At 14:46:38 2/6/96 -0800, Eva Balogh wrote:

>belligerents entered the war they entered it in a rather cavalier fashion.
>No one really remembered a serious war on the continent and people, so to
>speak, were itching to have a little war. This was the mood everywhere from
>England to Russia. I have nice little quotations from writers and poets,
>greeting the war with great enthusiasm. (By the way, I can also quote you a
>few Hungarian writers, including people like Zsigmond Moricz!) In any case,
>what people didn't realize in 1914 was that this new war was nothing like
>the old-fashioned little wars of the nineteenth century.

This is true, and I knew about it. But what this has to do with the US and
her participation in the war?

>Technological advances made this war not only much more savage than before
>but also that war was as much a war of economics as of military might. The
>countries which were economically weak (Russia, Romania, Bulgaria and to
>some extent Austria-Hungary) were also the weakest links in the military
 sense.>Germany was, of course, the continental "super power" and it was German
y
>which was proping up Austria-Hungary. Without German help, military and
>economic, Austria-Hungary would have been unable to remain in the war until
>1918.

Yes, this is basically what I wrote in my last letter. If we mention Turkey
beside Austria-Hungary as weak links of Central Powers, we see that Germany
had at least as much or even more trouble with her allies than the Antante
powers had with Russia (in economical sense).
Furthermore, you pointed out that the war had begun in rush, so the bellin-
gerents did not make any arrangements, they did not really expected long
war. This was more destructive for the Central Powers as they were localized
in Europe and surrounded by their enemies and on the see the Royal Navy had
decisive superiority. For example, it would have been impossible for them to
recieve any supply even if the US had decided to support them.

>Until then the struggle between France and England on the one hand and Germany
>on the other was a stalemate. But Russia out of the war might have changed all
 >this. It was at this point that the United States entered the war. With the
>American entry into the war the economic/military stalemate was broken. So,
>it wasn't so much the number of soldiers or how good they were on the
>battlefild what made the difference but it was the economic power of the
>United States which helped to bring the war to an end.

I did a short search on this subject in the literature. I found something
that might be interesting:

Antony Livesey: Great Battles of World War I. (1989)
MacMillan Publishing Co.,New York
page 188,

" The United States Army

        The American Army in 1914 consisted only of a small regular
volunteer army of 127,588 men and a National Guard of 181,620. This
force was inadequate to play significant role on the Western Front,
so in May 1917 conscription was introduced and the strength of the
army rose more than 3.5 million.
        As propaganda move, the 1st US infantry division, the advance
guard of the Expeditionary Force, was sent to France in July 1917. By
Armistice, more than 2 million men reached France, although they did not
assume a combat role until the last 200 days of the war. Nevertheless,
the AEF held 100 mls of the front, 29 of the 42 divisions went into battle,
and almost 1.5 million American soldier saw combat. Although Foch and Haig
had envisaged American troops serving as replacements for losses in the
British and French armies Pershing insisted on keeping US formations 'as
separate and distinct component of the combined forces'. However, individual
units did serve with their Allies' armies on occasion.
        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

> Felado :  [Canada]
> >No. Places like Central America don't have capitalism.
> If you can say that, then why can't Eva Durant say that Eastern Europe
> didn't have true democratic socialism?
Sure she can say that. The difference is that I can (and I did) point to
countries which do meet the criteria for capitalism, while she can't point to
anything that meets her criteria for "democratic socialism".

> >I can point to a fair number
> >of examples that do have a working capitalst system, even reasonably
> >successful ones, whereas E1va can't point to a single successful example.
>
> It's hard to point to something that dosen't/didn't exist.
Given that all participants in this debate live in such countries (you in
Canada, E1va in England, me in the US) theire existence can hardly be called
into question. These are (together with the rest of Western Europe, Australia,
New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, etc. etc.) all fine examples of capitalism.

> >Better yet, provide some substantive counterarguments, based on a better
> >scientific understanding of the economy.
> I don't think that would help.  There are many ways of looking at the
> economy.  It all depends on what you want out of it.  Have you ever seen a
> group of economists agree on anything?  Math is a science.  Economics is not.
Well at least you could give it a try, otherwise your Hayek-bashing doesn't
amount to too much.

> >Governments work substantially _less_ than the extent people would allow.
> >The sentiment that there is too much government, so popular in the States
> >these days, is rooted in this simple fact.
> Less is too much?  This sounds like the introduction to an infomercial.
I'm not sure whether you just pretend not to understand or whether you
actually fail to understand, so let me try to rephrase it. People would be
willing to spend X amount of money, perhaps X as large as 40% of their
incomes, if the government provided X amount of service in return. It doesn't
-- for every dollar you put in in taxes society receives perhaps 25 cents of
actual value, the rest going towards feeding an inefficient bureaucracy. The
most painful example of this is the military budget, where the US spends
hundreds of billions for defense that could be procured at one tenth of the
cost. Next come social programs, parts of which have good payback (e.g. Social
Security, Medicare) but other parts do not (for example, HUD is a cesspool).
Finally, there is legislation. What with all these high-paid legislators you'd
expect the laws that are passed to be clear, morally powerful, and guiding
society towards a better future, the work of enlightened, devoted servants of
the public. Now look at the stuff coming from Washington, and ask yourself if
the public has any reason to believe its money was wisely spent?

> >Perhaps not, but at least it's realism, which seems to me a distinct
> >advantage compared to the utopias you and E1va still cling to.
> You have no advantage over Eva or me.  What you call realism is nothing more
> than your desire to keep your eyes closed.
Closed to what? To the fact that the capitalist countries, as we know them,
managed to bring incredible wealth to the majority of their populations?

> Also, I don't know why you
> insist that a fair, shared, more or less equal world, is a utopia.
Maybe it's achievable, though I would prefer to take a closer look at
your notion of fairness and equality before I'd be willing to endorse it.

> Maybe it's your Hungarian pessimism that instructs you that this is a
> rough and cruel world and nothing that you do will ever make it any
> better, so it's best to take care of number one.  With that attitude,
> you will succeed.  But you'll die a pessimist.
I didn't present an ideology of selfishness, nor do I think that "taking care
of number one" is such a big part of one's life.  Certainly once a reasonable
personal living standard (which we can equate with median income in capitalist
countries) is achived, few people feel compelled to make increasingly bigger
and bigger bucks. But the fact that I'm actually not one of them does not mean
that I feel compelled to brand such people as speculators, exploiters, or
whatever. To the contray, it seems to me that such people fill a positive role
in society, and it is better to have society so structured that their
ambitions can be harnessed to the benefit of all than to deny such ambitions
altogether.

