At 07:15 PM 2/12/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>I doubt whether you have any idea about the indebtedness of the
>country!! Staggering.

Many countries have staggering debts.  You say, and I have no reason not to
believe you, that Hungary went into debt because Kadar's MSZMP "bought" the
population with foreign loans.  I'm told that Canada is in debt because of
Keynesian economic policy.  In Canada the Liberal and Conservative parties
"bought" political power by borrowing from "future generations".

You say that Hungarians hate paying these loans and erroneously claim that
they never benefited from them.  Well, many (probably most) Canadians hate
paying back the loans but at least they don't claim that they didn't benefit
from them.

How could it be that two very diverse countries have similar economic
problems?  And how many other countries are in the same boat?  To whom is
all the money owed?  Why is it not taxed back?

>My contention is that
>there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
>on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
>service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
>Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.

Agreed.  I agree with all your points but I'm not as willing, as you are, to
be uncritical of the largest money grab by the well-to-do that I've every
seen.  I don't think it makes economic sense to allow wealth to be
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  I believe that the right wing,
Hayekist economic policies, both east and west, are enabling that to happen.

The rich get richer and the rest of us point fingers at each other.  I don't
agree with it, but it's an effective startegy.

>There is a limit to our leisure time and there is a limit to our general
>wealth.

Yes.  So lets tax it back from those who are benefiting the most from our
welfare programmes, namely, tax shelters, and lets share the wealth.  That
would get the economy going.

Joe Szalai

> Felado :  [Canada]
>
> I'm not interested in bashing Hayek.  Hopefully, history will relegate his
> 'work' to something less than a footnote.  If he were a dog trainer his
> specialty would be pit bull terriers.
If you are not interested in bashing Hayek than why do you do it in the next
sentence?  Hayek understood a large number of things (e.g. the market as a
discovery mechanism, something that can't be simulated by central planners)
that were not properly understood before him. You might add to this
understanding, modify it, even refute parts of it if you can, but to do any of
this with the slightest degree of credibility you have to offer alternative
explanations.

> Leave the military budget alone!  It's an excellent way for capitalist
> societies to waste resources.
It is also an excellent way for communist systems to waste resources.

> Capitalism has a symbiotic need for waste, whether that be the automobile,
> the military, a war now and again, or just sending multi billion dollar
> missiles into space.  Without this waste, capitalism would collapse.  It's
> as simple as that.  But I don't expect you to see that or to believe me.
Well let's try. Capitalism has a symbiotic need for competition, no question
about that. Competition is wasteful (or at least it appears to be wasteful)
so capitalism has a symbiotic need for waste. Do I believe this? Yes. Do I
believe that we have a better method of guiding production than competition,
this gory, wasteful, unappealing process? No.

> What do you expect?  Miracles?  But don't complain.  At least you're living
> in one of the golden capitalist societies that you like to trumpet so much.
> If your release turns out to be just a wet dream, tough!
And guess what, until I see Americans renounce their citizenship in large
numbers in order to take up residence in Canada, Sweden, and other more
socialistic versions of capitalism I will believe the US is a better place
than Canada Sweden etc. As for my wet dreams, I know this subject is dear to
your heart, but I prefer to keep you out of my bedroom. Thank you for sharing
some of your sexual fantasies with us, and let's leave it at that.

> >>>make the individuals richer and things will work out for society as a
> >>>whole.
> >>Your last comment makes you sound like a closet Marxist.
> >Does it really? Chapter and verse please,
> Did you get this need for 'chapter and verse' from your bible study class?
> Sorry, but Microsoft hasn't released the Marxist concordance CD-ROM yet.
> When they do, I'll look up the chapter and verse.  And that will be the end
> of it.  Nervous?
Why should this kind of handwaving make anyone nervous? I think it would
have resulted in a smaller loss of face for you to admit that you goofed,
but if you prefer it this way that's fine too.

Andra1s Kornai

> Felado :  [United States]

> just because an issue is a hot-button one doesn't mean it shouldn't be
> discussed.
Of course such issues should be discussed -- my point was merely that it is a
mistake to let small but ideologically charged issues overshadow less charged
but in real (dollar) terms larger issues.

> In the case of ADC, it is an issue that causes an emotional response as soon
> as it is brought up. I agree with you that the dollar amount spent on ADC is
> probably a lot less than that represented by cheap gas. But I am not
> quibbling about the amount spent, my argument is that the present welfare
> system helps create a cycle of dependency which in some cases goes on for
> generation after generation. The system has helped to break down the
> traditional family ties. Many single mothers have kids when they themselves
> are no more than 14 or 15 years old, and they are not really capable of
> providing guidance for kids.The boys run in gangs and drugs - much harder
> now than those on the street 30 years ago, I understand - are rampant. There
> is little meaningful guidance from adults , and the peer group becomes the
> most important influence. The kids often grow up essentially sociopathic.
> The society has become too big and impersonal to provide effective positive
> role models for these kids, and there is no deterrence which has any real
> impact on them, because they know that they in most cases will only get a
> slap on the wrist.
I thought I said rather clearly I agree with your views about the
destructiveness of ADC as it is. But please *do* quibble about the amount
spent. Just to put the matter in the proper perspective, marijuana is the
single largest cash crop in California. To leave it out of consideration would
be like to leave the black economy (now estimated at 30% of the total
Hungarian economy) out of consideration when discussing reforms. The dominant
factor in the economy of the inner city is drugs, by cash flow, number of
people employed, or any measure you choose. Compared to the money channelled
through drugs, ADC is a marginal matter.

> >What the hell is happening to the peace dividend? Does anybody still
> >remember that a peace divident was promised by a Republican administration?
> >We are talking of massive trillions here, something that would have
> >significant impact on the deficit.
>[...]
> I think you answered your own question about what happened to the peace
> dividend! (Although personally I would love to see the money spent on PBS
> than on a lot of other gov't programs).
Well perhaps I answered it, but not so that I would have noticed. Would you
please elaborate?

Andra1s Kornai

> Felado :  [United Kingdom]
> > Content? I'm delighted they work harder on more productive things.
> And I think, that they always worked hard enough.
Yes, and the Hungarian peasant harvesting with a scythe worked much harder
than the US farmer sitting in the air-conditioned cab of his combine-
harvester could ever imagine. But it is the amount of the grain harvested
that determines the usefulness of the worker, not the amount of sweat. Why
is the US farmer more productive?  Because he's sitting on a piece of
machinery that represents a large capital investment. Like it or not, E1va,
capital is a good thing, and societies that can't accumulate it are doomed
to lose out to the ones that can.

Andra1s Kornai

> Felado :  [United States]
> This message has been generated automatically. In case of errors, please,
>       contact the administrator of the Hungarian American List.
>                 (mailto:)
>          Thank you for reading the Hungarian American List !
And thank you for advertising Gottha1rd's list here -- I know he needs it.

> Ah! That elusive dream of reunification of Hungary to its old former self.
> At least reunification of all those who claim to be of Hungarian ancestry
> in the 'neighboring' countries! What an idea!!! (We all have that in our
> busoms as a somewhat hidden agencda or wish).
"We all"? And who, pray tell, is that "we all"? Would the phantom
personalities from pellioniszvalley.com please stand up and be counted?

> The problem is that we Hungarians have drifted apart. The Hungarians in
> Hungary think that THEY are the only Hungarians, else they would accept
> help and advice from Hungarians all over the wolrd.
These silly Hungarians, not caring for the advice of the wise emigre
community, they just don't see the errors of their ways.

> The fact is that the Hungarian Govt has seen fit to GIVE UP and not to
> antagonize its neighbors and former taskmaster. Short of starting a WAR
> I am not sure what a disorganized, non-communicating Hungarians (Hungary)
> can do. This issue really needs to be taken to the powers that be.
Then perhaps you should send messages to .

> The fact is that THEY screwed up (and us) and we are paying for it now.
> It is time to intelligently figure out how Hungarians can regain their
> homeland, their freedoms, their dignity. It is time for Hungarians to wake
> up and try to escape from the negativism created by its history and
> recent past shackles. A REAL revolution needs to take place inside the
> souls of ALL Hungarians!
And you are no doubt ready to lead that REAL revolution. And so is E1va
Durant. I suggest you organize and start communicating with her.

> They first have to become honest, non-greedy, and productive people.
Now they are just dishonest, greedy, improductive people who screwed up.
I'm sure this message will make you very popular in Hungary. Maybe Gottha1rd
can get a deal to broadcast it by satellite? Duna TV, which reaches the whole
Carpathian basin, is perhaps the logical place to start.

