HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: pas@anchor.unh.edu (Paul A Sand)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: University of New Hampshire
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 18:23:36 GMT

th: Ted Hoff

th: The implementation of libertarian ideals will lead to policies the
    majority of americans view as cold-hearted. Game theory research has
    shown without a doubt people have a sense of "fairness" flatly
    rejecting traditional economic assumptions concerning rational
    behavior.

The first sentence is--at best--an assertion of the current mood of the
electorate. The second sentence looks to be nothing more than a
restatement of the first, pretentiously inflated to look like
immutable and universal scientific fact. 

[Which makes it, I guess, appropriate for sci.econ.]
-- 
-- Paul A. Sand           | God has to have a bang path.
-- Univ. of New Hampshire | A *big bang* path.
-- pas@kepler.unh.edu     | 	(Craig Dowell, in rec.arts.books)
From: htweedie@madhat.actrix.gen.nz (Hamish Tweedie)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Value of Life
Distribution: world
X-NewsSoftware: GRn 1.16e (7/4/92) by Mike Schwartz & Michael B. Smith
Date: 31 Aug 92 16:19:41 PST
Organization: The mad HATter's madhouse

	Anybody care to discuss their view of the valuation of life by
govt. policy makers, and what they view as the implications of the issues
involved in such valuations??

	How do people view the value put on road accidents, health care
expenditure, etc with regard to the resource allocation??

	Any takers :-)
-- 

|           ///    htweedie@madhat.actrix.gen.nz  Bombora/Ross 780 sailor|
| Taste    ///       OR tweedie_h@kosmos.wcc.govt.nz        | RZ350, R65,|
|= Amiga  ///        OR tweedie@ivory.isor.vuw.ac.nz        | K75S rider.|
|    \\\ /// "Computer programmers were put on Earth to make accountants |
|     \XX//  look interesting!"   "Stretch yourself.........get morphed!"|
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jackson@kaos.stsci.edu (Bob Jackson)
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
	<1992Sep1.010021.29903@leland.Stanford.EDU>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:22:21 GMT

Contrary to the best intentions of many, all
'necessities' are rationed, e.g., food, water, shelter,
medical care.

No social or economic structure will be meet the demand
for the necessities.

The rationing will be made, if not by ability to pay, then
by government decision of how much to provide and who
gets what first.
From: steveh@thor.isc-br.com (Steve Hendricks)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: DEBT vs. DEFICIT
Summary: Federal Budget Surpluses are not unknown
Date: 23 Aug 92 21:09:40 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo, An Olivetti Company

In article <1992Aug23.000508.16237@csi.uottawa.ca> cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne) writes:
>
> A deficit results in the debt increasing, and (presumably -
>we've never seen it happen in North America :-)) a surplus would be
>used to pay down the debt.

Actually, with respect to the US, this is untrue.  Federal government
surpluses are by no means, unknown.  In fact, they were quite common
between the civil war and the the turn of the century.

If I'm not mistaken, there were also significant surpluses in the 1920's, 
although I'm not sure.

In any event, government surpluses can be a major problem since they
represent resources uninvested in productive activity.  Much of the
political conflict of the Populist period revolved around the issue of
the Federal government being a drag on economic development because it
collected too much money.

>Christopher Browne
--
Steve Hendricks                        |  DOMAIN:  steveh@thor.ISC-BR.COM   
   ISC-Bunker Ramo Corp.  ms LL2-2B    |  UUCP:    ...!uunet!isc-br!thor!steveh
   E. 22425 Appleway                   |  Ma Bell: 509 927-7034
   Spokane, WA  99220-4008             |  FAX: 509 927-2499
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: ekp@mcnc.org (Edward Pavelchek)
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Organization: Good place for a disclaimer
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:45:03 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.010021.29903@leland.Stanford.EDU> jojo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joanne Spetz) writes:
>My understanding is that policy makers tend to not explicitly declare
>a value for human life, but that the implicit value they hold can be
>deduced by examining the policy choices they make.  The number I seem
>to remember is about 2 million dollars:  for example, an environmental
>program that will result in 200 million dollars of lost productivity
>but will save 100 lives will be a toss-up.  If it's only 99 lives the

What we 'should' value human life at is a tough question.  What we can
afford to value life at is easily approximable.  The 1989 GNP was
$5.3T, the labor force was 113M.  Appropriate subtractions from GNP
might be 13% for health, 5% for education, and I'll throw in 7% for
other.  The average worker's share of GNP is $34K.  A 40 yr working life
turns out at $1.4M (no present value calculation).  You can play around
with interest rate, the contributions of the non-working population and
the 'other deducts', but what we can afford for the average life is 
going to be between $.3M and $1.5M.

My guess is the ethical arguments will have a much wider range.

-- 
Ed Pavelchek   ekp@mcnc.org
But I make a profit of 3 1/4 cents an egg by selling them for 4 1/4
cents an egg to the people in Malta I buy them from for 7 cents an egg.
Of course, *I* don't make the profit.          Joseph Heller, Catcha 22
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 29 Aug 92 23:27:45 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <Btr6yr.H58@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>Victor Yodaiken writes:
>>And there is no claim that the mean-spiritedness and 
>>intellectual poverty of "libertarianism" implies in any way that it is
>>a "false" theory, merely that it is a repugnant one.

>Once one takes claims of intellectual richness and disconnects them
>from truth and falsehood... then where does one stand?
>
>Victor's statement can be translated as follows: "I don't care if
>everything that the libertarians say is true.  I don't care if individual
>rights give us the best possible mechanism for assuring peace and prosperity.
>I don't care if socialism and interventionism simply don't work.  Who
>cares which theory is true?  Libertarianism is repugnant."

Translation is usually associated with some sort of meaning preservation. 
To illustrate the point which you have so deeply misunderstood, let's
examine the "libertarian" position that one has the "right" to refuse
service in a public place of business on the basis of racial bigotry.
The "libertarians" argue that it is moral to impose taxes for the
purpose of paying for a police force which will enforce the racial
prejudices of property owners by forcibly ejecting blacks, jews, or
whatever from hotels, restaurants, banks, or any other "privately owned"
place of business. Thus, the "libertarians" find it perfectly moral
to forcibly extract taxes from minority groups in order to violently
oppress them. I find this repugnant and  intellectually dishonest, but
not "wrong", since it is a moral position, not a falsifiable one. On the
other hand, the "Libertarian" claim, which has been oft repeated in this
forum, that under a free-market system such discrimination would be
unprofitable and would render the racist business vulnerable to competition
*is* wrong as anyone familiar with the history of race relations in the
United States can confirm. That is, we see from US history that
discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender, or whatever,
 has been quite compatible with profitability,
and that widespread racial or religious prejudice has
worked to deprive certain segments of the population of a meaningful chance
to compete on equal terms with the majority. 




-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: too much junk
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:53:40 GMT
Reply-To: cave@cis.rand.org (Jonathan Cave)
Organization: RAND, Santa Monica CA


I second the original poster's comments.  I thought this was sci.econ, not
alt.econ.  There is precious little economics in here, and what there is,
is macro.  Bummer.
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Human Rights...
Date: 31 Aug 92 17:40:26 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


    Thomas O. Smith writes:

>Libertarians need to accept the fact that people possess certain
>basic human rights. An important purpose of government is to 
>insure that these rights are protected for all citizens regardless
>of social or economic status. To do this, ......[deleted].....
>And that is why governments have the moral right to impose
>taxes. ....[deleted].....