> >Society's richness is the sum of its members' richness. Because of this
> >obvious truth, no special provision is needed to make society richer: make
> >the individuals richer and things will work out for society as a whole.
> Andras, you haven't been reading Karl Marx lately, have you?  Your last
> comment makes you sound like a closet Marxist.
Does it really? Chapter and verse please, especially as this view is quite the
opposite of what I take to be the Marxist view, namely that society is
composed of classes rather than individuals, and that such classes have
interests of their own.

Andra1s Kornai

> Felado :  [United States]
>
> You are referring to the fact that the welfare system has actually helped to
> create the new American underclass, by discouraging, among other things,
> traditional marriage and the idea of two-parent families, because, in order
> to get Aid to Dependent Children, the father in most cases must be out of
> the home. Andras's factors of cheap gas and the mortgage interest tax
> deduction may also have a tangential impact on the decay of the cities.
> Another element in Andras's equation might also be the fact that the cities
> traditionally had higher rates of taxation to support a greater number of
> services provided to their residents. Thus, housing in the suburbs was more
> affordable, and, of course, city dwellers also looked for the relatively
> wide open spaces in the suburbs. I believe all these are legitimate factors
> to be taken into account in considering the decline of American cities.

I agree that the misguided criteria of Aid to Dependent Children was a factor
(though I hasten to add that such social programs, based on more carefully
drafted criteria, are in fact necessary). But I also think that it is a factor
of secondary, if not tertiary, importance. Johanne, you will want to compare
the sums of money involved in the $1 vs. the $4 gasoline (which it would be if
it was priced in European style) and the revenue lost because of the mortgage
deduction with the sums involved in Aid to Dependent Children.  Altogether
(and I don't want to tar Johanne with this brush) I'm always surprised by the
irrationality of much of Republican politics. They spend the longest time
attacking small but ideologically hot-buttonish portions of the budget while
pass over large portions in deafening silence. 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. Instead, it
is Senator Helms against the NEA, or Newt Gingrich against PBS. I must say I
also blame the Democrats, because in the final analysis who the hell cares
about the NEA one way or another (except for the lucky recipients, same as
with shorgum price supports)? Why should the Democrats bother to defend
insignificant stuff like PBS? (I love PBS and I send them money every year,
but I don't think the middle class needs this or other government handouts.)
Get with the program, fellas, on both sides of the aisle.

Andra1s Kornai

Joe Szalai > wrote:

>At 06:14 AM 2/7/96 -0500, Sam Stowe wrote:

>>Hungarian content -- Still waiting on the inevitable rant about the
>>perfidy of the U.S., France and Britain in the negotiations leading up to
>>Trianon.

>I can't get into a rant about Trianon.  It happened before I was born and
>I've only known Trianon as history.  However it seems to have contributed to
>Hungarian pride and folklore.  You'll often hear Hungarians boast about
>Hungarian accomplisments in sports, the arts, medicine, etc.  And rightfully
>so!  What I don't understand is the constant reference to the fact that
>Hungary is a small country and yet it can accomplish such greatness.  I
>guess the inference is that if Hungary would be large, pre-Trianonian, then
>it would be the best nation in the world.  The sentimentalism of the Trianon
>legent lends itself to a rather pessimistic nation.

>Many Hungarians display pre-Trianon maps of Hungary.  No doubt their hope
>and dream is to see Hungary as large as it once was.  Although their concern
>for Hungarians in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia is real and justified, I
>often get the feeling that they would be quite happy if those areas were
>reunited to Hungary.

>We've seen the results of the 'great Serbia' dream.  From an Hungarian
>cultural perspective, I think the best that can be is to see thriving
>Hungarian communities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia.  Leave the borders as
>they are.

>Joe Szalai


I've been following this NG and this argument (debate?) and would
humbly have to disagree with you on the matter of restoring Hungary's
borders to that of pre-Trianon.  Hungary, im my view has a historic
right to those lands which were unjustly carved from her after WWI.
Hungarian blood flowed freely in those lands in order to protect the
rest of Europe from the invasions of the Mongols and Turks.
Hungarians fought, died, were buried and enslaved on those very lands
which were stolen from her.  Yet,  the Great Powers during the
aftermath of WWI turned their backs on her once again and allowed her
to be dismembered.

Joe, if you are American, how would you feel if two thirds of the
United States had been ceeded to Canada after the War of 1812?
Hell, Canadians kicked the crap out of the Yanks then. Or, if your
Canadian, how would you feel if Quebec took the Maritimes and the
North West Territories out of Confederation?

I believe that Hungary should set into motion negotiations with
Austria, Slovakia, the Ukrain, Romania and Croatia for the eventual
restoration of the Trianon lands.  They are hers by right of blood.

Frank

Dear Friends!

Can anybody tell me some address of hungarian newspapers (mainly the big ones).

Your reply is greatly appreciated, Eric Auer

Just to illustrate my answer to James D.

Eva Durant

Forwarded message:

>
>    Since Capitalist developments help prepare the way for the new society,
> the expansion of credit card use, the use of computer monetary exchanges
> (local & international) means that workers can easily adapt the technology to
> a cashless  system of exchange.
>
>    We already accept and use credit cards throughout the world.
> A Socialist Society could easily enter individual input hours into the social
> store on a credit card.  Then for withdrawals, deduct the output of products
> and services based on average time of production.  To be valid, cards cannot
> be transferred nor their exchange accumulated beyond a current period.
>
>    Every year, as we reduce the amount of labor time required to produce
> things, this means we get more things for each hour of labor.  It provides a
> built-in incentive for all workers to produce efficiently and all the sooner
> arrive where we no longer need to measure individual labor.
>
>     As abundant world production is achieved, with hunger and privation
> eliminated, products could be distributed without credit card measure because
> there is enough for all.
>
>    Credit card  labor vouchers get us over the initial residue of greed
>  which was spawned by Capitalism.
>

> > they aware, how important is that the democratic control
> > is excercised.  They have an example NOT to follow.
> > It would be an incredible improvement. The first consideration
> > for production would be genuin need and environmental health.
> > These can be measured now via democratic and scientific
> > means. No overproduction. No waste.  But plenty enough
> > for everybody, on a higher standard than now, especially
> > if you count stuff like free eeducation, help, short/flexible
> > working hours, free art to create and to consume, etc.
> > All individuals will have a chance to develop to full
> > potential.
> >
>
> Wow, that sounds wonderful!  Almost utopian.
>

Says the person, who tells me, that profit   is the measure
of all human goodness...  To think that it ever can be in
your market-oriented system, is more utopian than anything
I can come up with.