> There is no long term perspective in how to reconstitute the Hungarian
> people and nation as a whole. This requires leadership, and I am sorry to
> say that both govt's since 1989 have royally screwed up and avoided the
> real issues. They do not know how to get out form under the Communist
> corruption, mentality, and no-one wants to help one another. Perhaps this
> is a remnat from Communism and part the Hungarian psyche. Hungary
> currently is just floating along with no wind, no rudder, and no direction!
So sad. I suggest you step in the breach and provide the requisite leadership.

> The current public in Hungary looks down upon their bretheren (Oh there
> are some tokens of good will), but its those damn Romanian gypsies or
> poor Erdelyis, Or them *&%$# Slovakians....etc. Instead there should be a
> real freindship offered to these people.
Taking away large parts of their countries sounds like a great offering of
friendship, and no doubt they will all appreciate it.

> We do not complain to the right people. Hungary spends time trying
> to get into the EU while the country is falling apart. Why not have a
> precursory statement: We MUST have ALL Hungarian ethnic people be
> folded back into Hungary.
Why not, indeed. And fold back to Hungary they will, with great enthusiasm.

> Obviously the "freedoms" were lost and the current taskmasters will
> vehemently fight return of the "stolen" illegal transfers.
But let them fight vehemently, right-thinking emigres will fight even more
vehemently. Not for nothing are .mil people cc-ed.

> It is time to step on some serious toes (Britain, France, Germany,
> USA) to have them re-visit the mess that they made.
Mega1llj, mega1llj, kutya Britannia!

> If this fails, more stringent action is required,
> Like no through traffic on the Danube, no traffic into or out of Romania,
> Slovakia, etc. Perhaps that will get the attention of these Bozos!
Given the great economic goodness the Serbian embargo caused to Hungary, this
will be no doubt a highly popular course of action. Now that Pe1ter Solte1sz

> Peter Soltesz.
Pe1ter Solte1sz? I thought this was a message from John Czifra! Jancsi,
are you spilling the wonderful traffic of  to  by
accident, or does Gottha1rd pay you for the publicity? He should...

At any rate, now that Pe1ter Solte1sz has dealt the final blow to the bozos
in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, maybe he is ready for bigger things.  He
has his natural allies like Joe Szalai, last seen on the net fearlessly
fighting for the right to live in a world where we treat each other with
dignity, respect, equality, fairness, understanding, compassion, and
helpfullness. No doubt both he and E1va will fully endorse Pe1ter's remarks
about greedy Hungarians.  And any right-thinking person will know what to do.
DO NOT SEND MONEY YET. Just join  for a FREE six-month trial
period.

Andra1s Kornai

I though this following paragraph shows - through a
different discipline - that arguing for the present,
because it happens to be here, is not necessarily right.
Eva Durant


> A claim of absence of new physics is never defensible when an experiment
> probes a regime where the predictions of the current physics are not
> known. (Neither, of course, is a claim of presence.) To pretend
> otherwise grants a special status to our current knowledge for
> no better reason than that it happens to be known by us, an oddly
> egocentric stand for someone of Vic's established opinions
> regarding consciousness and physical reality.
>

The most successful structures were the ones so far,
where more or less voluntary union happened into a
federation.  All regions should have the right for
self-determination. Once this is gained, the
tendency would be for federation, especially
if the members manage to be democratic enough.
In the long term squabbling about boarders is
so hopeless waste of human effort, not to mention, blood.
Greaving for lost lands of the past is the occupation
of people, who have no guts to worry about more
relevant issues, such as unemployment/poverty and economical
standstill.
I have never heard about hungarians with
no dignity from the few people around here who knows
anything about them.
Eva Durant

>
> Since when are borders that exist today considered sacred ?
> Who is to say that sensible people in the future will not decide that
> borders should be redrawn to more equitably reflect ethnicity? Perhaps
> some system of compensation would be welcomed by the Romanian govt in
> exchange for land.It is to the advantage of all parties involved to have
> an amicable settlement.

> Capitalism has a symbiotic need for waste, whether that be the automobile,
> the military, a war now and again, or just sending multi billion dollar
> missiles into space.  Without this waste, capitalism would collapse.  It's
> as simple as that.  But I don't expect you to see that or to believe me.
>

I think one of the best demonstration of the system's failure
is the decrease in investment of science/technology, when the
financial gains are not apperent and the economy hasn't got
surplus to rely on.  I see reports after reports on cutbacks
in research fundings.   I don't think space research is waste,
if it is done cooperarively for the right reasons, and when
it is not an alternative expenditure to social welfare.
Eva Durant

>
> >> Has the Hungarian nation ceased all efforts to regain lands which are
> >> rightfully theirs. Every other nation is experiencing a reunification
> >> of their traditional ethnic lands except Hungary.
>
> >Yeah, like the Serbs in ex Yugoslavia, with the wonderful results that you
> >might have heard about.  Is this what you want ?  (For there is no other
 way.)
>
> >Do try to think, occasionally.
>
> >George Antony
>
> George Antony certainly has the right to cease all efforts to feel
 compassionate
> to his fellow-Hungarians (?) but must understand that they despise and reject
> such traitors of the Hungarian nation. Especially if they combine their
> betrayal
> of nationhood with the obvious and characteristic liberal arrogance.


I thought you would be more compassionate if you'd work for peoples'
rights regardless of boarders. In this case you actually take
into account the safety and security of the people you feel so
strongly about and lots of others you should also have some
feeling for.

Exciting racial hatred seem to be the preoccupation of those
worrying about boarders. That is a criminal offense round here.
Eva Durant

I lead you back to the point that was argued about.
It was claimed, that most people on disability
benefit were cheating in Hungary. I said, that
a vast majority of them were indeed in too bad
health to work fulltime.
The reasons for this can be argued, overwork and
cuts in the health budget since the 80s, can be
blamed, why thank you for mentioning it.
Eva Durant



>
> Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > Wrong and wrong. Please look at the health statistics and
> > deathrates of middle-aged people in Hungary, probably the
> > worst ina fairly well developed country.
>
> Wrong.  Hungary is NOT a 'fairly well developed' country.
> Hungary, while culturally a European nation, is an
> economic cripple, not even up to the level of Malaysia
> in terms of per-capita GDP.
>
> Among similar developing countries, the Hungarian health
> statistics would look less poor - not that it is any
> confort, but a more realistic comparison.
>
> Even your favourite classic, Marx, said something to the
> effect that the economic fundamentals determine the social
> superstructure.
>
> George Antony

As expected. If you are an employer, you have a moral duty
to cheat, but if you are an employee, you are taking
advantage of the system.
If you an employer, you should have tax-inducements, if
you are an employee, you should tighten your belt for evermore.
How familiar... and it works. The rich is getting richer,
the poor poorer, and the economy stagnates just the same...
Eva Durant



>
> At 04:01 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Joe Szalai wrote:
> >
> >Eva, by all means be critical of people who abuse social services.
>         First of all, in the Hungarian case there is no other alternative,
> as Finance Minister Bokros says time and time again. Or, as our famous
> economist Janos Kornai coined the phrase: Hungary is a premature welfare
> state. I doubt whether you have any idea about the indebtedness of the
> country!! Staggering. The background: Janos Kadar and the MSZMP decided that
> the only way to keep the party and the socialist paradise going was to "buy"
> the population, literally! Raise living standards although from the 1970s on
> there was no economic growth. All this was financed from foreign loans. And
> of course it worked--I am not going to go into the details because a couple
> of months ago Andras Kornai and I talked about this fairly extensively and I
> quoted a new university textbook in which there was a perfect description of
> the government's policy. Today's Hungarians hate paying these loans and
> claim that *they* never benefited from them--only the cadres did! This is
> bull, of course.
> >But do
> >you really favour doing away with them [meaning social services] because
> they are abused?
>         Not just because of that but because it is unworkable. A worker at
> the Mercedes-Benz factory has more than two-months of paid vacation and gets
> an hourly wage of over $60.00 (with benefits). In France, extensive social
> services are given: not too poor people but to well-off middle-class people.
> Benefits after each child, even if the parents are not married. I read in
> the New York Times about a case where the husband (they were not married
> actually) was a journalist who got wounded in Chechnia. After he got out of
> the hospital, he still needed homecare. His partner, and the mother of his
> two children, felt that looking after him and the two children was too much.
> She managed to get help for household chores for $3.00/hour, $10.00/hour was
> paid by the government. And one could go on and on. My contention is that
> there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
> on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
> service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
> Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.
>         And about abusers in general. It is not just this or that
> abuser--human nature is such that we are all abusers. A very good friend of
> mine's mother--a lifetime Republican who has been preaching self-reliance
> all her life--is in her eighties now. Suddenly, she has no punctions about
> getting every possible social service the state provides, including free
> taxis to the airport when she travels. She is quite well off but, like all
> other elderly people, including those who are millionaires, wouldn't give up
> a cent of their entitlement.
>         In brief, as long as it is there--people will take advantage of it.
> They would be stupid not to. Meanwhile, the black/grey economy is growing
> and is growing because the taxes and social security dues are so high that
> it is impossible to endure them. Without cheating all the entrepreneurs
> would go bankrupt and the population would be even poorer than today.
>         But it can't go on like this even in the West--we can't have two or
> three months of vacations and a whole month of sick leave (which, of course,
> whether you need it or not, you take). There is a limit to our leisure time
> and there is a limit to our general wealth. This is especially so in a
> global economy where our Chinese friends are very happy with a great deal
> less than we are.
>         Eva Balogh

