,000 men employed
in British coal-mining, and some of these men were not even
born when the effort tp protect "existing" jobs started.
Taxpayer protection has created new unproductive jobs in an
uncompetitive industry.     What's more, there is still a
pressure group, headed by Arthur Scargill, the leader of
the Miners' Union, who want to "invest" yet more taxpayer
money in the industry, and the argument is still that we
should keep "existing" jobs around.

jon.
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Alternatives to Import Taxes
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:41:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.BxM0x9.CGo
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1689D787F.M23231@mwvm.mitre.org> M23231@mwvm.mitre.org writes:

>I think we as a nation need to look closely at how we came to depend on "free-t
>rade" as it has begun to be practiced since Reaganomics began. When did we star
>t thinking that it was good for the US to permit our corporations to range all
>over the globe with no tax consequences and with US gov't assistance?

   Good grief, would you care to document this?!    "Ranging all
   over the globe" often adds up to *more* legal hassles.  Look at
   yesterday's IRS agreement with Matsushita, for instance, which
   was based on an earlier deal cut with Apple.


>e for us. We need to review E. F. Schumacher's book, "Small is B
>eautiful"  and see if his 1975 vision was wrong or whether we are seriously off
>on the wrong track today with our notion that corporations are now boundaryless
>and can do whatever they want in the holy name of Free-Trade irrespective of
>what that does to the national security and to the well-being of the people.

   Perhaps you could summarize Schumacher's points for us.   "Big"
   has a great many obvious advantages:  economies of scale, the 
   opportunity to take advantage if talent and ideas all over 
   the world (look at HP's use of Canon's engines in our Laserjet's
   for instance) and the larger markets available to international
   companies.    In theory it also reduces the risk of conflicts
   between nations since the more we are economically tied together
   the more interdependent we are -- Japan cannot, for instance, 
   destroy us without destroying their biggest export market.

   It also benefits host nations -- we have many Indians, e.g.,
   working here who might never have had the opportunity to have
   jobs like this or gain this kind of experience if not for the
   presence of a company like HP in India.   Likewise US auto
   workers learn newer, better, production techniques at the
   factories of Japanese companies in the US.  Ronda Hauben's
   comments notwithstanding -- Honda's Marysville, Ohio plant is
   producing the most popular car in America with quality standards
   exceeding any Big Three car (except Saturn?), more efficiently
   than the Big Three plants.   

   International business is bringing our world together even as 
   older forces like religion and tribalism try to tear it apart.
   Already we have something like an international currency: 
   having only a little piece of plastic I can get food, lodging,
   transportation, clothing, and cash in almost any country in
   the world.


---peter



 
  
   

   
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: M23231@mwvm.mitre.org
Subject: Re: Alternatives to Import Taxes
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean VA 22102
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 13:34:02 GMT

In article <3843@key.COM>
rburns@key.COM (Randy Burns) writes:
 
>
>
>Are there any countries that require labling on the degree to which value
>added is domestic vs value which is added abroad? My own sense is that
>most American consumers often aren't aware when they are purchasing
>foreign products embedded within the shell of a larger American product.
>For example, the Saturn has been hailed as the savior of GM, but I've
>heard that most of the hi-tech parts are really made in Japan.
>
>Now the whole free-trade vs. protectionism issue is a big one. I have
>some sincere doubts around import restrictions and tariffs. Still,
>some improvements in labling laws a might go a long ways in reducing
>reliance on imports without requiring extensive GATT negotiations or
>even involvement on the part of congress(i.e. a state might pass a labling
>law).
 
*********
I think we as a nation need to look closely at how we came to depend on "free-t
rade" as it has begun to be practiced since Reaganomics began. When did we star
t thinking that it was good for the US to permit our corporations to range all
over the globe with no tax consequences and with US gov't assistance?
Why is it all of a sudden the conventional wisdom that
we must do this? Suddenly we are bombarded with all these talking
 heads droning the line that we must do these things and that this is the futur
e for us. We need to review E. F. Schumacher's book, "Small is B
eautiful"  and see if his 1975 vision was wrong or whether we are seriously off
on the wrong track today with our notion that corporations are now boundaryless
and can do whatever they want in the holy name of Free-Trade irrespective of
what that does to the national security and to the well-being of the people.
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Osha,and other regulations not enforced in Michigan(Was A Six Hour
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 20:47:58 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <geujWi_00Uh7A2F1Em@andrew.cmu.edu> jw59+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jason Webb) writes:
>Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 25-Oct-92 Re:Osha,and other regulatio..
>by Ronda Hauben@cleveland.F 
>> The deregulatory fever in the U.S. -beginning under Carter with the 
>> U.S. airlines industry - has resulted in fewer airlines - higher
>> prices, more plane crashes, etc.

  This is absolute nonsense.  I'm a fairly frequent flier and I have
  no doubt the prices *I* pay are lower than before deregulation.
  As for plane crashes, I would *love* to see the documentation
  on that one -- plane crashes and fatalities in the US have 
  been dropping steadily since deregulation, despite the fact that
  the volume of air traffic has increased dramatically during that
  time.

  Methinks Ms. Hauben must be a nervous flier.
              
---peter
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Trade War?
Date: 6 Nov 92 18:27:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: apollo.BxB4ME.9BC
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA



  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, brinksmans  hip, 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.


  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.    

   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.  



---peter


  
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: v37262d@kaira.hut.fi (Mancko H|glund)
Subject: Re: Trade War?
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 20:12:44 GMT



The import taxes imposed by the US government are quite unnecessary,
but on the other hand this was something one could expect. 

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

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.

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.

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
v37262d@kaira.hut.fi:	Mancko H|glund 	(mancko@shsibm.shh.fi) or  
			Ebbe Jonsson	(ebbe@shsibm.shh.fi)
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.econ