> >
> > The way I picture it, people will take over the local
> > workplaces and public places, and start to run the themselves,
> > dipping into information networks for any information and
> > resources.  E.g. factories/schools/sporcentres/etc will
> > be run by the people who work there, and people who are using
> > the products/facilities.  The administration as a job will be
> > cycled, with those who are particularily good at it/like it having
> > more responsibilities if the others so deem it fit. But this
> > is a fancy detail.
>
>
> Ever read Animal Farm?
>
>

If everyone anytime recallable, and there is no or strictly democratic
local militia, you cannot have animal-farm situation.
The any chef can be - and should be - prime-minister principle.


> As the working hours will be much shorter, there
> > will be plenty of time to organise and participate. so everyone
> > will be able to do everything they like.  Working hours
> > could be halfed at the moment, if all unemployed had a chance to work
> > even if all unused capacities were used.
> >
>
> Are salaries cut in half too?
>


Why should that happen?  If there is plenty to distribute,
the number of working hours are fairly irrelevant.  It seem
to work that way even now; on average white collar, managarial
people work shorter hours for more money, than the manual
workers.

> > The market place is totally useless to decide the real value
> > of things, not as commodities, but as necessary/unique things.
> > Think about it.
>
>
> I am thinking...But you still answered how the Socialist system would
> do any better.  And you haven't answered the question, who will decide
> what is to be produced, how much, and at what price?
>
>

Can  you picture a genuinly democratic society? I know it is
rather difficult, as the one we got is so far removed from it.
I explained that what is produced and how much can be worked
out much more efficiently by people themselves putting in
a data-bank: what they need and what capcity they have for
production.   With today's IT, you will have a figure at your
fingertip (everyone's) continuously.  There will be no wasteful
artificially generated needs and maniputative markets, and
the military and advertising and financial industry
can be replaced with   actually useful or enjoyable production.
If the markets tell you that these are useful, they are
not very good indicators of human needs...


>
> Please, I'm afraid I cannot think otherwise.  I work, because that is
> something I can give to somebody else in return for money.  The person
> who hires me gains because he has money, but he needs labour.  In the
> end I am happy because I get money, which I need to buy clothes, food,
> etc.  My boss is happy, because he has somebody to do work for him.
>


Well, if everyone was as happy and continuously, as you and your
boss are, I suppose we could pack up our efforts for change,
However, life is not like this, unless you happen to live on
an other planet.   I wonder what your thoughts would be if your
boss packs up shop to move to a more profitable business that does
not require your skills.  He'll be still happy, however you would
join a few million other people, who are not that contented, even
upset.


> You haven't given me any other framework to choose from.  "Value has a
> different meaning in a socialist system" is not very helpful.  First
> what is the different meaning?  Second, how are you going to get people
> to accept that different meaning once socialism comes?
>


I think value means anything that can be humanly useful.
The degree of usefulness is irrelevant, as you are not
"rearded" for your work by the goods you receive, you
get them as a right for being a member of society.
There is already enough produced for this end, even
inculing all the waste. That is what what so frustrating.

Socialism can only come via the vast majority of the people,
who already know and want all this.

Any more questions?

Eva Durant

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.  This doing two+
jobs for a living is not good, the stress factor probably
infuences people to smoke and drink as well. In the eighties
a lot of people claimed disability statust and they were
ill, used up people. Perhaps they managed to look after
their garden, poultry and a pig, but whatever is the pension
it wasn't enough to live on than, and is worse now.
Eva Durant



-Eva Balogh-
> And I will be even harsher than Andras was in his original piece. I contend
> that most Hungarians misuse, abuse, take advantage of (take you pick) the
> social services provided. Currently, the Hungarian people pay 65-70 percent
> of their wages for social services, but somehow they don't seem to realize
> the connection between the "free" social services and their own contribution
> to them. Because they come from the state, they are free--manna from
> heaven!! And as such you can abuse it.
>         Just to give you a couple of examples. The abuse of the so-called
> "rokkantsagi nyugdij" (disability pension) is staggering. Gyula Horn in one
> of his speeches called for its reform because as it stands "Hungary is
> becoming of the country of the disabled." An incredible number of these
> so-called disabled people are not disabled at all. Doctors are bribed and
> give false testimonies. The so-called disabled men and women get a monthly
> check but, of course, that is not the main source of their income. They work
> in the black/grey economy. The disability payment is simply a little extra.
>         The same is true of certain "free" drugs which only people who earn
> under a certain amount can get. Again, the doctors are bribed and give out
> prescriptions by the dozen. Some of these "entrepreneurs" appear at the drug
> stores with 70-80 prescriptions. Needless to say they turn around and sell
> the drugs on the black market. And the interesting thing is that they can
> get away with it because the necessary laws and regulations are not in place.
>         Disabled people could import cars from abroad without duty--do I
> have to tell you more? Mercedeses were imported in the name of the so-called
> disabled and sold immediately to someone else! One could continue ad
 infinitum.
>
>         Eva Balogh

> Well there seems to be a slight difference: I can point to a fair number
> of examples that do have a working capitalst system, even reasonably
> successful ones, whereas E1va can't point to a single successful example.
> So we always end up comparing the ugly reality to beautiful utopias.
>

So we shouldn't think about the future, because it hasn't happened yet.
You cannot give me a valid argument about capitalism taking us to a safe
future. That is not yet totally collepsed everywhere, is not a very
good argument.


> Perhaps not, but at least it's realism, which seems to me a distinct
> advantage compared to the utopias you and E1va still cling to.
>

It is more utopistic to think that you can have a safe future
looking at the present trends of the beautiful countries/people.

> Content? I'm delighted they work harder on more productive things.
>

And I think, that they always worked hard enough.

Eva Durant

>
> There are many, who claim that this decay was caused by the paternalistic
> welfare state that essentially got large numbers (generations) of recipients
> hooked on welfare.
>

You should let people starve, and see what happens?  It was done
in the past, and didn't work...

There are not enough vacancies. Please comper numbers of unemployed,
and numbers of jobs available. Notice the discrepency.

And if a job is not decent enough to pay a living wage
"the market value", than it shouldn't be taken, it can be more
demoralizing and humiliating to work hard and still not making
as good as they tell you you should.  The market could do with
slave labour - is that what you really want?

Eva Durant

>We've seen the results of the 'great Serbia' dream.  From an Hungarian
>cultural perspective, I think the best that can be is to see thriving
>Hungarian communities in Romania, Slovakia and Serbia. Leave the borders as
>they are.
>
>Joe Szalai
    I am sure it is welcomed in Pozsony and Bukarest and Belgrade.
  (For language police readers : Bratyiszlava.)
  But if politicians there think people may cross their fingers in Budapest,
  let us see how difficult this statement
        "Leave the borders as they are"
  is e.g. in Szarajevo. How about them ? Leave the berderline or not ?
  And which borderline anyway? So what a heck is this the same rule
  can not be applied a few miles away ? Ths is bullshit (for nonfluent
  english readers : bikaszar, in an art translation : lo'turo (horse
  cottage cheese)).
    That is the reason Joe has received many immediate sceptic responses.
  By the way, Joe statments were very nice, but "too good to be true".

    I just wonder how Joe got into a situation to write those. May be :
  He went home, and when he entered the living room his wife, instead of
  blaming him he had not cleaned his shoes before entering, she said :
  - Honey, I am pregnant. (Kiss, a glass of wine, etc.)
  So what had happened just before you sat down to the keyboard daddy ?
  Personally I should eat up a dosen of roses to see the world in pink
  like this (pink... is a Hung. slogan). Unfortunately in these decades
  the "Leave the borders as they are" means something else :
  "Leave the right of the minorities", or in a very very ignorant way
  it sounds/alliterates "Leave the brothels as they are".
  But I guess Joe wanted to say "Leave the human morality where it
  should be". So boys in the Karpath walley here is the time to call
  1-800-flowers !!!

>
> You are referring to the fact that the welfare system has actually helped to
> create the new American underclass, by discouraging, among other things,
> traditional marriage and the idea of two-parent families, because, in order
> to get Aid to Dependent Children, the father in most cases must be out of
> the home.

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.  Women had achieved
the right to draw money on their own name and had a chance first
time to leave souldestroying marriages.  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.
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 excuse
for redestribution, it had other less philanthropic reasons,
such as avoidance of violence from the unemployed, etc.
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.


> 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...

Eva Durant

> Sure she can say that. The difference is that I can (and I did) point to
> countries which do meet the criteria for capitalism, while she can't point to
> anything that meets her criteria for "democratic socialism".
>

And I thought I wasn't patient. Just wait a little bit longer.
Ami kesik nem mulik...


> New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, etc. etc.) all fine examples of capitalism.
>

Hm. Fine? If you are not unemployed/homeless/stressed perhaps so.
The tendency is for the number of these to grow. The top 10%
owning 90% of wealth, etc. Your state failing both in the
redistribution job you assigned to it, but also in saving the
capitalist system from failing the majority of the people one
way or the other.
Anyway, what about the rest of the world?  They are following
this system and are getting nowhere, in most cases only into
deeper mess.

-list of comprehensive state inefficiencies cut-

So how would your capitalism solve the problem of millions of
state-employees, military, administrative people being put out
of work? I'm just curious. I know workfare program! They can
sweep the streets for their state benefits!
Oops. No good. You don't want to pay out more benefits.
Ok, I give up, tell me!


> Closed to what? To the fact that the capitalist countries, as we know them,
> managed to bring incredible wealth to the majority of their populations?
>

But not to a large minority, who have the new psychological
trauma to put up with - being told 24 hours per day, that they
are inadequate for not being able to comply to the expectations
of the consumer society.  They made to think, that everyone
lives in the magic world of advertisements and Dallas-type soaps.


> > Also, I don't know why you
> > insist that a fair, shared, more or less equal world, is a utopia.
> Maybe it's achievable, though I would prefer to take a closer look at
> your notion of fairness and equality before I'd be willing to endorse it.
>

I am eager to see, how would you achieve any fairness as defined
by you without dropping capitalism.


> I didn't present an ideology of selfishness, nor do I think that "taking care
> of number one" is such a big part of one's life.  Certainly once a reasonable
> personal living standard (which we can equate with median income in capitalis
t
> countries) is achived, few people feel compelled to make increasingly bigger
> and bigger bucks.

Sorry, that is the heart of the system. If there is no growths, than
it is bankrupcy.  That is the mechanism.  It's not down to
how the individual  entrepeneur feels.



But the fact that I'm actually not one of them does not mean
> that I feel compelled to brand such people as speculators, exploiters, or
> whatever. To the contray, it seems to me that such people fill a positive rol
e
> in society, and it is better to have society so structured that their
> ambitions can be harnessed to the benefit of all than to deny such ambitions
> altogether.
>


Sorry, the captains of industry/finance/govt. do not aspire
me around here, I can picture a world without their role.
Their ambicions are not harnessed to the benefit of all.
If you say that, you are being more naive, that I ever
been capable of being!

Eva Durant

Would you please suspend mailing Hunagry from febr.15th to march the 1st.
Thank you:A.Kozma.

At 03:15 AM 2/12/96 -0500, Andra1s Kornai wrote:

>> It's hard to point to something that dosen't/didn't exist.
>Given that all participants in this debate live in such countries (you in
>Canada, E1va in England, me in the US) their existence can hardly be
>called into question.

Andras, your eagerness to prove that you're right is showing.  I was trying
to say that it is difficult for Eva Durant to show examples of 'democratic
socialism' because they never existed.  Mind you, her constant reference to
good social programmes in the so called 'socialist' countries is confusing
because, on the one hand, she likes the programmes, but on the other hand,
she says that 'true democratic socialism' never existed.  Her stance leads
some people on this list to think that she is defending the former,
bankrupt, political system, whereas I see her defending the social
programmes only.  Unfortunately, many who are rabidly anti-socialist can not
distinguish between social programmes and authoritarianism.

>>Math is a science.  Economics is not.
>Well at least you could give it a try, otherwise your Hayek-bashing doesn't
>amount to too much.

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.

>-- for every dollar you put in in taxes society receives perhaps 25 cents
>of actual value, the rest going towards feeding an inefficient bureaucracy.
>The most painful example of this is the military budget, where the US
>spends hundreds of billions for defense that could be procured at one tenth
>of the cost. Next come social programs, parts of which have good payback
>(e.g. Social Security, Medicare) but other parts do not (for example, HUD
>is a cesspool.

Leave the military budget alone!  It's an excellent way for capitalist
societies to waste resources.  Can you imagine the 'utopia' that could be
created with hundreds of billions of dollars?  Geez, it could even create
unemployment if all the soup kitchens were closed and their staff were let
go.  Or maybe not, if the staff were working for 'profit', a la James Doepp.
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.

>Finally, there is legislation. What with all these high-paid legislators
>you'd expect the laws that are passed to be clear, morally powerful, and
>guiding society towards a better future, the work of enlightened, devoted
>servants of the public. Now look at the stuff coming from Washington, and
>ask yourself if the public has any reason to believe its money was wisely
>spent?

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!

>>>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?

Joe Szalai

At 10:33 AM 2/12/96 -0500, Dr.Sandor Kristyan wrote:

>    I just wonder how Joe got into a situation to write those. May be :
>  He went home, and when he entered the living room his wife, instead of
>  blaming him he had not cleaned his shoes before entering, she said :
>  - Honey, I am pregnant. (Kiss, a glass of wine, etc.)

If she were pregnant, it would have been an immaculate conception.

Joe Szalai

Hali!

You're way off Johanne!

Jason Szalai

Dr. Kristyan, please explain to the list membership why leaving
boundaries the way they are means writing off minority rights? Sorry not to
have quoted you verbatime, but this was what stuck out at me.

PS. Thanks for the hungarian color in the message (nem vagyok sarcastic),
I never though of horse cheese before but that will be a useful phrase
for the next trip back, when I owe some people on Pecs a beating on the
basketball court.

Darren

To: hungary @ glue.umd.edu (Hungarian American List) @ Internet
cc:  (bcc: John Czifra/SHI)
From: lukag @ NCR.DISA.MIL ("Gabor Luka") @ Internet @ WORLDCOM
Date: 02/12/96 07:18:37 AM CST
Subject: Hungarian's in Slovakia and Romania

        To anyone that can help me.  All I get is bits and pieces of informatio
n
which makes it difficult for me to gain a full understanding into the present
state of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania.

        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.


        And as for the article below, what kind of crap is this, is Slovakia
going to apologize for occupation of Hungarian lands since WWI.

______________________________ Reply Separator ________________________________
_
Subject: == OMRI Daily Digest == Feb/9/96 ==
Author:  Hungarian American List > at smtp
Date:    2/9/96 2:39 PM



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
the ruling Movement for a Democratic Slovakia in the last election. Also
on 8 February, Ladislav Pittner of the opposition Christian Democratic
Movement addressed several questions to Prime Minister Vladimir Meciar
regarding the "illegal activities" of the Slovak Information Service.
These include SIS chief Ivan Lexa's alleged efforts to transfer the
protection of constitutional officials from the police to the SIS and
his demand that violations of the law on the protection of the republic
(which has not yet been approved) be investigated by the SIS. -- Sharon
Fisher


[As of 1200 CET]
[As of 12:00 CET]
Compiled by Pete Baumgartner
Compiled by Jan Cleave

       This material was reprinted with permission of the
Open Media Research Institute, a nonprofit organization with research
   offices in Prague, Czech Republic. (http://www.omri.cz/)
       For more information on OMRI publications,
             please write to:  

     Copyright (C) 1995 Open Media Research Institute, Inc.
             All rights reserved. ISSN 1211-1570

> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 !
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: lukag @ NCR.DISA.MIL (Gabor Luka) @ Internet
cc: hungary @ Glue.umd.edu (Hungarian American List) @ Internet (bcc: John
Czifra/SHI)
From: pasoltes @ CapAccess.org ("Peter A. Soltesz") @ Internet @ WORLDCOM
Date: 02/12/96 12:03:37 PM CST
Subject: Re: Hungarian's in Slovakia and Romania

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).

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.

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.

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!

They first have to become honest, non-greedy, and productive people.
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!

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. 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. Obviously the
"freedoms" were lost and the current taskmasters will vehemently fight
return of the "stolen" illegal transfers. It is time to step on some
serious toes (Britain, France, Germany, USA) to have them re-visit the
mess that they made. 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!

Peter Soltesz.

Haliho,

Gabor Farkas wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Joe Szalai writes:

"A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate that
many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and homophobic.
Are Hungarians ready to join the European Community?"

A few lines above he writes about Canadians:
"And a lot of them are very angry.  They've concluded that liberalism,
socialism or social democracy is not the solution and they are drawn towards
narrow, fascist ideologies and religion, or a combination of the two."

Should we conclude then, that Canada is to be excluded from all
international organizations? After all "a lot of them" sounds much larger
than "a sampling of opinions ..on..newsgroups".

Farkas D. Gabor
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Ez fasza volt, haver!!!

We should give Joe Szalai the golden shovel award.

Udv.,
Czifra Janos
john_czifra @ shi.com

Haliho,

Gabor Farkas wrote:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
" You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing. You seem to be content
knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work harder and with no job
security.

This was the job security where "they pretended they were paying us and we
pretended we were working".
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

True, but not really. There were a lot of hard workers and those who worked the
hardest didn't belong to the party and suffered the most to get ahead. Those in
the upper ranks didn't have to flinch and are raking in the dough. Biggest
example is the MegaMorv company in Heves megye.

Now, this is getting more and more interesting everyday. I love this list!!