>         Not just because of that but because it is unworkable. A worker at
> the Mercedes-Benz factory has more than two-months of paid vacation and gets
> an hourly wage of over $60.00 (with benefits).

I'd like to see some proof of this. Usually it is tabloid-
manufactured urban legend.

>         But it can't go on like this even in the West--we can't have two or
> three months of vacations and a whole month of sick leave (which, of course,
> whether you need it or not, you take). There is a limit to our leisure time
> and there is a limit to our general wealth. This is especially so in a
> global economy where our Chinese friends are very happy with a great deal
> less than we are.
>         Eva Balogh


There is enough wealth produced to support all these extravagance -
for everyone.  In a "developed" country less than 10% of people is
involved in producing - and overproducing the agricultural goods,
and less than 20% is involved in manufacturing industry.
Most people are in sevices.  With all the extra huma capacity
available, why only a few should have a chance to all the benefits?
Eva Durant

> However, keeping them on welfare with incentives not to work leads to whole
> several generations of welfare families, where no one even konws that there
> is any other way of earning a living.
>

So making them sweeping the streets for their welfare money
would be the solution?  There are certainly not enough
decent paying jobs for them. So what is your suggestion?
You don't want to spend on education, I presume...


>
> There are plenty of jobs. But some are somewhat choosy.
>

I don't think it is choosy, if you don't take a job that
doesn't pay you to live as decently as the virtual folk in
ad-world, even if you work 10 hours a day. (And I am not
talking about the human dignity factor.)

>
> Market value is what the market can bear. What do you mean by "as they tell
> you you should"? Who is doing the telling? The government? The Socialist
 Party?
>
> Farkas D. Gabor

The market is very happy with millions of unemployed, thank you very
much. It is a lovely tool to keep the wages down and the hours up for
those, who are working.   The media is indistiguishable part of
the establishment. What Socialist Pary you are talking about?


Eva Durant

>
> > If teenage-pregnancy is on the rise, it's due to the low educational
> levels of large number of girls, for whom to achieve independence from their
> parents can be only attained by having babies.
>
> Is it the low educational levels or is it to attain independence from their
> parents? Please make up your mind.
>

Both, just as I put it above.


> >I'd like to add, that state benefit payments are smaller, than
> tax-consessions and subsidies (handouts)  to the corporate section.  The
> state cannot >distribute wealth fairly, as it exist to save the decrepit
> system. If it made some excusefor redestribution, it had other less
> philanthropic reasons,
> >such as avoidance of violence from the unemployed, etc.
>
> Another good reason for less government. Let's get the state out of the
> wealth distribution business.
>

If your despised state wouldn't have done anything so far,
we probably got rid off capitalism ages ago. Those
capitalists with a bit of longer sights than yours saved/prolonged
your beloved system.


> >What I cannot understand is, that the people who are so much against
> teenage pregnancies are also the ones who would ban sex-education in
> >schools and abortion on demand/free.
>
> Let's not generalize. I am against teenage pregnancies but for sex education
> and for choice. Free abortions? Maybe for those who cannot afford it...
>
> Farkas D. Gabor

Nice to see a silver lining on those clouds...

Eva Durant

>
> > Unfortunately, many who are rabidly anti-socialist can not distinguish
> between social programmes and authoritarianism.
>
> The reason for it (being rabidly anti-socialist) is that many of us
> experienced it (socialism) on our own skins and we just want to spare any
> naive soul from re-living it.
>
> Farkas D. Gabor

Joe's case amply demonstrated. So why'd you think people
would recreate the same un-democratic structure if they
had a democratic choice for an alternative non-capitalist
system?

Eva Durant

> > And I think, that they always worked hard enough.
> Yes, and the Hungarian peasant harvesting with a scythe worked much harder
> than the US farmer sitting in the air-conditioned cab of his combine-
> harvester could ever imagine. But it is the amount of the grain harvested
> that determines the usefulness of the worker, not the amount of sweat. Why
> is the US farmer more productive?  Because he's sitting on a piece of
> machinery that represents a large capital investment. Like it or not, E1va,
> capital is a good thing, and societies that can't accumulate it are doomed
> to lose out to the ones that can.
>
> Andra1s Kornai

All those government handouts to those farmers are making them
so benefit-dependent! Someone should stop this rot!
Does anyone has the comparative figures for US farm subsidies
and social benefit spending? I am just curious...
Eva Durant

Well, thank you Mr Kornai for lumping me with the
fascist elements. I'd like to remind you, that I
have no ambicions to lead anybody anywhere, and that
I have never pronounced Hungarians or anybody else greedy.
Please, get your facts right before you are dragging me into
unwelcome company.
Eva Durant

HALIHO,

Well, well, well.....guess who's back folks!!

Szucs Andras wrote:
#################################
(2) Gottharddal messzemenoen egyetertek annak eliteleseben, hogy a leg-
kisebb magyarerzelmu megnyilvanulas is ezen a faramuci "Badmouthing
Hungary" listan rogton magyarpocskondiazasba megy at - mire jo a magyar
emigraciot kicsufulni?  Hozzatennem, hogy ugyanugy melysegesen elitelem
George Antony pokhendi es tortenelmileg tokeletesen perverz hozzaallasat
is Czifra Jancsi gondolatahoz:
##################################
Talk to me Andras, in English.
Do you want to dance, too??

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

In article >,  (JFerengi)
writes:

>Who is to say that sensible people in the future will not decide that
>borders should be redrawn to more equitably reflect ethnicity?

Who's to say it will necessarily be sensible people doing the redrawing?
Odds are that anyone trying to redraw those boundaries will be writing the
new boundary with an automatic rifle.
Sam Stowe

At 10:51 PM 2/12/96 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>However I think what is going on here in North America in this PC
>stuff is sick, wrong. It will not solve the problem. I may be wrong, but
>I can have my opinion. Unfortunatelly I have already realized it is not
>possible to have open, free debate about this subject. Whenever one has
>an opinion different then the mainstream he/she automatically becomes
>a racist/sexist/homophob/redneck/etc, regardless of his/her intention.
>
>Janos

Stop whining Janos.  Many writers on this newsgroup, including yourself,
have concluded that my opinions are 'different than the mainstream'.
They've called my ideas a lot of things but no one has called me a racist,
sexist, homophobe, or redneck.  Conversely, there are a number of writers
with whom I strongly disagree with, especially about politics and economics
but I've not called their ideas racist, sexist,... etc..

Your difficulty in feeling that you can't have an open, free debate, is your
own doing.  If you don't want to be labeled a sexist then don't make sexist
remarks.

Joe Szalai

Hali,

Kornai Andras wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Peter Soltesz.
Pe1ter Solte1sz? I thought this was a message from John Czifra! Jancsi,
are you spilling the wonderful traffic of  to  by
accident, or does Gottha1rd pay you for the publicity? He should...

At any rate, now that Pe1ter Solte1sz has dealt the final blow to the bozos
in Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia, maybe he is ready for bigger things.  He
has his natural allies like Joe Szalai, last seen on the net fearlessly
fighting for the right to live in a world where we treat each other with
dignity, respect, equality, fairness, understanding, compassion, and
helpfullness. No doubt both he and E1va will fully endorse Pe1ter's remarks
about greedy Hungarians.  And any right-thinking person will know what to do.
DO NOT SEND MONEY YET. Just join  for a FREE six-month trial
period.