     You are correct, humans do have certain inaliable rights. These
being defined by the founders of our country to be life, and the
protection of private property. These rights are not based on race
sex, creed, or economic status. What you propose is that the 
`rights' of the poor are more viable than the rights of those that
are self sufficient! That is not to say that the poor should be
abandoned, but there are private charities to help them. Why should
the poor have the `right` to some of my paycheck when I payed my
way through college to earn a higher living? You seem to be
confusing `rights' and wants. NO ONE has a right to a better 
standard of living, a great job or a new home. They may well desire
these things very much but these are not rights and should be
earned by them.
    Government has no rights! Government is a loose collection of
individuals whos actions are guided by the constitution. Since
when does a loose collection of people have a right to your 
paycheck? If you choose to give it to them , fine. The government
was instituted to PROTECT the rights of individuals regarding life
and property. What you propose is to invert this to the point 
where the individual needs protection from government in order to
keep his property. Otherwise any `disadvantaged' group of 
individuals (everyone is disadvantaged in one form or another) gave
have free reign on my, yours, or your relatives paychecks.
    Please think about how much power you are giving another
institution and how much freedom you are losing when you allow
Government to claim that they have a `right' to rape your wallet.

 Jeff



     
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 14:10:23 GMT

Victor writes:
>If you deny
>the ethical content of your argument, then the ethical content does not
>disappear, it merely is revealed to be unexamined --- i.e. a prejudice.

5 more points off!

The name of this fallacy is 'straw man'.  If Victor had been paying
attention, he would know that I have _not_ denied the ethical content
of my argument.  Indeed, I have been quite explicit in my statements
that all political 'oughts' contain embedded ethical 'oughts'.

Logic lesson: the 'straw man' fallacy consists of trying to refute
one proposition by arguing against another proposition.

The proposition asserted by Victor above is certainly true.  He certainly
has a valid refutation of those who would deny the ethical content of
political arguments.  Note well, though, that *that* isn't all the 
proposition under question.

Come on, Victor.  Let's debate something.  This is getting old.
I think the other participants here are clever enough to see through
your smoke-screens.

--Jimbo

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7357 misc.invest:11228
From: ss9o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Sorensen)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Clinton on Economics (transcript of speech)
Date: 26 Aug 92 17:17:54 GMT
Organization: Masters student, Urban and Public Affairs, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

Excerpts from netnews.sci.econ: 26-Aug-92 Re: Clinton on Economics (t..
by Jim Howe@citi.umich.edu 
> How about a self-service ice machine?  It is a machine that takes
> water and produces ice.  Customers put money in the machine and
> get ice in return.  The 'labor' to produce the product (ice) was
> performed by the machine, not a person.  Wealth was created because
> a desireable commodity was produced which did not previously exist.

And where did the machine come from ?
From: jojo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joanne Spetz)
Subject: Re: Value of Life
Summary: Valuations are implicit
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 92 01:00:21 GMT

In article <htweedie.04d4@madhat.actrix.gen.nz> htweedie@madhat.actrix.gen.nz (Hamish Tweedie) writes:

>	Anybody care to discuss their view of the valuation of life by
>govt. policy makers, and what they view as the implications of the issues
>involved in such valuations??

My understanding is that policy makers tend to not explicitly declare
a value for human life, but that the implicit value they hold can be
deduced by examining the policy choices they make.  The number I seem
to remember is about 2 million dollars:  for example, an environmental
program that will result in 200 million dollars of lost productivity
but will save 100 lives will be a toss-up.  If it's only 99 lives the
policy is more likely to be rejected.  I may be wrong about the number,
but this is the idea.

Where the valuation of life will become more obvious to the general
public is in the health care debate (for lack of a better description
of it).  Health care programs which restrict health spending will
clearly result in the non-treatment of certain individuals.  So, what
is the dollar value of these people?  Who is more important: the
child or the adult?  Oregon tried to create an explicit valuation system
based on public consensus (they held town meetings and conducted
surveys) and found themselves under much hostile criticism.

How do people feel about such valuation?  My impression is that people
find it to be morally repugnant.  However, one cannot avoid making
some sort of value judgement of human life whenever one supports or
doesn't support most government policies.  People seem to try to
make themselves feel better by not explicitly stating what their "life
value" is...but that's only a dodge for the hard, cold, cynical truth
of economics:  everything has a price.

(let's see if this results in any flaming)


-- 
Joanne Spetz
Economics Department
Stanford University

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 15:04:16 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <87453@netnews.upenn.edu> vvallopp@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Vinod V Valloppillil) writes:
>
>Additionally, I might add that some strains of libertarianism explicitly 
>attempt to wring morality out of politics.  They seek an economic basis
>for all types of governmental law.

  I think this is a hopeless quest.   That economics, as opposed to some
  other thing, should underlie law is, itself, a moral proposition. 
  Indeed the existence of law (i.e., the right for a group of people to
  make rules and expect others to abide by them) is a moral proposition.
  
  Moreover, since morality is subjective, it is impossible to claim that
  "position X" has no moral content except for the speaker.   If the rich
  man on the hill claims that his wealth represents only an economic
  reality and has no moral significance; this statement may only be true 
  from his point of view.   To someone who believes that great wealth 
  produces a moral obligation on the part of the rich man to do Good
  Works, that wealth does have moral significance.  Which view prevails
  will depend on a complexity of factors.

  
  
>  Morality and related topics should solely be the realm of non-governmental
>  organizations -- in their belief. 

  But what "should" be, is itself a moral position.  And since it's the
  role of government to effect what "should be" this makes it impossible
  to remove government from the moral debate.


---peter
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: RBC Modelling
From: <ECOKXP@BYUVM.BITNET>
Date: Saturday, 29 Aug 1992 22:00:31 MDT
Organization: Brigham Young University

Well, perhaps to start a new thread, perhaps to fail...

What is the perception out there in netland about the validity of
Real Business Cycle models?  Do they give us a reasonable and
useful description of the macroeconomy?  Does money matter?
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Outgrowing Libertarianism...
Date: 1 Sep 92 16:52:15 GMT
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <BtvqLH.I5L@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> jwales@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (jimmy donal wales) writes:
>>The "libertarian" attempt to pass off prejudice as
>>science is...
>
>Ad Hominem!  Minus 5 points for Victor!

"Ad hominem"  is not synoymous with "strongly worded". 

-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: idfriedm@hertz.uwaterloo.ca (id friedman)
Subject: Re: How Long it will Take to Pay back the Debt (Life in the 24th century)
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 17:05:10 GMT

In article <1992Aug23.230126.18866@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Hunk) writes:
>   Consider that our largest surplus since WWII was 12 billion dollars.  That
 What was debt as a percent of GNP or GDP?

 In fact, I rememer seeing stats which indicated that the sum of public and
 private debt as a percent of GNP and GDP is lower in the U.S than in Japan.



>was when the debt was only about 250 billion, so there were just these real
>tiny interest payments (10-20 billion or so).  So we'll probably never even
>be able to get anywhere near back up all that way to 12 billion with our
>current interest load (400 billion or so), since 12 billion even with the
>smaller interest was likely considered intolerable.  And remember, Americans
>simply won't stand for more tax increases (unless the increases exempt the

 Then how do intend to pay for a neglect of infrastructure and education?

 California can't even pay its civil servents now.

 
>vast majority of them).
>
>   So the current debt is 4000 billion.  Payback time >= 4000/12 = 333 years.
>
>   Therefore, it is unlikely we will pay back the debt any time before the
>year 2325.

Ishay
Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: maryelen@hfx001.ns.istc.ca (Mary Ellen )
Subject: Databases? Telnet/FTP sites?
Organization: Industry Science & Technology Canada
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:03:55 GMT

I would like to know if there is a list available of economic-related 
databases and Telnet/FTP sites.

If so, could someone please point me in the right direction?

In any case, if anyone has a favourite information source, please tell me.

Please reply via e-mail.

AtDhVaAnNkCsE

Mary Ellen Foster
MARYELEN@hfx001.ns.istc.ca
From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Re: Republican Controlled Congress
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:49:29 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst

In article <1992Sep2.034908.25616@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>
>  I was asked to clarify an earlier point I made regarding the top
>100 spenders in congress.  The following is the source of my
>information.  Please let me know if you find any typos so that
>I may correct my copy.
>
...
>Rank	Member				sponsored	sponsored   sponsored
>
>1	Boxer, Barbara    (D,CA)	$406		$-1.26		$405

This is a ridiculous measure. Boxer, for example, is a strong advocate
of major cuts in the "defense" budget. Since, Republicans and Right-wing
dems have blocked these cuts, and enshrined the sanctity of the DOD budget
in the Gramm-Rudman bill, it is absurd to blame Boxer for the increases
she supports while ignoring her calls for $50billion cuts in military
spending.