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

Hali,

Joe Szalai wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At 04:35 PM 2/10/96 -0500, Paul Gelencser wrote:

>>A sampling of opinions expressed here and on other newsgroups indicate
>>that many Hungarians are sexist, racist (especially toward gypsies), and
>>homophobic.
>
>By your definition, not by mine or many others'.
>
>Paul Gelencser

Then I suggest you look up the definitions in a good dictionary.  But before
you do that, give us your definitions and I'll cross reference them.

Joe Szalai
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I didn't know that the Hungary list is in the dictionary?? A sampling to who??
Indicate to who??

Come on, Joe, you can do better.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

I'm not an economist, nor do I care to be too much involved with such
debate.  Things happen as they will happen.  But when I was in Hungary
last fall (August- October) I saw an American news report about the
openeing of a "Hard Rock Cafe" in Tel-Aviv (I think).  The crux of the
report was the growing concern in Isreal, and other nations, about the
importation of American culture qua business activity at the expense of
native cultures.

I visited Hungary first in Spring 1994.  Then there was a large market on
the main street a little East of the Szep Iilona area.  In the time
between visits, the market had vanished and in its place stood a shopping
mall of sorts, with a Pizza Hut, etc.  Then a sign went up in Moskva Ter
announcing that a MacDonalds was on its way.

In another instance, I managed to converse in broken Magyar with a cab
driver who lamented the increase in the number of Strip clubs in Buda.
There were three, according to him, that had made the leap across the
river.

On my first visit I was treated to a fabulous lunch at Remiz (in Buda).
Then we all laughed at the handful of cell phones.  This last trip saw
the Remiz full of English and cell phones were the rule.

My inclination and bias is Romanticism.  But what effect will this
American lust have on the Hungarian culture?  I'm not even remotely
Hungarian, but in real terms I wonder if this a good thing.  Since many
of you are closer to Hungary than I am, I'd just like to know what you
think about this invasion, this mass importation of American product and
business and, concommitantly, the mass importation of American culture.


Maybe you've been through this discussion before, if so, someone refer me
to those articles, please.

-
  DENNIS E. PERKINS  

My dearest Eva:

Recently, Mr. Czifra accused Darren of "mellowing out", and then
"changing his views" as Czifra therein exemplified.  My question to you,
Eva, is whether you have some inherent fear of being identified with Joe
Szalai. Are you guilty of "changing YOUR views?"
Now, we're all aware that we should stay as far away from Joe Szalai as
possible.  His archaic views are preceded only by his lack of insight.
Keeping that in mind, I sympathize with your plight to dissociate with
him.  However, it appears that more and more of your postings are
including the following words:  "Well, you know I don't agree with Joe on
politics, but he is right"  or "You know I don't get along with Joe on
any issue, but I get agree with everything else he says."
Don't you realize that this discussion group is well aware of your full
fledged support for "The man formerly known as Joszi."  Why can't you
just admit it - You're one of them!!!!!!!!!!!!

Jason Szalai

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

Dennis Perkins wrote:

> My inclination and bias is Romanticism.  But what effect will this
> American lust have on the Hungarian culture?  I'm not even remotely
> Hungarian, but in real terms I wonder if this a good thing.  Since many
> of you are closer to Hungary than I am, I'd just like to know what you
> think about this invasion, this mass importation of American product and
> business and, concommitantly, the mass importation of American culture.

> Maybe you've been through this discussion before, if so, someone refer me
> to those articles, please.

Such debates have been regular in Western Europe, Australia, Malaysia and
other parts of the world.  I do not think that anyone found an answer that
would have satisfied the dual objectives of (1) preserving national culture
by the exclusion of the USAian onslaught (2) and respecting the people's
freedom of choice.

For the fact is that the great unwashed plebs want such vain trappings of
modernism as McDonalds, Reeboks and Dallas.  All we who do not find these
things as appealing can hope is that saturation point is reached while
there is some national character left.

George Antony

Peter Soltesz wrote:

> It is time to intelligently figure out how Hungarians can regain their
> homeland, their freedoms, their dignity.

Hear, hear.

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

Oh, I thought you did mean this thing about being intelligent.

George Antony

Jancsi Czifra wrote:

>      To anyone that can help me.  All I get is bits and pieces of information
> which makes it difficult for me to gain a full understanding into the present
> state of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania.
>
>      Has the Hungarian nation ceased all efforts to regain lands which are
> rightfully theirs. Every other nation is experiencing a reunification of thei
r
> 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

Frank (?) wrote:

> I've been following this NG and this argument (debate?) and would
> humbly have to disagree with you on the matter of restoring Hungary's
> borders to that of pre-Trianon.  Hungary, im my view has a historic
> right to those lands which were unjustly carved from her after WWI.
> Hungarian blood flowed freely in those lands in order to protect the
> rest of Europe from the invasions of the Mongols and Turks.

By the same token, the Slavs have equally strong historic rights to
the same piece of land, for having defended the rest of Europe from
the invasion of the Magyars.  You see, it cuts both ways.

> I believe that Hungary should set into motion negotiations with
> Austria, Slovakia, the Ukrain, Romania and Croatia for the eventual
> restoration of the Trianon lands.  They are hers by right of blood.

If you believe that this would lead to anything better than a slanging
match, your sense of reality is seriously skewed.  Austrians, Slovaks,
Ukrainians, Romanians and Croatians of the same mindset as you will be
just as uncompromising, and they are in occupation.

I note that you left out Slovenia and Serbia.  The latter I can under-
stand, too hard a nut, but surely the former would be a pushover.
Also for your information, Croatia has always been recognized as a
separate country within the united kingdom of Hungary and Croatia, so
your historical claims are rather shaky there.

George Antony

At 10:17 PM 2/11/96 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:
>Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>Well, Janos, I didn't think that you would ever subscribe to PC
>>(politically correct). Gosh--I forgot to put "some," or "many" in front of
>
>I am sorry, but 'ezt a helyzetet nem lehetett kihagyni'. (I do not know how
>to say in English) :-))
        I bet your sense of humor was tickled, but do you realize that you
are helping my case. Because it seems that Hungarians demand politically
correctness when it comes to Hungarians. That is, we don't want people to
generalize about ourselve, but we do nothing else but generalize about
others, and if someone objects we simply say that this "political
correctness" is not just hogwash but actually an insidious liberal ploy to
ruin us all.
        Eva Balogh

At 01:44 AM 2/12/96 -0500, Janos Zsargo wrote:

>Furthermore, you pointed out that the war had begun in rush, so the bellin-
>gerents did not make any arrangements, they did not really expected long
>war.
        No, I didn't say that. What I said was that the war began with great
enthusiasm. After all, the alliances, on both sides, have been in place for
decades, and there was increasing militarization and military competition
among the Great Powers, especially between England and Germany.

>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.
        Since I am no expert on weapons, I have no idea where these rifles
were made, but I think you are drawing too sharp conclusions from these few
sentences. The United States, even when neutral, was supplying the Allies
with everything under the sun. Second, although it is true that the United
States Army was a pitiful little affair in 1914, the Americans managed to
put a decend force of 2 million people on the battlefields by 1917-1918.
Third, the United States, by then and for everybody's surprise, turned out
to be a mighty industrial power. Don't underestimate it. The fact is that
those trenches didn't move an inch for years--until the Americans arrived
and tipped the scale.

>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?
        Well, you know this is not really my version. It is pretty commonplace.

        Eva Balogh

At 08:35 AM 2/13/96 +1000,George Antony wrote:
>Frank (?) wrote:

>If you believe that this would lead to anything better than a slanging
>match, your sense of reality is seriously skewed.  Austrians, Slovaks,
>Ukrainians, Romanians and Croatians of the same mindset as you will be
>just as uncompromising, and they are in occupation.

George Antony:

>Also for your information, Croatia has always been recognized as a
>separate country within the united kingdom of Hungary and Croatia, so
>your historical claims are rather shaky.

        Quite. No Hungarian government since 1918 ever claimed it--but
certainly you may want to try.

        Eva Balogh

Hali,

This is a great topic. I'm working on my 11th trip to Hungary, now. The very
first few times I was there, when I was a kid, I longed for the day Mikey D's
would be availible. Then in 1984 the first one opened up in the Vaci utca area.
I was able to feast on as many Big Mac's I could tolerate.  Now, Budapest not
only has Mikey D's on every block (almost), but Pizza Hut (delivery no less),
KFC, Burger King, Wendy's, & even Dunkin' Donuts. Now that I'm 25, I think it's
sad that Budapest doesn't have it's own identity, not like it had one when the
Kadar Jancsi was around either. The only positive thing I can say about these
places is that they are the most prettiest fast food joints you'll ever see. My
relative built the McDonalds in Debrecen, where the old Hungaria Etterem was.
American's take pictures of themselves in these places. I sit there and laugh.

I could see a couple of Mickey D's and the like here and there, but it's
complete overkill, especially the drive through one they have around the
Angyalfold area. Next thing you'll see is a big market for coffee cup holders.
Dunkin' Donuts is the one I don't understand at all. Nothing beats a great
cukraszda, especially the Transylvanian Milk Roll w/ honey...Jesus......oh I'm
homesick already. I have never had a craving for Dunkin' Donuts while I was in
Hungary. I admit to grabbing a burger now and again. That's because after
eating jo gyiros Magyar kaja for a month, it starts to take it's toll on the
American body.

KFC, is another one on my hit-list. Why?? Hungarian must eat more chicken than
anybody else. Sunday's especially. Nothing beats my grandmother's or anybody's
Hungarian grandmother's rantott csirke (fried chicken). It's fresh kill and
totally cholesterol - incorrect, with it being fried in lard, but it's the best
damn chicken you'll ever have, even if it kills you.

It's not only that. There's a lot more things that irk me about the
"Westernization" (more like bastardization) of Hungary. The language has
changed dramatically. I think there has been talk on the talk of Hungary on
this list, but all these Magyarized English words makes me puke. I hear it more
out in the streets because I'm still young enough to hang out. It's amazing how
low the Magyar nyelv is, now. I got into a hot debate with a couple of young
folks from Hungary,  who live here now, at the Hungarian Festival (another
joke) in New Brunswick, NJ.

The debate started off with my question as to why do Hungarians have to rely on
these Magyarized English words, when there is a Hungarian word for these
things. I gave him a list of things that have Hungarian words identifying them
as such.

Magyarized Angol  Magyar  English

komputer    szamitogep computer
akcio     vasar      sale

..............................and so many more. Many say it's progress. I beg
to differ.


More later. I've stayed at work too long.

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

At 00:45 12/02/96 -0800, Andra's Kornai wrote:
>> Felado :  [United States]

>I agree that the misguided criteria of Aid to Dependent Children was a factor
>(though I hasten to add that such social programs, based on more carefully
>drafted criteria, are in fact necessary). But I also think that it is a factor
>of secondary, if not tertiary, importance. Johanne, you will want to compare
>the sums of money involved in the $1 vs. the $4 gasoline (which it would be if
>it was priced in European style) and the revenue lost because of the mortgage
>deduction with the sums involved in Aid to Dependent Children.  Altogether
>(and I don't want to tar Johanne with this brush) I'm always surprised by the
>irrationality of much of Republican politics. They spend the longest time
>attacking small but ideologically hot-buttonish portions of the budget while
>pass over large portions in deafening silence.

Dear Andra's -

Thank you for not tarring me with that brush! I must admit, however, that I
am a lifelong Republican, although I often think that the Republican Party
of today is not the party I grew up with. Be that as it may, just because an
issue is a hot-button one doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. After all,
I think you push a lot of Joe Szalai's hot buttons with your propositions,
does that mean you shouldn't raise those 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.


 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. Instead, it
>is Senator Helms against the NEA, or Newt Gingrich against PBS. I must say I
>also blame the Democrats, because in the final analysis who the hell cares
>about the NEA one way or another (except for the lucky recipients, same as
>with shorgum price supports)? Why should the Democrats bother to defend
>insignificant stuff like PBS? (I love PBS and I send them money every year,
>but I don't think the middle class needs this or other government handouts.)
>Get with the program, fellas, on both sides of the aisle.
>
>Andra1s Kornai


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).

Yours,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 
>
>

(1) A CNN riport osszessegeben segit az idegenforgalmat stimulalni,
de sajnos nem mentes a szokasos amerikai slampossagtol, ami "kelet-
europai ugyeket" erint. A riport avval kezdodik, hogy az 1100-ik ev-
fordulot (hibasan) BUDAPESTNEK tulajdonitja. A vege fele ismet emliti
(jol), hogy az MagyarORSZAG fennallasanak millecentenariuma. Ugyanakkor
odaveti, hogy akkor jottek a magyarok jelen orszagukba OROSZORSZAGBOL
(Russia). A szokasos Budapesti panoramakepek persze gyonyoruek,
de valoban az az erzese a video nezojenek, hogy Magyarorszagon Bp-en
kivul semmi nincs (nem emlekszem egyetlen filmkockara sem Bp-en
kivul, tortenelmi Magyarorszagrol pedig mondani sem kell, hogy siri a
hallgatas)

(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:

>> 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 compassionat
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.

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.

Hali,

Correction, George Anthony. I forwarded this message I got from the
 to here. Peter Soltesz responded to this one and you
responded to his. Not my writing, pal. Thank you. ;-)

Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ glue

_________________________________________________________
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
-
 --------------------


Jancsi Czifra wrote:

>      To anyone that can help me.  All I get is bits and pieces of information
> which makes it difficult for me to gain a full understanding into the present
> state of Hungarians in Slovakia and Romania.
>
>      Has the Hungarian nation ceased all efforts to regain lands which are
> rightfully theirs. Every other nation is experiencing a reunification of thei
r
> 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

JFerengi wrote:

> 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.

You just do not get it.  Most Romanians/Slovaks/etc. are perfectly happy
with the status quo and have no desire to change it.  Even if ridiculous
sums were offered (coming from where ?), there will be a number who would
never want to give up one square inch.  No more Alaskas for sale at $7m.

No, forget about changing borders.  The only hope is binding together
Hungary and its neighbours in the EU and making the borders irrelevant.
The only model to aim for is a South Tyrol solution: high level of local
autonomy with the active cooperation of both nations involved.

Just voicing desires to change borders will supply the extreme nationalists
in neighbouring countries with ammunition and make more difficult the situation
of those very Hungarians whom you fancy helping by making the undecided
majority to line up behind the nationalists.

Just think about it.

George Antony

At 01:41 PM 2/12/96 +0100,Eva Durant  wrote:
>>

>You should let people starve, and see what happens?  It was done in the
past, and didn't work...

How was it done in the past? I did  not say that people shold be starved.
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.

>There are not enough vacancies. Please comper numbers of unemployed, and
numbers of jobs available. Notice the discrepency.

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

>And if a job is not decent enough to pay a living wage "the market value",
than it shouldn't be taken, it can be more demoralizing and humiliating to
>work hard and still not making as good as they tell you you should.  The
market could do with slave labour - is that what you really want?

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

At 03:30 PM 2/12/96 +0100,Eva Durant  wrote:

> 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.

>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.

>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

At 12:23 PM 2/12/96 -0500, Joe Szalai  wrote:

> 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

I have mixed feelings about the invasion of MacDonalds etc. Free market is
free market. But I prefer Hungarian food to hamburgers, so when I am in
Budapest (or in New York) I never go to Mac Donald or Pizza Hut, but to a
Hungarian restaurant. During my last visit to Budapest I saw something
really funny. In the window of a Dunkin Donut shop there was a big sign:
Finom Sutemenyek (Fine Pastries), and they meant donuts, in the country
where the Dobos, the Kremes and other famos Hungarian pastries were introduced.
The cell phones are a whole different issue. In Hungary the traditional
phone system is under-developed, many are using cell phones in lieu of
regular ones. A long debate just wound down in the HIX GURU list (in
Hungarian) about the ethics of using these phones.
And as far as the "mass importation of American ... business" is concerned,
I think most are complaining that it is not really "mass".

Farkas D. Gabor

His Master's Voice ("Andras Szucs") has pontificated:

> (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:

I am truly honoured to have, at last, attracted the ire of "Andras Szucs",
I must have done something right eventually.

> George Antony certainly has the right to cease all efforts to feel compassion
a
te
> to his fellow-Hungarians (?) but must understand that they despise and reject
> such traitors of the Hungarian nation.

Perhaps you should try to get reconciled with the fact that there are other
Hungarians beyond those in your local Arrow Cross branch, including some ten
million in Hungary proper.  According to opinion polls, the majority of the
latter do not desire changing the current borders, however distressed they are
with the situation of minority Hungarians in countries neighbouring Hungary.

It is too easy to be a hero by mouthing revanchist propaganda from a safe
distance across the Atlantic, endangering the lives and personal freedoms
of people living in Hungary and the neighbouring countries.  Don't just claim
to be a virile Hungarian patriot: until you lead a commando raid (on the
ground, not on the computer screen) on Funar or somesuch you will remain a
pathetic butt of ridicule.

George Antony

At 16:15 PM 2/12/96 -0800, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        I bet your sense of humor was tickled, but do you realize that you
>are helping my case. Because it seems that Hungarians demand politically
>correctness when it comes to Hungarians. That is, we don't want people to
>generalize about ourselve, but we do nothing else but generalize about
>others, and if someone objects we simply say that this "political
>correctness" is not just hogwash but actually an insidious liberal ploy to
>ruin us all.
>        Eva Balogh

No, Eva, I do not help your case. I am not THE Hungarians, only one
Hungarian who demanded that PC. Beside I did not demand any PC in fact,
just simple wanted to pinpoint some contradictions in your expressions.
You misunderstand me if you think I am arguing with you about PC and
try to state everything is perfect in Hungary. 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. 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

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

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.

It says that from now on, the SUCCESSFUL Hungarians will meet annually, and
they will ask EVERY Hungarian living in the diaspora to join them.
[Capitalization is mine, I see a contradiction here, not all Hungarians
living abroad are successful, unless we use a very broad definition of
success.]

This sounds suspiciously like a new organization of Hungarians is being
created, an obvious snub of the existing World Federation of Hungarians
which was formed almost 60 years ago precisely for the same reasons.

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. He
says things like this: We must give less to the bankers, more to the
needy... If we must choose between people loosing their jobs in order to
make a business more profitable, or bankers loosing on their investment we
must choose the later.

All very interesting, I hope we will be able to read both the appeal for
participation in the Hungary 2000 movement, and the Sarlos statements in
their entirety.

Barna Bozoki