Andra1s Kornai
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hey, I love to work both sides of the fence, since the topic of conversation is
the same (Erdely). Thought I'd add a nice twist to the list.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

At 15:30 12/02/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:

>The one-parent family was "encouraged" first by "absentee"
>working fathers, who had to work so long hours, that they had no
>time to take part in the upbringing of their kids.

Dear Eva -

I can't speak for anyone else's experience, but I can say that my parents
were separated all my life, so most weeks I only saw my father for one day -
though we often talked on the phone - but he was a wonderful, warm and
affectionate father who had a great influence on me. We lived with my
grandparents, and my grandfather was an engineer who worked till he was 81
(after he retired, it took 3 men to replace him!) - and he also had a great
and lasting influence on me. I don't think you can lay the blame on the
initial disintegration of the family on fathers being absent due to job
demands - I don't think absence is that significant if the parents are
actively involved with the offspring when they *are* around. The problem
with many kids today is that there is no effective parental figure in their
lives, at an early enough time in their lives to make an impact. (I will
give due credit, though, to many strong women and men, who, if they are
caring, can do an effective job of raising youngsters no matter what type of
family situation they are in).

 Women had achieved
>the right to draw money on their own name and had a chance first
>time to leave souldestroying marriages.

Now, this is my major field of practice. I do more work on separations and
divorces than any other field of law. In my opinion, children suffer most
often, because it has become too easy to break up the family. The parents
are often engaged in a spiteful tit-for-tat battle, and the kids' needs
really get neglected. These people have gotten married  -  or in many cases
around here, I should say, lived together in common-law relationships
without getting married - for all the wrong reasons. They have unrealistic
expectations, they are often immature and spoiled. This often applies to
both parents. How can parents provide guidance for children when they have
never grown up themselves?


>I'd like to add, that state benefit payments are smaller,
>than tax-consessions and subsidies (handouts)  to the corporate
>section.

I agree with you here. I think government handouts to private businesses are
still handouts, and, in the case of Canada, you have the government giving
handouts to their political cronies. I would be interested to hear if
political patronage and influence are also significant factors in Hungary today
.

 The state cannot distribute wealth fairly, as
>it exist to save the decrepit system.

The problem is that, once the state gets into the business of
"redistributing", it must take from someone to give to someone else. That is
inherently unfair. Tax loopholes are invented to placate the people with
property. Rich people know how to play the game, and they can afford to pay
people to help them avoid paying taxes. An unfair burden falls on people who
are middle class. And the sneaky government does not take just one payment
from the taxpayer, one ends up paying taxes upon taxes upon taxes. And then
they wonder why productivity is declining in Canada!


>> little niceties when the economy is going down the toilet, thanks to
>> government cutbacks and the decline in the fishery, which I might add is at
>
>You told me, government handouts make people lazy... I see.
>Only some people at selected places...

I was talking about cutbacks in jobs. In my small town of 2600 people in the
last two years, we have seen the Navy Base close - that meant the loss of
140 military jobs and the loss of their families to the Shelburne area,
together with at least that many civilian jobs. The Registries of Deeds and
Probate, the Clerk of the Court, the Sheriff's Office, and the Assessment
Office, which handles property tax matters for our county have been
downsized or are being consolidated and moved elsewhere. Unfortunately, the
nearest large towns where these services are being moved are about 60 or 80
miles away. The government is slashing willy-nilly, without a plan, without
considering the long-term consequences. All that might be bearable in
ordinary times, but the government has simultaneously closed down much of
the fishery, which they were supposedly scientifically managing! It is no
wonder that some of the fishermen now are engaged in occupying the offices
of the Department of Fisheries in Barrington Passage, near my home, and
Sydney, Nova Scotia.

I am not a fisherman, but I often get the feeling that they don't care if
the entire community gets shut down.

I think the lesson, which Hungary is learning bitterly, is that the
government cannot manage our society effectively in many areas of social
engineering which they asserted that they could do. Remember that the
government has always been far more interventionist in Canada than it is in
the States. When I came here, Canadians proudly asserted that they had a
more humane system with their extensive social safety net than the
Americans. I, essentially a libertarian at heart, accepted the Canadian
system on its own terms - sacrifice, pay more in taxes, get back government
services, especially medicare, which all Canadians seemed to appreciate. It
was like they had a contract with the Canadian people. But they seem to have
breached the contract. We still have the obligation to pay the taxes, but
the services are being slashed. Again, I'll echo James Doepp, it's hard
coming down from that artificial high. It would have been less painful, I
think, if people had not become so dependent on the government benefits in
the first place. But everybody likes to think that they can get something
for nothing.

Yours,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

At 23:12 12/02/96 -0800, Andra's Kornai wrote:
>> Felado :  [United States]
>
>> just because an issue is a hot-button one doesn't mean it shouldn't be
>> discussed.
>Of course such issues should be discussed -- my point was merely that it is a
>mistake to let small but ideologically charged issues overshadow less charged
>but in real (dollar) terms larger issues.

Dear Andra's -

But I hope you understand that my point was that the social cost of ADC is
out of proportion to the number of dollars spent. I also agree with you that
the other items are also factors in the U.S. But I just thought of
something. When I came to Canada in 1977, I appreciated the lovely downtown
core in Halifax, which presented such a contrast from decaying American
center cities. I think many Nova Scotians would agree that the downtown core
in Halifax has been deteriorating noticeably in the last few years. Many
businesses are leaving the area, and I believe the crime rate is also the
highest of any city in Canada. Hard drugs like crack seem to be a major
problem, and teenagers are becoming more violent, with a phenomenon called
"swarming" having been observed, where ten or twelve young kids may attack
and beat a person. But, there is no mortgage interest deduction in Canada
and I pay $2.40/gal. for gas, so I think you can observe the decline
occurring here, but there must be a different set of factors at work.
.The boys run in gangs and drugs - much harder
>> now than those on the street 30 years ago, I understand - are rampant.

  Just to put the matter in the proper perspective, marijuana is the
>single largest cash crop in California. To leave it out of consideration would
>be like to leave the black economy (now estimated at 30% of the total
>Hungarian economy) out of consideration when discussing reforms. The dominant
>factor in the economy of the inner city is drugs, by cash flow, number of
>people employed, or any measure you choose. Compared to the money channelled
>through drugs, ADC is a marginal matter.

Well, I did allude to drugs, but you're right, it may be that the impact of
the drug culture in the inner cities (and elsewhere?) is far more insidious
than it is generally given credit for. But I also think drug abuse is a
symptom of a wider disease and not just the cause of the problem.
>
>> >What the hell is happening to the peace dividend? Does anybody still
>> >remember that a peace divident was promised by a Republican administration?
>> >We are talking of massive trillions here, something that would have
>> >significant impact on the deficit.
>>[...]
>> I think you answered your own question about what happened to the peace
>> dividend! (Although personally I would love to see the money spent on PBS
>> than on a lot of other gov't programs).
>Well perhaps I answered it, but not so that I would have noticed. Would you
>please elaborate?
>
Okay, now I am not an expert on this, but I suspect that -

1)      some of the "peace dividend" talk may have been just election hype;

2)      military procurements and spending *are* down, but a large
percentage of what is considered to be "defense spending" actually represent
pension payments to retired servicemen, from which no "peace dividend"
savings would be realized;

3)      the rest, and this is what I thought you were alluding to, I am sure
was promptly spent in the form of payments on the interest on the deficit,
new government programs, including pork, and so on by a greedy Congress,
which, of course, finds itself unable to reefrain from spending any extra
funds which may come into its hands.

It would be a good idea to remind the politicoes about the idea of the
"peace dividend" and call them to account for why it seems to have
evaporated. Unfortunately, many of the politicians who bruited it about seem
to have left the scene. Maybe some astute observer could be inquire of Bill
Clinton as to the whereabouts of the peace dividend.

Yours respectfully,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

what's this bozos thing?

At 01:54 AM 2/13/96 -0500, Andra1s Kornai wrote:

>If you are not interested in bashing Hayek than why do you do it in the
>next sentence?  Hayek understood a large number of things (e.g. the market
>as a discovery mechanism, something that can't be simulated by central
>planners) that were not properly understood before him. You might add to
>this understanding, modify it, even refute parts of it if you can, but to
>do any of this with the slightest degree of credibility you have to offer
>alternative explanations.

Your 'need' for an alternative explanation comes form the fact that you are
a true believer of Hayek's magnum opus.  Have you also fallen for Ayn Rand?