Similarly for Barney Frank

>9	Frank, Barney     (D,MA)	$341		$-2.49		$339

And Ted Weiss has been advocating the Civilian Conversion Bill for 10
years now, where's the credit for the massive spending cuts envisioned
in that bill?

>14	Weiss, Ted        (D,NY)	$324		$-0.46		$324

Let's face it. This list is an exercise in propaganda and nothing more.


-- 


yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu
From: potter@silver.usna.navy.mil (Mr. Jeff Potter (CADIG  STAFF))
Newsgroups: sci.econ
Subject: Milton Friedman...
Date: 28 Aug 92 17:30:05 GMT
Organization: U. S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD
Originator: potter@usna


   yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu writes:

> I further suggest that Friedman's economic policies have been
>shown to be quite appealing to torture regimes, and are now
>apparently quite the rage among the Nationalist right wing in
>Russia.....[deleted].... Thus, advocates of Milt's economics
>should explain just how far they are willing to go to give the
>rest of us the benefits of his brave new economy.


  It sounds to me like you have a personal vendetta against MR.
Friedman. A smidgen of jealousy perhaps......

  Just what type of economic system do you advocate? Your comments
have been limited to derision of Libertarianism. So what is your
Utopia? Status Quo Americana with a staggering deficit? Marxist
Communism which has been a dismal failure all over the world (Just
look at Cuba today if you need more proof. Soap is rationed to 1/2
bar a month...). Pure socialism as Sweden had which also failed.
  How much more proof do you need? The U.S. declining though it
is, is an economic powerhouse because of CAPITALISM, and individual
liberty. Please enlighten us as to your position.


Jeff

Newsgroups: sci.econ
From: jojo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Joanne Spetz)
Subject: Re: Considering Grad School: Would appreciate help with info.
Summary: Getting in=preparedness
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 92 19:09:55 GMT

In article <180vqjINNgnd@matt.ksu.ksu.edu> bubai@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (P.Chatterjee) writes:
>I'm considering going in for my Ph.D in Econ. in one of the better known 
>schools. 
>I was wondering if somebody could shed some light on what the 'clinching' 
>factors are in the admission process and to what extent are the 'big' 
>names willing to finance entering grad students. 
>Thanks.

Having gone through the process three years ago, I still don't entirely
know what the clinching factors are.  My impression is that people want
to know if you can handle the work you'll receive in the first year.  This
means math (which you seem to be fine on).  The first year econ sequence
at any of the "better known schools" (MIT, Stanford, Princeton, Chicago, etc)
often seems to be a course in applied math, not econ.  If you've got that
down, you probably have already made yourself a good candidate.

My experience with funding is that most schools fund fairly well.  For
example, Stanford funds about 3/4 or more of its first year class on
fellowships (about 1/2 of admits get offers).  All grad students are
guaranteed money for their second through fourth years via a TA job
or a research assistant job.  Fifth year students are gambling, but now
I think all have TA or RA jobs.  
Harvard seemed to be similar, but they told me they don't explicitly
promise funding for 2nd-4th years.
Princeton often offers fellowships that are good for all four years.

State schools are hit-or-miss (esp. CA now that their budgets are being
cut).

I was told that if I'd have to pay for more than the first year at some
school, I should go somewhere else.  This may not be a smart approach,
but was my game plan when applying.  Thus, I'd recommend applying to
some "long-shot" schools, some schools that you've got a 50/50 chance
of getting into, and some schools that you're willing to attend that
you know you'll be accepted at.

Good luck.



-- 
Joanne Spetz
Economics Department
Stanford University

Xref: sparky sci.econ:7314 talk.politics.misc:43295