Marina:

Thank you for the food for thought you shared as below;

>Wishing you peace in the New Year! Here are two little Hebrew verses for you
>all:
>
>            "Take care of the soul:
>                  she is turquoise,
>                         agate, and jasper.
>             Her light is like the light of the sun,
>                              like the light
>                       of seven mornings at once. "
>
>                                  ******
>            "On this day, may the weight
>                of all my sins dwindle
>                       to nothing, like
>                           the crescent moon.
>              Today, may the sum of my merits
>                         alone grow
>                                 and bud
>                                     and blossom."
>
>                                    ******
>Marina Pflieger

Very much so.... food for thought!
Aniko
>
>

Ok, U2 - we "others" are in the dark?...

Marina... what "exacly _did_ u hear? - save us from interpratation of our
own device please? ....

Aniko

>I have listened to the same speach, very intently, and to this day I know
>what I heard!
>
>On an other note; I have been reading some of the poems of  Ma'rai Sandor.
>Here is a short one:
>                            A FUTO
>
>                            Fe'lek
>                            Uram, hogy jonnek me'g napok,
>                            Mikor a torvenyen telik be az itelet.
>
>                                            -------------
>
>           Marina
>
>

Stowewrite wrote:
>
> In article >,  writes:
>
> >Sam, what do you consider is my nationality so I could adjust the step.
> >Don't beat the bush, speak out on issues or move.
> >Hungary is in agony it sure does not need you.
> >Go and  laugh at hurricanes you are a foreigner to that land.
> >You have no roots and no backbone.
> >
> >Albert Albu
> >
> >I laugh at idiots..
>
> Judging from your last statement, may we then assume that you spend an
> inordinate amount of time standing in front of the mirror with tears
> rolling down your face? Your nationality, from what I can determine, is
> Franco-Italo-Daco-Slobovian. If I didn't have a backbone, I wouldn't spend
> time sending messages along it from my brain to the foot which is
> constantly kicking you in the butt. This is the second or third message
> from you recently spouting out (between various bits of indecipherable
> Manglish prose) that if the reader doesn't side with you, perhaps he or
> she ought to find another list. May I heartily suggest that when you
> finally exit this newsgroup after being humiliated by most or all of the
> regular, sane posters, that you will not let the door hit you on the
> backside?
> Sam Stowe
>
> Born to laugh at hurricanes.


Tel me Sam, It huts to be a jerk?

Albert Albu
I laugh at idiots..

On Sat, 14 Sep 1996, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
+++ [cut/snip]
> Gotcha! I think your last posting to which I was responding actually
> mentioned both factors - on the one hand that a Minister of
> Telecommunications, for example, who proposed a new law might also be a
> member of Parliament that would vote on that law. And the lack of controls
> on ownership which might amount to regulation of industries and businesses
> in which the members of Parliament might be shareholders. Unfortunately I
> think it holds just as true in the West as in Hungary that the problem with
> hiring the regulators from the regulated industries always runs the risk of
> conflicts on the part of the regulators. Yet, the other alternative is to
> have regulators who are not knowledgeable about the industries they are
> regulating. This is not exactly the same thing as conflicts on the part of
> the legislators, I realize. However, it sounds like the Hungarhotels deal
> was not something that was shot down by the Parliament but was shot down by
> Gyula Horn personally. And that is not something that would be dealt with by
> regulation, unless his power to shoot down such a deal was taken away or
> modified.
++++++++> Perhaps you missed the point [the problem is that there is an
auora of mismanagement, mistrust, unethical behaviour, etc. that I am
complaining about].... In the USA at least one can say there while there
are undue influences, lobbyist, etc. there are very few out and out open
(or almost open) conflict  of interest. At least it is clearly open to
attack and at times correction.  Of ocurse people in power should have a
pretty good knowledge of the issues. The last Minister of Telecom
probably could not spell telecommunications, never mind understanding
what its impact(s) may be in all forms, yet he was also member of
parliament and making laws that surely benefited those he was associated
with (directly or indirectly).

> Secondly, regardless of the reason behind what Horn did, if I got the gist
> of the previous posts back and forth correctly, it sounds like he made the
> right decision, in the sense that the price that was eventually obtained
> from those hotels was much better than the original offer.
+++++++++> Again the issue here is that as I understand it there was
already an agreement in principle and to cancle it at the last minute is
NOT to me an acceptable business dealing. It is like shaking hands and
then someone comes up to you later and says that I willbuy it 2x as much.
One should sell it to the original party -- if you screwed up then too bad!
There is such a thing as honor in business deals (even among thieves!)

> Secondly, I am not so sure that you can *ever* eliminate such *conflicts.*
> You could elect a professor who owns no stock, and he might be biased in
> favour of assistance to educational institutions. You could hire a factory
> worker, and he might favour unions. I am saying that a person's background
> may induce him to have a certain perspective on issues, that could be
> considered just as much a conflict as ownership of stock would. Why is it
> that only a monetary interest is considered to represent a conflict of
> interest?
++++++> It is NOT only monetary interests, you are right about that. But
there is not public accountability in Hungary!!  See how well they
Commies managed to get off steling half the country and getting away with
murder all to the detriment of the Hungaroian people.


> Maybe the best solution is in public accountability. Those legislators will
> still have to account to the voters, and if they are not good legislators,
> the measures they enact will not be in the public's best interest regardless
> of anything else. Also, I think it would be difficult to craft a piece of
> legislation that would effectively assist one segment of the business
> community and not another. Unless restrictions were put in against one
> segment of that community, for example, *foreign* businessmen. For example,
> here in Nova Scotia, when the government about 20 years ago wanted to
> encourage Michelin Tire to build three plants in the province, they passed a
> bill which specified that if the workers wanted to organize a union, they
> would have to get approval for the union in all three plants. Of course, the
> government did not acknowledge publicly that the bill was intended to assist
> Michelin, but everybody knows that was the intention, and the statute is
> called the *Michelin law.*
>++++++ Yes and there are Kennedy laws, etc. etc. etc. it is still WRONG!
>
> The only way to prevent an unlevel playing field is to get the government
> out of the field of regulating altogether, and then other factors will apply
> - such as monetary wealth, geographic location, and so on - which will also
> serve to *unlevel* the playing field.
++++++++> Well that souinds like laisses faire economics to me! Perhaps
yes. However, there must be some form of government albeit limited in powers.

> BTW, it is all a question of whose ox is being gored. For example, many
> Hungarians might prefer to see Hungarian businesses favored in such a
> buy-out. This may be a perfectly legitimate consideration, but acceptance of
> a Hungarian consortium's bid may result in a lower price being realized than
> acceptance of a foreign bid. So, then it gets down to priorities.

++++++> >well is this a matter of NEW (or OLD) Social policy by the HU
govt??? Then there is no Business decision criteria there???

Peter

At 10:53 PM 9/14/96 -0400, Ferenc Novak wrote in connection with the name
"Ikarusz":

>Yes, we probably should care a great deal whether or not a purchaser keeps
>the old name.  Why?  For one, a trade name by itself can be a valuable asset
>(under the accounting rubric of "goodwill").

        What valuable asset? If I recall properly, not terribly long time
ago there was full-blown scandal concerning some Ikarusz buses sold to
Canada!! And by the way, Ikarusz is not exactly a household name, you know.

>Another, even more important
>reason is the likelihood of continued operation of the business after it is
>acquired by a foreign buyer.  If the assets of Ikarus are bought without the
>name, it would be an indication that the buyer was interested in buying only
>the tangible assets and the market share, while perhaps intending to shut
>down
>the production line itself.

        Well, that may happen anyway: meaning shuting down the operation.
But if the plant had been sold the state treasury would have gotten a few
billion dollars for it while this way it will just die on its own accord
without any compensation whatsoever.

        Eva Balogh

At 11:59 AM 9/14/96 -0400, Burian wrote:

>Of course Hungarians love "Jacko."  After looking at faces like Rakosi,
>Stalin and Kadar for decades, it must be really refreshing to look at
>Michael Jackson (even though his demeanor is as contrived as the others).

Yeah, you're right.  And I'm so glad that Hungary's struggle for freedom is
now starting to show some positive benefits.  If Michael Jackson is such a
big splash in Budapest, who will be next, Lady Di?

Joe Szalai

At 10:25 AM 9/14/96 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:

<snip>
>        No, this is not a trick question. This is a question based on
>reality. Whether you personally like it or not, Hungary is moving over to
>free-market economy, capitalism, if you wish. It does so, because it became
>obvious that the economic structure of "existing socialism" was not viable.

"Existing socialism" may be dead, but the dream of a more equitable world
lives on.  "Existing capitalism" assures that.

<snip>
>        Now, here you try to appeal to my feminist sentiments. But it won't
>work because I *am* a realist.

OK.  I have to admit that I was/am wrong.  I thought you *were* a feminist.
Now you tell us that you have "feminist sentiments".  Figures.  Except for
members of REAL Women, and women who have successfully climbed the corporate
ladder, most women who I know, aren't that hip on capitalism.  And their
commitment to feminism is unequivocal.  They have no desire to become "like
men", to become economic gladiators.

>You cannot give away what you don't have.

Thank you for this truism.

>Hungary in the last sixteen or so years was giving away money it didn't
>have. So, instead of unrealistic expectations, why don't you just
>concentrate on reality.

I would have been given the same advice by any apparatchik of the former
regime.  Your reality, like theirs, offered no options.  Therefore, it too
is a prison.

Joe Szalai

"Progress and reaction have both turned out to be swindles. Seemingly, there
is nothing left but quietism -- robbing reality of its terrors by simply
submitting to it."
              George Orwell

At 11:16 AM 9/15/96 -0400, Joe Szalai wrote:

>>Hungary in the last sixteen or so years was giving away money it didn't
>>have. So, instead of unrealistic expectations, why don't you just
>>concentrate on reality.
>
>I would have been given the same advice by any apparatchik of the former
>regime.  Your reality, like theirs, offered no options.  Therefore, it too
>is a prison.
>
>Joe Szalai

        You know, Joe, it is not worth discussing these matters with you. I
will try to keep away from talking to you about existing socialism,
capitalism, and your socialist dreams.

        Eva Balogh

At 10:53 PM 9/14/96 -0400, Ferenc Novak wrote:

>If the assets of Ikarus are bought without the
>name, it would be an indication that the buyer was interested in buying only
>the tangible assets and the market share, while perhaps intending to shut
>down
>the production line itself.

        I forgot to mention one more thing. Is there any guarantee that the
buyer after a while will not shut down the operation even if the name
Ikarusz remains? For example, if no one wants to buy these Ikarusz buses,
and the new owner realizes that he can't make a go of it! I think name or no
name you can shut down a plant simply because it is not profitable, in fact,
it is a losing proposition.

        Eva Balogh

At 12:12 PM 9/15/96 -0400, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        You know, Joe, it is not worth discussing these matters with you. I
>will try to keep away from talking to you about existing socialism,
>capitalism, and your socialist dreams.

Fine.  Understood.

Joe Szalai

But I, being poor, have only my dreams;
I have spread my dreams under your feet;
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
         W. B. Yeats

Why is so important to talk about Simone Weil? Well, because she
was a wonderful thinker of this Century. She also was an European,
a French. We know from her biography:

       |  By the time she entered college
       |  she was writing incisive critiques of Marxist thought.
       |  Nonetheless she continued to oppose capitalist systems
       |  of production, not so much because the elite own the
       |  means of production but because another more fundamental
       |  conflict had been added, "by the very means of
       |  production, between those who have the machine at their
       |  disposal and those who are at the disposal of the
       |  machine."

She was critical about the Marxism but she also rejected capitalism.
Now, undereducated Yankee bullie-boys used to condemn this kind of
position as "third way" advocacy. Especially, if they don't know
nothing about the European culture, the French culture.

(What is funny about Sam, for example, is that he himself boasted
that his image of the French culture is greatly influenced by the
personal rudeness of some Parisians toward tourists.)

What is the major problem of Simone with the capitalism? As she
says, the trouble is with the people, the human beings who are "at
the disposal of the machine". In another word, the trouble is that
human people (the workers) are under the power of machines. People
who are made by God, people who should have divine grace and human
dignity in them, became mere tools of a technical machinery which
is called capitalism. It is an abomination, shouts Simone. It is a
scandal, we also may shout with her.

At the very roots of this machinery there is the corruption of the
the human mind, which gave away his own human authority to machines,
to technique. Heidegger, another European, may also have had a very
important point here.
                                                           Sz. Zoli

Ferenc Novak wrote:
> Yes, we probably should care a great deal whether or not a purchaser keeps
> the old name.  Why?  For one, a trade name by itself can be a valuable asset
> (under the accounting rubric of "goodwill").  Another, even more important
> reason is the likelihood of continued operation of the business after it is
> acquired by a foreign buyer.  If the assets of Ikarus are bought without the
> name, it would be an indication that the buyer was interested in buying only
> the tangible assets and the market share, while perhaps intending to shut
> down
> the production line itself.  Absorbing competitors in this manner is not an
> unknown practice even here in the USA.

As Eva Balogh has already pointed out, Ikarus have no name by international
standards.  This is because it used to sell almost exclusively in the old
communist trading bloc.  (A few buses sold at knock-down prices in developed
countries constitute the exception to the rule.)

With the fall of the communist trading bloc, the traditional market has
been wiped out, and Ikarus has no tangible market share now.  For similar
sums of money, once they can choose, people prefer buying buses with
Mercedes or Volvo badges to those with Ikarus badges.  For cheap buses
there is no demand because those who would want them cannot buy even more
important things.  (These are the same people who are still running
Ikarus buses and would buy parts for them if they could afford those,
but they cannot.)  But anyway, Ikarus could only sell profitably at
cheap prices if it still made around 10,000 units a year.  It makes
perhaps one-tenth of that, so it has to spread its large overhead over
that many smaller buses: to sell cheaply is to sell at a loss.

Ikarus has assets, true, but these are probably not all that hot.  More
importantly, it also has liabilities that exceed the value of the assets.

So, the only tangible thing Ikarus has at the moment is a workforce that
is reasonably skilled in making buses.  Sadly, the shortcomings in the
other departments mean that there is little work for the employees.

Under such circumstances, the best solution for the Hungarian government
is to accept the deal that offers employment for the most employees, without
the government having to contribute too much.  Beggars cannot be choosers,
and the issue of the tradename is pretty low on the wish list.  The best
hope would be a Wester-European busmaker who would want to use the Ikarus
facilities for increasing its production.  Sadly, there is such overcapacity
in busmaking in Western Europe already that there is little such interest:
existing manufacturers could supply Ikarus' entire traditional market
without extra capacity if there were demand.

Anyway, the Russian part-owners of Ikarus would not want such a deal
because it would mean the changing of the product line.  Their interest
is to sustain Ikarus for the time being (with  Hungarian government
subsidies, of course), waiting for the time when Russia can once again
afford buying parts for its huge fleet of Ikarus buses, and perhaps some
more buses too.  They have enough share to say no to any proposal they
don't like. Catch 22.

George Antony