In, 'The Counter-Revolution of Science',  Friedrich Von Hayek states that
the best way to describe the difference between the natural and the social
sciences is to call the former 'objective' and the latter 'subjective'.  He
correctly goes on to say that the 'facts' of the social sciences are also
opinions.  My difficulty with Hayek is that he concludes that economics is a
natural science.  Certainly the mathematics component of economics is a
natural science but the 'needs', 'goals', and 'directions' of the economy
are subjective factors.  So, should society meet the needs of the 'free'
market, or should the market meet societies needs?   Why do I suspect that
you're going to tell me about the 'trickle down' theory of social
enrichment?  (And please don't assume that I'm thinking of you having wet
dreams.)

>> Leave the military budget alone!  It's an excellent way for capitalist
>> societies to waste resources.
>It is also an excellent way for communist systems to waste resources.

I guess it really dosen't matter how often I say that 'communist' systems
never existed, and more than likely, never will.  But if you can't fight a
phantom you might be relegate yourself to watching PBS all your life.

>Capitalism has a symbiotic need for competition, no question
>about that. Competition is wasteful (or at least it appears to be wasteful)
>so capitalism has a symbiotic need for waste. Do I believe this? Yes. Do I
>believe that we have a better method of guiding production than
>competition this gory, wasteful, unappealing process? No.

You give up too easy!  Human and natural resources are finite.  To waste it,
because we, as a species, cannot be creative enough not to be wasteful, is
to endorse our march toward extinction.  Given that, why do you care which
road we take?

>Why should this kind of handwaving make anyone nervous? I think it would
>have resulted in a smaller loss of face for you to admit that you goofed,
>but if you prefer it this way that's fine too.

So you think I goofed because I'm not willing to quote you chapter and
verse.  Do you think I'm so goofy as to believe that if I did, you would
change your mind?  Don't forget we're discussing a subjective social science.

Joe Szalai

The latest Hungary Report, 1.37, has the following article:

A RECENT REPORT ISSUED BY THE WORLD BANK REPORT SHOWS that poverty in
    Hungary has jumped five times since 1989, according to Nepszabadsag.
    Seven years ago 1.6% of the population received an income below the
    minimum pension level. This figure jumped to 8.6% in 1993. The study
    also reveals that the percentage of impoverished Hungarians jumped to
    33-40% between 1989 and 1993. Based on the report, The World Bank
    report proposes changes in the social safety net to help those living
    in poverty.

It's nice to see the World Bank getting into the welfare business!

Joe Szalai

>        America had supplied the British and French with small arms for years,
>but the factories were not tooled up to produce larger weapons. Thus
>America had to rely on her allies for most of her aircraft and all her
>artillery, tanks and machine-guns. In addition, all ranks wore British
>and French pattern steel helmets in action. The rifle carried was usually
>a Lee-Enfield of slightly smaller calibre than the British version, or
>the Garand 1903 pattern, with M1905 pattern bayonet."
>
>According the last paragraph, rather the British and French had to supply
>heavy weapons to the Americans than vica versa. This slightly contradicts
>your opinion about the end of WWI. Beside if your version is true, what
>goods the allies could not get from America before 1917 and got after
>the US entrance into the war? I guess they could get almost everything
>if they were able to pay.
>
>Janos


        A point of clarification.  The Lee-Enfield rifles which you
mentioned could have been produced in Britain or the United States.  While
of British design, many of the rifles carried by British troops were
produced in American factories for direct export to Britain.  As far as I
know, the Lee Enfield was never offered for sale in America, but was
produced, prior to 1917, under contract to the British armed forces.

        At the time the U. S. entered the war, the primary U. S. infantry
rifle was a bolt action Springfield (not Garand, that was the later
semi-automatic rifle of WWII) 1903 model in .30-06 caliber.  The British
were using the Lee-Enfield in .303 caliber.  When the U. S. started
conscripting soldiers for the war, they quickly found that they couldn't
produce the Springfield rifle in quantities large enough to supply the
troops.  However, several factories were already tooled up to produce the
Lee-Enfield for export, so it was a simple matter to alter the design
slightly to conform to the U. S. ammunition caliber.  Voila! The 1917
Enfield was born.  This rifle was subsequently produced in massive
quantities by numerous manufactureres, Remington, Winchester and others,
and suplemented the Springfield in the American lines.







Doug Hormann

>What I cannot understand is, that the people who are so much
>against teenage pregnancies are also the ones who would
>ban sex-education in schools and abortion on demand/free.
>
>Eva Durant

WHAT IS THERE NOT TO UNDERSTAND!!     Eva, this is precisely why your
utopian, everybody of one mind working together, socialist theory won't
work.  You will never get everyone to agree on sex education, how do you
think you will get them to agree on economics?   HELLO!  EARTH TO EVA!!!
People are interested in what's best for them.  Marx knew that the only way
to get people to accept socialism was to take away their sources of
divisiveness, church,  political parties, etc.  What he didn't understand
and you apparently don't either is that people won't give this up without a
fight.  People happen to like their various religions and other
organizations.  PEOPLE LIKE BEING INDIVIDUALS!  This is completely
incompatible with socialism as you seem to think it should exist.

        In China, there was  time when everyone wore the same clothing.
This basically had to be enforced at the barrel of a gun.  When this was
relaxed,  almost everyone went back to wearing whatever they wanted.
Rather elitist and not very socialistic, but very human.  In Hong Kong,
soon to revert to the communists, anyone who can is leaving like rats
leaving a sinking ship.  Why?  Because they aren't stupid!  Socialism
stinks Eva.  It doesn't work, and CAN'T because its based on a invalid
theory of human behavior.  You'll probably say something to the effect that
socialism will change human behavior.   Stalin, Mao and others have tried,
they lost!

        You may not like capitalism.  That's fine.  Ask anyone from the
United States or Australia or Japan if they want to leave.  See what they
say.  Advocating socialism to cure our social problems is like perscribing
the guillotine to cure baldness.  The cure is worse than the disease.

        If I sound irritated in this post its because I'm wondering when we
are going to  stop this silly argument.  I'm tired of downloading 70
messages at a time all rehashing the same thing.  Let's move on folks.

Regards,



Doug Hormann

At 11:30 AM 2/13/96 -0800, you wrote:
>>        America had supplied the British and French with small arms for years
,
>>but the factories were not tooled up to produce larger weapons. Thus
>>America had to rely on her allies for most of her aircraft and all her
>>artillery, tanks and machine-guns. In addition, all ranks wore British
>>and French pattern steel helmets in action. The rifle carried was usually
>>a Lee-Enfield of slightly smaller calibre than the British version, or
>>the Garand 1903 pattern, with M1905 pattern bayonet."
>>
>>According the last paragraph, rather the British and French had to supply
>>heavy weapons to the Americans than vica versa. This slightly contradicts
>>your opinion about the end of WWI. Beside if your version is true, what
>>goods the allies could not get from America before 1917 and got after
>>the US entrance into the war? I guess they could get almost everything
>>if they were able to pay.
>>
>>Janos
>
>
>        A point of clarification.  The Lee-Enfield rifles which you
>mentioned could have been produced in Britain or the United States.  While
>of British design, many of the rifles carried by British troops were
>produced in American factories for direct export to Britain.  As far as I
>know, the Lee Enfield was never offered for sale in America, but was
>produced, prior to 1917, under contract to the British armed forces.
>
>        At the time the U. S. entered the war, the primary U. S. infantry
>rifle was a bolt action Springfield (not Garand, that was the later
>semi-automatic rifle of WWII) 1903 model in .30-06 caliber.  The British
>were using the Lee-Enfield in .303 caliber.  When the U. S. started
>conscripting soldiers for the war, they quickly found that they couldn't
>produce the Springfield rifle in quantities large enough to supply the
>troops.  However, several factories were already tooled up to produce the
>Lee-Enfield for export, so it was a simple matter to alter the design
>slightly to conform to the U. S. ammunition caliber.  Voila! The 1917
>Enfield was born.  This rifle was subsequently produced in massive
>quantities by numerous manufactureres, Remington, Winchester and others,
>and suplemented the Springfield in the American lines.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Doug Hormann

>

Here! Here!--and just for good measure, the Winchester House has a gun
museum  here in San Jose covering a bit of that.  Sarah Winchester's husband
and family sold millions of guns whose blood money went into that peculiar
mansion...  (She was building it with enough rooms to house all the ghosts
of the victims of her husband's products...)

Also, don't forget Mr. Dupont's  (Delaware, New Jersey, etc.) gunpowder and
other explosive powders for all the shells.  It was--and still is--among the
finest in the world...

Respectfully,


Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA




N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 07:58 PM 2/7/96 -0500, you wrote:
>so... just what are they planning to do with all that money in Hungary?
>Good, or bad? (for Hungairns ....)
>

Some good, some bad--just like the rest of the world.  It's all done by
human beings...  As I indicated in a previous posting that described the
same single "investor" (actually the principal spokesperson for a couple of
consortiums) who brought good and bad projects to different countries, there
is a certain amount of respect for, and cooperation with, those who are
careful enough to not allow themselves to become "doormats" for someone else.

Respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA


N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Joe:

At 06:52 PM 2/1/96 -0500, you wrote:

>At 07:09 PM 1/30/96 -0500, Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker wrote:
>

>I don't know if you've ever attended any of their 'development' seminars.
>If you have, did you notice that most, if not all of the attendees were
>women.  Certainly, that has been my experience.  Often, I wondered why more
>men were not going to these seminars.  Then it occured to me that men are
>less willing to please their boss than women.  And that's because men have
>much more power than women.  If they can't please their boss, they can
>always boss their partners.

I have attended two of their seminars (better than the books).  In both
cases, most of the audience was male.  Females were rare.  But perhaps
that's just this area.
>
>Most of the 'self-help' books, and seminars are aimed at women because
>someone figured out that women are often trying to 'improve' themselves.
>Often, women who are battered, blame themselves for the abuse.  They think
>that "if only I was this", or "if only I did that", they wouldn't be abused.
>Upon entering the work force, many women bring these feelings of inadequacy
>with them.  Being called 'girls' at work, and making less money than men,
>many women jump at the opportunity to please and improve, in the hope that
>working conditions will improve.  But it seldom does.

I like _Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus,_ myself--so did my husband,
and I can assure you, he's no "sissie."  Also, I enjoy the stuff from the
Harvard Negotiation project (Professor Fischer, et al).  We used some of the
tactics to avoid multi-ethnic warfare in one meeting recently.  Even with
the book, the situation got bad enough that I've been in no real hurry to
send out meeting notices for this year's big one...
>
>Promoting these men and their ideas is like promoting the 'etiquette' books
>for women at the turn of the century.  It's not 'etiquette', 'development',
>or 'improvement' that women want.  It is equality.

Basically Peters extols the virtues of Deming work groups--which the
Japanese particularly found highly effective and now so does Hewlett
Packard, and other major U.S. companies.  Unfortunately, Deming didn't
"popularize" and "mass merchandise" many of his concepts, himself--so we're
left with largely a hash.  I did find one, though just before my surgery
that was done with Deming's cooperation, at the Barnes and Noble
Superstores.  My husband appropriated that one however almost as soon as I
took it out of the bag.  I'm going to have to wait until I'm stronger--and
quicker--to snatch it back.

Sincerely,


Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Dear Barna:

At 11:11 AM 2/1/96 -0500, you wrote:

>Cecilia wrote in connection with the Soros meeting:
>>
>>Laszlo indicated there will be some sort of preliminary meeting in Budapest,
>>but the main meeting is to take place in New York--where Soros has his
>>offices.  The Hungarians wanted the main meeting in Budapest, but the
>>audience they also wanted to attract was principally North American and East
>>Asian, and since Hungary is generally such a small part of their general
>>business activities, many of prospective invitees didn't want to take the
>>time off for the extra travel.  It was felt they would have a higher
>>turn-out in New York.
>>
>
>Now a saw a confirmation of this, quoting the Hungarian paper
>"Nepszabadsag". The [preliminary?] meeting will take place in Budapest on
>February 9-10, and about 100 prominent people from abroad are invited from
>the field of culture, science and economy. The report names Andras Suto,
>[writer from Romania], Tibor Merai [writer from France], Paul Lendvai
>[publicist from Austria], Andrew Sarlos [businessman from Canada] and Tom
>Lantos [politician from the US].  I added the qualifications shown in
>square bracket, so they may not be accurate.
>
>I wonder, if anyone who reads the Internet media will attend this meeting.
>[Bela Litpak, Laszlo Hamvas, etc]
>
>Barna Bozoki
>
It is a preliminary meeting.  Over 60 _business and finance_individuals are
scheduled to meet a couple of weeks later in New York--and this includes
Minister Horn and his entourage.  The business and finance is considered the
real "nuts and bolts."  The first meeting is for ideas as to how and what
Hungary should develop, the second will figure out what can really be
done--that is, in what the money people are more likely to invest.  Good
ideas stay no more than dreams without the means to implement them.  The
business people also have their own ideas already.  They're not terribly
impressed with pure culture, science and economic academic theorecticians.
They like things to be applicable to real-life goods and
services--particularly those that serve wants or needs--and net a profit.

If you want a real example of what I mean, someone who attends the Budapest
meeting should ask Tom Lantos what happened with the development project for
a section of rural New Hampshire that was in his son-in-law's Congressional
district...  Hint, after 5 years, it _still_ doesn't exist except as a
proposal...

Respectfully and sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker






N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

At 08:11 AM 2/1/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hali,
>__________________________________________________________
>Csaba Zoltani wrote:
>
>>The book, now available in paperback, can be highly recommended to
>>anyone interested in the second largest minority in Europe, the
>>Hungarians living outside of their own country.
>>
>>CSABA K ZOLTANI
>
>__________________________________________________________
>
>So, who is the largest minority in Europe, anyway. I guess is would be the
>Sammi (Lapps) right??
>
>Udv.,
>Czifra Jancsi
>john_czifra @ shi.com
>
>
My guess would be either the Irish--or Celts, or Basques.  The Basques used
to have their own kingdom, Navarre, straddling the French and Spanish
border.  In the "Christian Era" alone, the Celts used to have both a
sizeable chunk of France (Brittany) and even earlier all of France (Gaul for
Gaels--another term for a branch of the Celts), and most of Switzerland (the
Helvetii--same idea as Gaels), besides Wales, Strathclyde (the
English-Scottish borderland), Scotland and Ireland.  By the end of the
"Great Hunger," (1846-48), more than half of Ireland's population had either
died or emigrated; most of the emigrants to the U.S., but others did go to
France, Spain, etc..  A lot of Scots and Irish had previously ended up in
these countries after the failure of the Jacobite rebellions in the 1700's.

Respectfully,


Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Janos Zsargo:

>I know that we have a
>lot to do in this racial, sexist, etc stuff. I had enough african, arab
>friend in Hungary to know some story about the hungarian atitude toward
>them.

I am glad that you admit that "we have a lot to do in this racial, sexist,
etc stuff." Stuff--you even have difficulty to call it by its proper name;
that is, racial, sexist, homophobic bigotry! Most of it is based on
ignorance and intolerance. You may think that a society where gay bashing,
sexist jokes, racial slurs are frowned upon is "sick and wrong." I don't. I
think that it is sick and wrong to say things like: "look at the black
devil," as a taxi driver commented to me, an utter stranger in his cab, when
an African man crossed the street in front of us. I consider that sick!!!

>Unfortunatelly I have already realized it is not
>possible to have open, free debate about this subject. Whenever one has
>an opinion different then the mainstream he/she automatically becomes
>a racist/sexist/homophob/redneck/etc, regardless of his/her intention.

You are entirely wrong about this. There can be free debate, but don't think
that you will get sympathy (at least not from me) if you want to defend  the
Hungarian status quo about these matters!

Eva Balogh

John  quotes :
>SLOVAK DEPUTY: HUNGARY SHOULD APOLOGIZE FOR OCCUPATION. Zora Lazarova on
>8 February asked Foreign Minister Juraj Schenk why he has not made the
>signing and ratification of the Slovak-Hungarian treaty conditional on
>receiving an apology from Hungary for the occupation of southern
>Slovakia during World War II, Narodna obroda reported. Lazorova is
>chairwoman of the Slovak Green Alternative, which ran on the ticket of

 I guess this is just the old tactics : The best defense is the attack.
 Nem zorog a hatraszt ha a szel ne fujja.

    It has come just today : Mec^^^iar in Croatia stated something like this :
  The few thousand Slovakians in Croatia (I guess including tourists too)
  is glad to accept the Croatian authority, they have only personal
  rights as Slovakian natives.
    I hope you understand to whom it was addressed ...

I wrote:
>>         Not just because of that but because it is unworkable. A worker at
>> the Mercedes-Benz factory has more than two-months of paid vacation and gets
>> an hourly wage of over $60.00 (with benefits).

Eva Durant answered:

>I'd like to see some proof of this. Usually it is tabloid-
>manufactured urban legend.

I just want you to know that I never, but never read tabloids! You may want
to call me an intellectual snob but not only I don't read tabloids, I don't
listen to rock music either. Kind of egghead type.

As for proof. I read it in the Business Section of the New York Times--big
lead article on Mercedes-Benz's troubles. It was a few months ago but not
sure of that--time flies! I certainly can phone a library and ask them to
look it up in the New York Times Index.

Eva Balogh

Dear John and group;

At 04:34 PM 2/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Hali,
>
>>Interestingly enough, there was book out a couple of years ago that
>>considered hotspots of the world and considered the Transylvania
>>question. It conluded that Hungary would kick Romanian tail, despite
>>being outnumbered.
>
>Get out of here!!! Really?!?

At least one book, and a few non-CIA analysts elsewhere in the inner
sanctums of the U.S. government.  The book I spotted is _Future Wars: The
World's Most Dangerous Flashpoints_, 1992, by Col. Trevor N. Dupuy (U.S.
Army, retired,--and apparently he was an adviser on "Desert Storm" prior to
writing this book).  However, what Col Dupuy describes is a situation in
which Hungary would defeat Romania militarily, but would lose at the
negotiating table when England, France, and the U.S. would likely force a
restoration of the 1920 borders.  The only victory would be limited autonomy
for about 3 counties, but still under the Romanian "umbrella."  He predicted
two reasons Hungary would win. First, is because they have generally newer
and superior military technology, much better communications technologies
and roads--affecting mobility.  In some critical areas, the Hungarians also
have more pieces of equipment--and that equipment is newer.  The one real
weakness is that Romania's airforce is twice is large as the Hungarian.
Second, they generally have the "moral high-ground."  It is generally
acknowledged, even by the West that the Romanians are real "bad boys"
oppressing innocent people, maintaining a lot of the "bad old systems" and
are not cooperative with a lot of Western ideals and breaking a lot of
promises even to bankers, etc..  The West would like to see Romania get a
come-uppance, but would still like to preserve the "old order."  Dupuy
hypothesized in his book, also, that  Hungary would start the war with a
pre-emptive invasion on limited pretexts--which is what would ultimately
cost them at the negotiating table.  He seems to imply Hungary should wait
for an internationally observed incident of massive Romanian atrocities
toward Hungarians--something like another Temesvar. (pgs 282-308, of
paperback edition)

Unfortunately, he's probably right.  The situation has to be really bad
before the old Triple Entente, and friends, is going to be shamed into
admitting it might have made a mistake in 1918 (if not before).

Respectfully,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA

N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

Joe Szalai quoting me:

>>My contention is that
>>there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
>>on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
>>service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
>>Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.

And then continuing:

>Agreed.  I agree with all your points but I'm not as willing, as you are, to
>be uncritical of the largest money grab by the well-to-do that I've every
>seen.

The problem is that those filthy rich capitalists are the ones who generate
economic growth. They are the ones who have business sense; who have the
vision; who have the drive. It isn't you Joe or even me! You sit in your
library and I would gladly sit at the desk going over documents--you and I
don't make money. They do. And thanks to them we manage to live quite well.
So, you have to bear with them.

>Yes.  So lets tax it back from those who are benefiting the most from our
>welfare programmes, namely, tax shelters, and lets share the wealth.  That
>would get the economy going.

>From the above it is quite clear that taxing the enterpreneurs to death and
give it to the poor will actually do our economic life in.

Eva Balogh

"Andras Szucs" is back and his style reminds me so much of that of Andras
Pellionisz:

>George Antony certainly has the right to cease all efforts to feel compassiona
t
>e
>to his fellow-Hungarians (?) but must understand that they despise and reject
>such traitors of the Hungarian nation. Especially if they combine their
>betrayal
>of nationhood with the obvious and characteristic liberal arrogance.

And he is also back at his favorite topics, one of which is treason! Just
like Andras Pellionisz! The other is "apology." As I said earlier I have
never been asked so often to apologize since I was 5 or 6 years old and my
grandmother made me kneel in the corner until I apologized. I am most
surprised that "Andras Szucs" didn't ask George Antony to apologize to the
Hungarian Nation--he, of course, being the sole guardian of the Hungarian
Nation!

Eva Balogh

At 10:14 AM 2/13/96 +0100, Eva Durant wrote:

>I lead you back to the point that was argued about.
>It was claimed, that most people on disability
>benefit were cheating in Hungary. I said, that
>a vast majority of them were indeed in too bad
>health to work fulltime.

You know Eva sometime I think that alongside with Alice I ended up, by some
strange quirk of fate, in Wonderland when I am listening to you!! I read in
the Hungarian papers about cases which are truly incredible. One guy in his
twenties lost sight in one eye--finis, kaput, he no longer has to work.
Neighbors occasionally get fed up with some of these disabled and report
them to the authorities, saying, look they seem to be lifting heavy items,
work around the house just fine, there is nothing wrong with them. The
authorities' answer: well, their condition is such that they really
shouldn't be doing all this heavy work, but we can't help it if they do it
anyway! According to Hungarian observers the situation is bad and the
numbers involved are staggeringly high. I even have some statistics which I
am going to dig up just for you!
        Source: HVG, January 13, pp. 102-104 and considering that you are a
subscriber it shouldn't be very difficult to find it.
        According to a graph since 1988 the number of those who apply for
disability pension is growing--actually doubled by 1991. While in the
mid-eighties 80 thousand people asked for disability payments, by 1991 the
number was 160 thousand!!! In a country of 10 million! And half of these
people actually were approved for disability payments! For every ten
thousand workers there is around 100 new "disabled" people every year!
Moreover, the people on disability can officially work--as long as they
don't work full time. Let's say they work only 6 hours/day instead of
eight--that's fine. Let's assume that the person is only his forties and he
is not eligible for pension yet (nowadays the average age of retirees is
53). He can apply for disability and work only six hours a day officially,
or eight hours a day unofficially and he has an extra 10 thousand forint or
so. Why not, if you get away with it. In any case, between the disabled and
those people who can retire at the age of 55 one and a half people work for
one retired or disabled person.
        As for the state of the health of Hungarian people--too much work is
not the chief culprit. The chief culprits are alcoholism, smoking, and
unhealthy diet. (According to one source on the internet, a doctor from
Hungary, 20% of the population is alcoholic!) And let's add another: I think
Hungarian doctors lose a lot of people who should be living happily for
years in a western European country or in North America. At least, my poor
relatives die under very suspicious circumstances. I have just lost an older
cousin who had a heart attack while in the hospital!! Well, I am not saying
that this is an impossibility, but everybody tells me that if you happen to
be lucky enough to be admitted to the hospital a few days before the actual
heart attack your chances of recovery are very good. Well, it seems that
this is not the case in a Hungarian hospital. A year ago another cousin died
of cancer--they couldn't even find the source of his trouble. He just died.
        Eva Balogh

At 03:01 PM 2/13/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:

>        You may not like capitalism.  That's fine.  Ask anyone from the
>United States or Australia or Japan if they want to leave.  See what they
>say.  Advocating socialism to cure our social problems is like perscribing
>the guillotine to cure baldness.  The cure is worse than the disease.
>
>        If I sound irritated in this post its because I'm wondering when we
>are going to  stop this silly argument.  I'm tired of downloading 70
>messages at a time all rehashing the same thing.  Let's move on folks.


Doug understands the inherent emptiness of life.  Capitalist angst, anyone?

Pssst!  Doug?

Let's change the discussion.

Are you interested in channeling or crystals?  If your into crystals, I've
got a real good Hungarian crystal that's reputed to cure just about anything
you may suffer from.  It's worked wonders for me!

By the way, whats your sign?

Joe Szalai

>Some of the readers of this list may remember the discussion last weak
>about a forthcoming Soros-Horn meeting. As it turned out Soros and other
>major investors did not go to this meeting which took place during the last
>weekend, however, other prominent Hungarians like Sarlos, Meray, Suto did.
>There is a short item about this meeting in the Batthyany Foundation's news
>summary, quoting from the Magyar Hirlap.

According to Magyar Narancs Soros also arrived at the meeting from Davos but
he was somewhat late.

>There is also a summary of an interview with Sarlos. In it he is quoted to
>say, that he is starting a new investment program. Apparently he also
>expressed some views which just as well could have come from Eva Durant

In addition to his antagonism to NATO. Meanwhile I received a private letter
from someone who was there and according to that person, there were sharp
criticisms of the stabilization program. I think that kind of criticism
under the circumstances is counterproductive--stabilization program is the
only way to go--whether we like it or not.

Eva Balogh

Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker wrote:

> At least one book, and a few non-CIA analysts elsewhere in the inner
> sanctums of the U.S. government.  The book I spotted is _Future Wars: The
> World's Most Dangerous Flashpoints_, 1992, by Col. Trevor N. Dupuy (U.S.
> Army, retired,--and apparently he was an adviser on "Desert Storm" prior to
> writing this book).  However, what Col Dupuy describes is a situation in
> which Hungary would defeat Romania militarily, but would lose at the
> negotiating table when England, France, and the U.S. would likely force a
> restoration of the 1920 borders.  The only victory would be limited autonomy
> for about 3 counties, but still under the Romanian "umbrella."  He predicted
> two reasons Hungary would win. First, is because they have generally newer
> and superior military technology,

That's interesting.  Vaguely I recall comparisons about the military
expenditures of the ex Eastern Block, with Hungary at the bottom in percentage
terms.  The comment was the under the Communists there was a peace divident,
with the Soviets looking after air defence and the Hungarian military kept
pretty basic.  Receiving a few MiG-29s could not have redressed so many years
of low funding.

> much better communications technologies
> and roads--affecting mobility.  In some critical areas, the Hungarians also
> have more pieces of equipment--and that equipment is newer.  The one real
> weakness is that Romania's airforce is twice is large as the Hungarian.
> Second, they generally have the "moral high-ground."  It is generally
> acknowledged, even by the West that the Romanians are real "bad boys"
> oppressing innocent people, maintaining a lot of the "bad old systems" and
> are not cooperative with a lot of Western ideals and breaking a lot of
> promises even to bankers, etc..  The West would like to see Romania get a
> come-uppance, but would still like to preserve the "old order."  Dupuy
> hypothesized in his book, also, that  Hungary would start the war with a
> pre-emptive invasion on limited pretexts--which is what would ultimately
> cost them at the negotiating table.  He seems to imply Hungary should wait
> for an internationally observed incident of massive Romanian atrocities
> toward Hungarians--something like another Temesvar. (pgs 282-308, of
> paperback edition)

This ignores the hangover of the Little Entente.  Slovakia and Serbia would
be involved very quickly, for they could not allow Hungary establishing a
precedent of ascendency over a neighbouring country to solve the issue of
Hungarian minorities.  Even without actually joining the fray, they would
tie up enough Hungarian military resources to make a Romanian adventure
very questionable.  And if and when Romania may look as succumbing they
would probably do join the fray.

And the only interest of Western-European powers would be to hose down the
conflict ASAP.  Arguments about rights and wrongs do not come into it: if
the plight of Rwandans or Bosnians did not gain them Franco-British help
a few scores of dead Hungarians are going to matter even less.  Also,
Hungary is probably considered a German client by the Brits and the French,
further reducing their inclination to take the Hungarian side against a
traditionally Fench-oriented Romania.

For the West, the quickest way to terminate the conflict would be to make
Hungary stop, so there would be enormous pressure economically.  Just look at
the economic ruin that Serbia became due to the UN embargo: I doubt that a
similarly ruined Hungary would be an acceptable price for the population of
Hungary for a doubtful increase in local autonomy in Hungarian-populated areas
in neighbouring countries.  The kind of all-encompassing nationalist sentiment
amply demonstrated by Serbs has no popular support in Hungary.  This is much
to the chagrin of a few frothing-mouth armchair Hungarists, living safely in
the West, who seem to be the noisiest proponents of border revisions to "fix"
the problem of minority Hungarians.

> Unfortunately, he's probably right.  The situation has to be really bad
> before the old Triple Entente, and friends, is going to be shamed into
> admitting it might have made a mistake in 1918 (if not before).

I don't think the UK or France ever formally admitted that their policies
vis-a-vis Germany up to WWII were a mistake, and compared to this blunder
Trianon was chickenfeed from an international perspective.

George Antony

Eva Balogh wrote:

> And he is also back at his favorite topics, one of which is treason! Just
> like Andras Pellionisz! The other is "apology." As I said earlier I have
> never been asked so often to apologize since I was 5 or 6 years old and my
> grandmother made me kneel in the corner until I apologized. I am most
> surprised that "Andras Szucs" didn't ask George Antony to apologize to the
> Hungarian Nation--he, of course, being the sole guardian of the Hungarian
> Nation!

Perhaps because he may still have some hope for you seeing the light while
writing me off as a lost cause ;-).

George Antony

At 12:01 PM 2/13/96 +0100,Eva Durant  wrote:
"So why'd you think people would recreate the same un-democratic structure
if they had a democratic choice for an alternative non-capitalist
system?"

There are at least two reasons, the way I see it:

1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.
This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.
Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).
2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed
by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.
Farkas D. Gabor

Eva Balogh wrote:

> Meanwhile I received a private letter
> from someone who was there and according to that person, there were sharp
> criticisms of the stabilization program. I think that kind of criticism
> under the circumstances is counterproductive--stabilization program is the
> only way to go--whether we like it or not.

What matters is how widespread criticism was and from whom.  The Hungarian
government is thick-skinned enough to the criticism of its economic shock
therapy by now and a few more voices are not going to change much.

It is essential, however, that the government do more than chilling the
economy by restricting demand.  Long-term stabilization must follow the
short-term shock for the latter to pay off.  In this respect the reform
of the health and social-security systems is just as important as the
streamlining of the public service.  Further, a cohesive and consistent
policy of both encouraging economic activity and compensating the losers
of the reform process must replace the avoiding decisions cum crisis
management that both characterized government policy up to the Bokros
package and made it unavoidable.

George Antony

When I was in Hungary last year, we had some superb cold fruit soups --
most made with cherries. If anyone can send me a recipe, I would
appreciate it very much.

Thanks!

Bruce Burger
Seattle, USA

From: Tony and Celia Becker >
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.hungary
Subject: Re: SOROS-HORN SUMMIT!
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 15:34:05 -0800
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-ID: >

Dear Barna:

At 11:11 AM 2/1/96 -0500, you wrote:

>Cecilia wrote in connection with the Soros meeting:
>>
>>Laszlo indicated there will be some sort of preliminary meeting in Budapest,
>>but the main meeting is to take place in New York--where Soros has his
>>offices.  The Hungarians wanted the main meeting in Budapest, but the
>>audience they also wanted to attract was principally North American and East
>>Asian, and since Hungary is generally such a small part of their general
>>business activities, many of prospective invitees didn't want to take the
>>time off for the extra travel.  It was felt they would have a higher
>>turn-out in New York.
>>
>
>Now a saw a confirmation of this, quoting the Hungarian paper
>"Nepszabadsag". The [preliminary?] meeting will take place in Budapest on
>February 9-10, and about 100 prominent people from abroad are invited from
>the field of culture, science and economy. The report names Andras Suto,
>[writer from Romania], Tibor Merai [writer from France], Paul Lendvai
>[publicist from Austria], Andrew Sarlos [businessman from Canada] and Tom
>Lantos [politician from the US].  I added the qualifications shown in
>square bracket, so they may not be accurate.
>
>I wonder, if anyone who reads the Internet media will attend this meeting.
>[Bela Litpak, Laszlo Hamvas, etc]
>
>Barna Bozoki
>
It is a preliminary meeting.  Over 60 _business and finance_individuals are
scheduled to meet a couple of weeks later in New York--and this includes
Minister Horn and his entourage.  The business and finance is considered the
real "nuts and bolts."  The first meeting is for ideas as to how and what
Hungary should develop, the second will figure out what can really be
done--that is, in what the money people are more likely to invest.  Good
ideas stay no more than dreams without the means to implement them.  The
business people also have their own ideas already.  They're not terribly
impressed with pure culture, science and economic academic theorecticians.
They like things to be applicable to real-life goods and
services--particularly those that serve wants or needs--and net a profit.

If you want a real example of what I mean, someone who attends the Budapest
meeting should ask Tom Lantos what happened with the development project for
a section of rural New Hampshire that was in his son-in-law's Congressional
district...  Hint, after 5 years, it _still_ doesn't exist except as a
proposal...

Respectfully and sincerely,

Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker






N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA