Garry Collins wrote:

> > From: Andras Szucs >
> > ...and an accomplice whose father was a high ranking AVO (Hungarian KGB)
> > officer at that time.
>
> I thought it was only the communists that punished a person for who his fathe
r
> was?

Only goes to show how similar the two extremes of the political spectrum
are in their bigotry and witch-burning zeal.  This fact, perhaps still a
surprise to some people, is further demonstrated by the ease with which the
extreme nationalist right and the paranoid anti-capitalist left have formed
coalition governments in some ex-'socialist' countries.

My only satisfaction in this respect is that Hungary is closer to the
mature democracies in the parliamentary representation given to these uglies
than to some of its neighbours.

George Antony

> offer up no similar outrage on this group months ago when the Bosnian
> Serbs were busy massacring their neighbors? Is it just me or is there a
> staggering difference of magnitude here?
>

Just to be fair: the Croatians did quite a lot of nasty
massacring of neighbours, are they more deserving
murderers, than the Serbs? Why?

In > Garry Collins >
writes:
>
>> From: Andras Szucs >
>> ...
>> ...and an accomplice whose father was a high ranking AVO (Hungarian
KGB)
>> officer at that time.
>
>I thought it was only the communists that punished a person for who
his father
>was?
>
>GarryC
    It  would  be  interesting to see a  theoretical  up  scenario.

    Nazi leader's  son (make  up a name) in  no  time  at  all,
probably  with  the  help of  Daddy's (maybe  even  Mummy's) and
Daddy's old  comrades becomes number  1 Party Leader  and  close  ally
of Waldheim  of  Austria.Of  course,  the  privileged  education  due
to Daddy's high status and  financed  by  the common  folks helped. It
also  could be  that  the  friendships  and  connections with
offsprings of other great  patriots greased  the  way  just  a  little
bit.
    The  curious thing  would  be  to  see the  reaction of  the
international  media. To  be  a  little  closer to  the  US (which  is
by  no  means  communist) reaction, it  would  be  an interesting
spectacle  in  the  US Congress when  Mr.Lantos goes  blue  in  the
face screaming  and  yelling  against  this  unholy alliance.

                                                                RK

I thought in most third world countries foreign investment
has a good access (see Shell in Nigeria) and the profitable
parts of the economy are exploited by multinationals, local
landlords are the same as local business, they think if
they take the economic power from the multinationals,
the problems of the country would be solved. Not so far...
The problem of landless masses is left over from
feudalism, but I don't think you can call e.g. Mexico
feudalist? Or even India, with an industrial production
probably equal to a top developed nation now.


>
> No, the problems in places like Haiti and Colombia are not due to
> 'capitalism', but a lack thereof.  What prevails in most Latin American
> countries is a type of feudalism.  Corruption is at the core of the
> system, and the interests of the wealthy landowners (not the
> 'capitalists') carry most weight.  Capitalists, or people who believe in
> liberal democracy also believe in rule of law.  This does not exist in
> most developing countries, and it existed even to a lesser extent in
> socialist countries like USSR, Hungary, etc.
>
>
> You are making the same mistake that Marx made, by grouping the aristocracy
> and the bourgeois into one class (or two classes with similar
> interests).  Indeed they had and have very different interests.  The
> aristocracy wanted the state to protect their interests, the interests of
> the landed nobility.  The bourgeois were bothersome to the aristocracy,
> because they favoured liberal policies (liberal in the classical sense of
> the word) such as free trade and equality under the law.
>
> The problem in most developing countries is not that some sort of wild
> capitalism exists, but that the market is stifled by massive
> bureaucracies, corruption, and special interests.  This is not
> capitalism.  This is feudalism.

Translation of the second part of the Law about the State Language
follows thanks to Tibor Hegedus >.
Again, it's the translation of the only text available so far from
Pravda 1 Dec 95. Other newspapers did not publish the text yet nor
it has been published in the Laws Sheet (Zbierka zakonov). The only
official legally binding version will be the one published in the
Laws Sheet.

All disclaimers apply.

-----------------------------

                        Article 6

        THE USE OF THE STATE LANGUAGE IN THE ARMED FORCES,
              ARMED CORPS, AND IN THE FIRE SERVICE

(1) In the Army of the Slovak Republic, in the forces of Interior Ministry
of the Slovak Republic, in the police forces, in the Slovak Information
Service, in prison and judicial guards, in the Railway Police of the Slovak
Republic, and in municipal police, in official contact the state language is
used.

(2) The whole agenda and documentation of armed forces, armed security
corps, other armed corps and fire squads is maintained in the state
language.

(3) The provision of section (1) does not touch upon the air force during
flights, and upon the international activities of armed corps.


                        Article 7

        THE USE OF THE STATE LANGUAGE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

(1) The mutual contact of courts with citizens, proceedings in criminal and
penal matters, decisions and protocols are carried out and issued in the
state language.

(2) The rights of persons belonging to national minorities and ethnic
groups, or the rights of foreigners not speaking the state language
resulting from separate regulations remain untouched.


                        Article 8

        THE USE OF THE STATE LANGUAGE IN THE ECONOMY, IN THE SERVICES,
                        AND IN THE MEDICAL SECTOR

(1) For the sake of customer protection the use of the state language is
compulsory for labelling the contents of domestic or import goods, in
directions for use, mainly for food and medicine, in warranty conditions
and other information for the customer.

(2) Written legal measures in an employer-employee relationship or similar
working relationship are prepared in the state language.

(3) Financial and technical documentation, Slovak technical norms, statutes
of associations, unions, political parties, political movements and business
companies are prepared in the state language.

(4) The whole agenda of medical institutions is maintained in the state
language. The contact of medical pesonnel with patients is usually going on
in the state language; if a citizen not speaking the state language or a
foreigner is concerned, then also in a language in which communication with
the patient is possible.

(5) In proceedings at public authorities about contracts arranging
obligation relationships only the wording in the state language is
acknowledged.

(6) All public signs, advertising and announcements meant to inform the
public, mainly in shops, sports grounds, restaurants, on streets, along and
above roads, at airports, bus and railway stations, in railway carriages and
other means of public transport, must be prepared in the state language.
They may be translated to other languages, but other-language texts follow
only after the text of the same size in the state language.


                        Article 9

                        CONTROL

The Ministry of Culture controls the observing of obligations implied by
this law. When detecting shortcomings, it calls them to the attention of
bodily and legal persons whose activities the shortcomings were detected in,
and is authorized to demand stoppage of the illegal state of affairs.


                        Article 10

                        FINES

(1) If the illegal state of affairs is not ceased, the Ministry of Culture
may impose a fine
        (a) to legal persons up to 250 000 Sk for not observing the
obligations stated in Article 4, section (4), Article 8, sections (1),(3),
(5),(6),
        (b) to legal persons up to 500 000 Sk for not observing the
obligations stated in in Article 5, sections (2),(4),
        (c) to bodily persons authorized to carry out private enterprises
up to 50 000 Sk for not observing the obligations stated in Article 4,
section (4), Article 5, sections (2),(4), Article 8, sections (1),(3),(5).

(2) When determining the sum of the fine the Ministry of Culture takes into
account the seriousness of not observing the obligations.

(3) A fine can be imposed at most one year after the day when the Ministry
of Culture detected the breaking of obligations, but three years after the
breaking of obligations at the latest.

(4) A fine imposed in accordance with this law is to be payed within 30 days
after the day on which the decision imposing the fine took effect. General
regulations about proceedings in penal matters apply to the proceedings in
imposing the fine.

(5) The fines imposed in accordance with this law constitute an income of
the state cultural fund Pro Slovakia.


                        Article 11

                COMMON AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

(1) The use of all other-language phrases, professional terms, or names of
phenomena for which no suitable equivalent state-language expression exists
yet, is not affected by this law.

(2) Responsibility for observing the provisions of this law is on the heads
of public offices, and on other legal and bodily persons (Article 10,
section (1)).

(3) The expenses for all adjustments of signboards, public signs and other
texts in accordance with this law are covered by the particular offices
and other legal and bodily persons. These adjustments are to be completed
within one year after the day this law takes effect.

(4) The state language for the purposes of Article 2, section (1) (a)(b),
Article 3, sections (1),(2) and section (3) (a)(c)(d)(e), Article 4,
Article 5, sections (5),(8), Article (6), section (2), and Article 8,
sections (1)-(5), is understood to be the Slovak language in its codified
form (Article 2, section (2)).


                        Article 12

                ABROGATING PROVISION

The law of the Slovak National Council No. 428/1990 on the official language
in the Slovak Republic is hereby abrogated.


                        Article 13

This law shall enter into effect on 1 January 1996 except for Article 10,
which takes effect on 1 January 1997.

I'm forwarding this message for .  He has now been added
to the list of subscribers.

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

----------------------------Original message----------------------------

 Reading two of Andra1s Kornai's articles in two successive issues of Hungary
makes me marvel at the lengths of inconsistency that a person of high
intellectual capacity is capable of going when carried away by emotions and
prejudice:

In Hungary507 he says:

>> Felado :  [Canada]
>>
>> A trial must take into consideration the degree of responsibility. It
seems
>> that Bardossy's responsibility for massacres was indirect.

>Yes. In fact his chief crime in this area were crimes of omission (failure
                                                         ^^^^^^^^^^
>to act against lawlessness) rather than actively promoting lawlessness. But
>upholding the rule of law is a responsibility that the leader of a country
>can't just omit. Debasing the law by introducing racist legislation also
>fits this pattern of abuse.

>> Initially he opposed the declaration of war on the Soviet Union.
>Quite possible.

>> He was condemned to death for the declaration of war on the Soviet Union
>> and not for his other crimes. The trial itself was contrary to Hungarian
and
>> European judicial jurisprudence.
>Yes.

>> I consider Bardossy guilty but I do not believe that he
>> received a fair trial and a fair judgement.
>My position exactly. He got what he deserved, but not in a fair and
>impartial manner.

>Andra1s Kornai


Yet, in Hungary 506, he said (in response to Csaba Zoltani):

>> If Andras has sources to support his broadbrush charges of "war crimes"
>> committed by Bardossy, he should make them public. Some of us have
>> an open mind on this matter.
>Well, my charges were indeed broad enough for their truth to be
self-evident.
>|As prime minister Ba1rdossy was responsible for: (a) openly racist
>|legislation (harmadik zsido1to2rve1ny) (b) deportation and massacre of
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>|Jews (Hungarian citizens) at Kamenec-Podolsk (c) massacre of civilians
>|(mostly Serbs) at...
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>                                                                      ...
The kangaroo court
>atmosphere comes through very clearly. And so does the enormity of the
crimes.
>The scenes with Ba1rdossy are particularly chilling, as it is quite obvious
>that the prosecutors (and the far from impartial judge) are no match for
>Ba1rdossy. Sza1lasi comes across as the pathetic idiot I think he was, but
>Ba1rdossy comes across as "a well-educated man with wide intellectual
>horizons". Yet somehow, kangaroo court and all, one comes away from with the
>feeling that the world is a better place with Ba1rdossy executed. Not a nice
>safe place, not with this prosecutor and this judge, but still, the amount
of
>evil in the world was decreased.

>Andra1s Kornai

Hardly the reasoned, sober style we have come to expect from Andra1s Kornai.

Even small deserted islands witness the destructive influence
of capitalism... (See: French nuclear testing).
I lived half my life here and half my life in Hungary, and
in both places I was screwed just as most of the population
by  undemocratic exploitative powerstructures. I was
critisizing Hungary when I lived there, and I am criticizing
the uk. Which doesn't mean that I don't enjoy life, just
that I can't forget about the millions who have no chance to
do so, and I could enjoy it even more, in a democratic
and just system, where I don't have to worry about the
next mortgage payment, and where the future of my children is not
insecure.
(and where people are not nasty to me on the e-mail without
reason, as I wasn't nasty, was I? I haven't sent anybody anywhere -
yet...)


>
> On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> >
> > Capitalism, by definition, undermines democracy and freedom.  If capitalism
> > is the only system that meets our needs, then we are a condemned species.
> > But I don't think we are.
> >
>  What is upsetting about this type of harangue is that the people making
> such statements are normally living within and off of (many times
> well-off) the system they condemn.  Do they not realize that the internet
> itself is a evil capitalist instrument from the Great Satan?
>
> Mr. Szalai, people are free and should be given the freedom to think as
> they wish.  But please have the decency to be consistent in the way you
> act.  My suggestion is that you change your place of residence from
> Canada to perhaps North Korea.  Only problem:  if the world continues to
> move in the direction it is now, you may be forced away from North Korea,
> and perhaps you can live your bitter life on a small deserted island -
> well, we can send you Ms. Durant for company, thankyouverymuch.
>
> jim doepp
>
>
>
>
> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
>
> James D. Doepp
> University of Miskolc (Hungary)
> Department of Economic Theory
>
>
> "...if pleasure and liking, pain and dislike, are formed in the
> soul on right lines before the age of understanding is reached,
> and when that age is attained, these feelings are in concord with
> understanding, thanks to early discipline in appropriate habits -
> this concord, regarded as a whole, is virtue.  But if you consider
> one factor in it, the rightly disciplined state of pleasures and
> pains whereby man, from his first beginnings on, will abhor what
> he should abhor and relish what he should relish - if you isolate
> this factor and call it education, you will be giving it its true name."
>
> Plato, Laws II
>
> / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

James, you make some interesting points in your last post 'Re: anti-American??'

Your assumption, however, is that the MSzP and the MDF are very different in
their politics.  They may, in fact, be different in their political ideology
but they act more or less the same when they are the government.  Could it
be that the difference between pro-capitalist and pro-state-capitalist
political parties is an illusion?   In time, both parties will sell
themselves as 'szakemberek' (professionals).

That, of course, is the problem.  It is always easier to buy a politician
than to be one!!!   And I'm sure you're familiar with the old cliche that
says, 'whoever pays the piper calls the tune'.  Well, I have difficulty just
humming along.

Joe Szalai

James Doepp's cacography (no, not the study of 'kaka' per se) today
consisted of the following;

> What is upsetting about this type of harangue is that the people making
>such statements are normally living within and off of (many times
>well-off) the system they condemn.  Do they not realize that the internet
>itself is a evil capitalist instrument from the Great Satan?
>
>Mr. Szalai, people are free and should be given the freedom to think as
>they wish.  But please have the decency to be consistent in the way you
>act.  My suggestion is that you change your place of residence from
>Canada to perhaps North Korea.  Only problem:  if the world continues to
>move in the direction it is now, you may be forced away from North Korea,
>and perhaps you can live your bitter life on a small deserted island -
>well, we can send you Ms. Durant for company, thankyouverymuch.

Jim, I don't mind you being a front line worker for the new economic order.
We all have to make compromises in our lives.  I just hope you get good
money for it!!  I don't suppose you want to talk about ALL the freedoms that
the new order offers.  You know, freedom to be unemployed, freedom to be
homeless, freedom from medical care, freedom to freeze to death, freedom to
starve, etc., etc.

Joe Szalai

I wrote:
> ...and an accomplice whose father was a high ranking AVO (Hungarian KGB)
> officer at that time.

Garry answered:
>I thought it was only the communists that punished a person for who his father
>was?

Garry, I am sure you sharply noticed that I never suggested punishment
for Ivan Peto for his father's having been a high ranking AVO/KGB officer.
I just think there is a *conflict of interest* for a person whose job
as a top ruler of Hungary would be to *get rid of*, and YES, *punish
former AVO/KGB officers*, if his own father was among them. Margaret
Thatcher wrote in her memoirs that integration of Hungary to West could
not be done because top politicians were infiltrated with KGB representation
and/or forces sabotaging purge of AVO/KGB personnel.

For Hungary, top job for before any Western integration is to get power
circles rid of former militia-men who fought *against* freedom fighters and
*against* the people of Hungary. You can never achieve this goal if you
permit a *conflict of interest* for this job in top leadership. If I am
a Coca-Cola employee I am not *punished* by being excluded from the
Company's sweepstakes. I am simply *disqualified*, just as sons and
daughters should never be assigned jobs of prosecuting their parents.

Ivan Peto should never be punished for his fathers' sins, but should
be permitted to take all the jobs he wants *except* those requiring
prosecution of his father and his father's likenesses. Agreed?

Jim Doepp wrote:

>That has already been shown not to work.  In 1963, the top tax bracket
>was 91 % (!!) in the US.  Kennedy (!) proposed tax cuts on the wealthy,
>and the top rate was reduced to 75%.  After the cuts, tax revenues from
>the wealthy (people under that tax bracket) *increased*, and they paid
>more taxes as a result.  That's one reason.  For other reasons, read
>Mallock, _A Critical Examination of Socialism_.

It matters little if the top tax bracket for the wealthy is 5% or 110%.  The
point is they don't pay.  Do you know of any wealthy person who pays tax?
If they do, they wouldn't be rich for long.  Who do you think employs all
the accountants?  Lets face it.  The wealthy, or their 'professional'
politicians make the laws.  And make no mistake about it.  They are NOT
going to screw themselves.


>> >What is evident in Hungary is similar in many ways to Canada.  Living
> standards
>> >and social services were paid for from borrowed money, because the country'
s
>> >socio-economic system was not productive enough to provide resources for
such
>> >level of services.

>Sorry, your parallels are really going too far.  If Canada were going
>through what Hungary is going through today, it would be called the
>"second great depression".  Look at growth rates and real wages.*

I'm sorry too Jim.  The last quote you attributed to me belongs to my
friend, George Antony, down under.  Be nice to him.  He's on your side in
this debade.

Joe Szalai

Darren writes in connection with the New York Times article on the GIs in
Hungary:

>Eva, I like the term "sweet" (no sarcasm intended) because I thought the
>guy sinking life saving into the restaurant was touching and yet a sign
>of the desperation to make a good impression/profit of of this, as they
>should.
>
>I think the prices of good Pecsi Sor should be doubled for the GI's ,
>like it was when I entered a bar and couldn't speak Magary back in 92. :-)

Sure, some of it was touching. Like the old fellow who is so happy that he
lived long enough to see American soldiers on Hungarian soil; or, indeed, the
fellow, who is naming his cafe "Country Tavern." But, of course, they also
hope for economic gains and, of course, there always will be people who will
take advantage of those who are unable to speak the language, or who don't
know the local conditions. Just like the French taxi driver who charged me
double of what he should have because he explained to me that he had crossed
some magic line from one area to the next! What could I do but pay. My
friends almost fainted at the price.

Eva Balogh

Joe, I didn't think I would be agreeing with you so often!!! :-)

I like capitalism but it has many faults, and Doepp ur's statement misses
the point that throughout history people have lived in systems thatwere
not always fair, and those who were benefiting were sometimes smart
enough to realize this. Of course, he is an economist and so few of them
consider anything but pareto-optimal curves (which support free markets)
and supply-demand (another idea to support capitalism), so take that
context in to account when he makes statements like that. I mean, he
might be
an AMerican professor and probably has not had to live on less than $10K
a  year for while ;-)

Darren Purcell
Deaprtment of Geography
Florida State University

James Doepp wrote:

>The danger I see is that now the Hungarian people will lose all
>confidence in the democratic system (as you seem to have) and not go out
>to vote next election.  If that happens, it would be easier for the
>'extremists' to gain power, or at least to have a greater presence in the
>parliament.  Joe, political ideology does have at least some effect on the
>way people govern, you must grant me that.  A MIEP government would
>govern differently than a FIDESz government, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I would agree.  However, the differences might prove to be rather small
if those parties have any desire to become mainstream.  Mainstream parties
can not be radical.  That is why many people have little or no confidence in
the democratic system.  A lot of people think that 'there is no difference
in who I vote for because they are all the same'.  And to a limited extent,
they are correct.  The alternative for many is to turn to radical, extreme
parties or movements.  That seems to be happening in Hungary and many
post-'socialist' countries.  The west is not immune form it either.

The world has seen the crisis of socialism.  Now, capital has to solve all
the economic problems and quickly.  If it can't, then we may witness the
crisis of capitalism, as nations and people turn to extreme solutions.
After all, capitalism embraces competition.  And competition is not always
pretty.

I don't mean to sound gloomy.  (Unlike many Hungarians, I'm an optimist.)
However, has any world empire, such as the USSR, ever collapsed with a whimper?

Joe Szalai



>On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:
>
>> James, you make some interesting points in your last post 'Re:
> anti-American??'
>>
>> Your assumption, however, is that the MSzP and the MDF are very different in
>> their politics.  They may, in fact, be different in their political ideology
>> but they act more or less the same when they are the government.  Could it
>> be that the difference between pro-capitalist and pro-state-capitalist
>> political parties is an illusion?   In time, both parties will sell
>> themselves as 'szakemberek' (professionals).
><clip>
>
>The danger I see is that now the Hungarian people will lose all
>confidence in the democratic system (as you seem to have) and not go out
>to vote next election.  If that happens, it would be easier for the
>'extremists' to gain power, or at least to have a greater presence in the
>parliament.  Joe, political ideology does have at least some effect on the
>way people govern, you must grant me that.  A MIEP government would
>govern differently than a FIDESz government, wouldn't you say?
>
>

Andras Szucs wrote..
> ...and an accomplice whose father was a high ranking AVO (Hungarian KGB)
> officer at that time.

I answered...
>I thought it was only the communists that punished a person for who his father
>was?

.and Andras replied...

> Garry, I am sure you sharply noticed that I never suggested punishment
> for Ivan Peto for his father's having been a high ranking AVO/KGB officer.
> I just think there is a *conflict of interest* for a person whose job
> as a top ruler of Hungary would be to *get rid of*, and YES, *punish
> former AVO/KGB officers*, if his own father was among them....
> .... just as sons and daughters should never be assigned jobs of prosecuting
> their parents.
> Ivan Peto should never be punished for his fathers' sins, but should
> be permitted to take all the jobs he wants *except* those requiring
> prosecution of his father and his father's likenesses. Agreed?

I note that some of the most adamant "anti drinkers" have had
alcoholic parents.
It may be that his fathers earlier "occupation" is completely disgusting to
him and therefore he would be an ideal person for the job.
However, this is pure speculation on my part, and I think that you are
indeed right, it would be a lot to ask of a person to require them to act
impartially in such a situation.

(Like a parent judging a competition where their child has an entry. The
parent could either favour their child, or be particularly hard on him/her.
And if their child's entry truly was the best, what parent would dare award
him/her first prize?)

I stand corrected!


Regards,
        GarryC.

############################################################################
# `One who puts on his armour           # Internet:        #
#  should not boast like                # Garry Collins, Electronics Dev't,#
#  one who takes it off.'               # PEC (New Zealand) Ltd     Marton #
#                         1 Kings 20:11 # New Zealand   Tel +64 6 327 8189 #
############################################################################

Jim Doepp wrote:

>George Antony wrote:
>>What is evident in Hungary is similar in many ways to Canada. Living standard
s
>>and social services were paid for from borrowed money, because the country's
>>socio-economic system was not productive enough to provide resources for such
>>level of services.

> Sorry, your parallels are really going too far.  If Canada were going
> through what Hungary is going through today, it would be called the
> "second great depression".  Look at growth rates and real wages.*
>
>         real wages      real GDP growth
> 1988                    -0.1
> 1989    -4.3            -0.2
> 1990    -3.8            -3.3
> 1991    -7.5            -11.9
> 1992    -2.1            -4.5
> 1993                    -1.0
> 1994                    +2.8
>
> *Source OECD
>
> This year growth has slowed again (maybe even to under 2 percent), and
> real wages have fallen again.

You do not seem to respond to what I am saying.  Please read again the first
sentence and then your answer.

I was only talking about similarities, not direct parallels.  Canada's economic
problems are well documented, and the trend is downwards.  It is a truism to
say that these economic problems are mild compared to those of Hungary, and
I never suggested otherwise.

What I did suggest, however, that both countries had a period of debt-financed,
fools-paradise high living standards, and that the excesses of that period are
now coming home to roost.

George Antony

Joe Szalai wrote:

> George Antony wrote:
> >Contemporary phenomena are not necessarily related.  Have you heard about
> >indebtedness ?  Canada has been paying for the social services you mention
> >from borrowed money.  With the debt high, there is not only no more scope
> >for further borrowing for such purposes, the money has to be paid back,
> >cutting the amount of Canada's own recources that is available for the
> >above purposes.

> Thank you for your mini-lecture on indebtedness.  It must be a comforting
> bromide to pontificate with such certainty.  We all understand that borrowed
> money has to be paid back.  What I don't understand is why governments are
> afraid to tax back that money from the wealthy.

Because you haven't had a serious look at the issue, instead of following
someone else's demagoguery uncritically.

Arguments about progressive taxation of the rich are driven by concepts of
social fairness.  Arguments about fixing up socio-economic problems by taxing
the rich more are driven by ignorance and demagoguery.

Do us a favour: on the back of an envelope, jot down the national debt, the
current tax rates and the revenues raised in each bracket.  Play around with
the tax brackets and see if you can raise enough revenue to retire the
national debt.

No, you cannot.  Only if you expropriate the assets (not merely the income)
of a large section of society can you get near.  However, in a liberal
democracy such expropriation is not on.

>  Odd how a capitalist country such as Canada and a former
> 'socialist' nation such as Hungary can have similar problems.

Why would it be odd ?

> All I asked for was some information on the standard
> of living in Hungary and in other countries.  Your homily failed to answer
> my question.  It seems to me that you're too busy trying to pigeon-hole me.

You are doing a much better job of pigeon-holing yourself than I could ever
dream of.

George Antony

Joe Szalai wrote:
> It matters little if the top tax bracket for the wealthy is 5% or 110%.  The
> point is they don't pay.  Do you know of any wealthy person who pays tax?

Now, such demagoguery is what I meant in previous posts.  If you had said that
they pay less tax than you think they should, that is your prerogative.
However, the above statement is demonstrably wrong and it is used in a rabble-
rousing manner.  As I said, you do a pretty good job of pigeonholing yourself.

> If they do, they wouldn't be rich for long.

That only worked in Sweden, with a 90% top tax bracket a few years ago.
Small wonder even they reversed such heavy taxation.

George Antony

Joe Doepp wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Richard Alexander wrote:
> > The present economic difficulties in Hungary are traceable to
> > numerous bad moves on the part of the MDF government in its incompetent
> > efforts at dismantling the goulash economy and instituting privatization.

> Or so the Socialists would have you believe.  Yes, it would have been
> better if MDF had been able to role back the state, privatise quickly and
> cleanly, etc.  But that does not mean the present problems originate in
> MDF incompetence.

> 1.  The depression was inevitable for two reasons.  One, because of the
> extent of malinvestment by the socialist regime of the past forty years.
> Investment was according to the political whims of the elite, and not
> based on price signals, that is, not based on the demands of consumers.
> The second reason is because market institutions had to be set up.
> People in the west take it for granted that there are banks that work,
> prices send signals to consumers and investors, companies can raise
> capital via the stock market, there is a company law establishing
> corporations as legal entities, there is a functioning tax law that is
> not arbitrary, etc.  These only began to be formed in Hungary in the mid
> 1980s, and the small beginnings became major after 1989.

Even with such a slow start, Hungary stole the lead on the other Soviet
satellites, amounting to a few years' worth of advantage.  By now, that
advantage has all but disappeared, and Hungary is forced into shock therapy
belatedly, five years after the change of systems, when the other Central-
European countries are in the consolidation stage.

The question must be asked: why ?

> 2.  This brings us to the next point, that MDF did much more then what is
> accredited to them.  Although the tax law, corporate law and banking law
> had all had a beginning in the mid eighties, these were all developed by
> the MDF government.

According to my Hungarian sources, the MDF-led coalition merely dusted off
legislation already prepared by the one-year wonder of that caretaker
technocrat government in 1989.  Legislation that the Nemeth government had
no time to put through parliament, and legislation that Antall's government
did not touch for a couple of years after coming to power.

One of the first acts of parliament under Antall was the law on games of
fortune, showing the priorities of the new government.  Much time was
devoted to issues such as whether there should be a crown on the Hungarian
coat of arms or not.  Economics was ignored, put on auto-pilot, for the
first couple of years.

> 3.  Privatisation, between 1989 and 1990, before the new parliament was
> elected, was done without any organisation.  They called this
> "spontaneous " privatisation.  Socialists claim it was good because it
> was fast.  Opponents said it was unjust, because managers (ie. old
> elvtaarsok) were given the spoils basically for free.  The MDF tried to
> create an orderly process of privatisation.

Some order.  There have been countless allegations of the privatization
process merely being turned around to favour Antall's acolytes.  It was also
drawn out, state companies kept on the books and kept alive with state
subsidies while they whithered and their sale value has declined.  See, e.g,
the case of the late Tiszai Vegyi Kombinat and the commercial banks.

Add to this the process of turning government property over to various
foundations whose operations could not be controlled by the parliament and
whose closeness to the MDF-led coalition was often cited.

> The problem is that it
> became overly bureaucratic.  And many old socialists still held
> government posts, and many of them just back-pedalled.

Old socialists, holding government posts under Antall ?  Who would that be ?

> 4.  The MDF, I believe, did not "clean house" so to speak, because their
> political position was not secure.

I beg your pardon ?  The MDF-led coalition had a clear parliamentary majority.

> I do not wish to justify their
> actions, only explain them.  Compare, for example, the reaction of the
> press when the MDF government attempted to fire a hundred radio and
> television workers, and when the MSzP fired two hundred.  Press freedom
> was at risk, we were returning to totalitarianism, etc. when MDF did it;
> hardly a squeak when MSzP did it.

I have not heard reports of systematic campaings against journalists who
were critical of the government, culminating in the sacking of said journalists
,
under the current government.  My information may be deficient, but I understan
d
that this is the very significant difference.

> 5.  The common opinion is that MDF was 'inexperienced', and could not
> handle the problems of government.  This is partly true.

Especially that another common opinion is that the MDF governments, especially
Antall's was not merely inexperienced, but ideologically driven.  They were
just as much authoritarian, committed to a strong governmental role in the
economy and a strong influence over people's thinking as consolidated Kadarism,
merely the ideology was different.

Antall's idea was to undo history and delete the shameful 45 years of socialist
experimentation from Hungary's past.  There was no more damning indictment
of economic policy stemming from such a dogmatic ideological stand than the
agricultural sector.  Instead of accepting the tenure system as given, trying
to make most of it, and transforming it into something better in an orderly
way, there were attempts to throttle the cooperatives wholesale and create
smallholdings out of them.  Smallholdings in Hungary would have to be a few
hectares each if land were distributed equally: one needs little training
in economics to appreciate what that would do for the competitiveness of the
agricultural sector and the living standards of the farmers.

Antall basically wanted to take Hungary back to where it went off the rails
in the late 1930s, even to the extent of having a policy of restoring the
old aristocracy ("pozicioba hozni az arisztokraciat").  Antall wanted to fix
up people's minds before turning his attention to mundane things such as the
economy.  This is not merely inexperience, this is a backward-looking
programme, driven by a dogmatic ideology, totally unsuited for turning an
ex-Soviet satellite with weak socio-economic institutions into a modern
European parliamentary democracy with a market economy.

> But in come the
> Socialists, who run their campaign claiming to be 'szakemberek'
> (professionals) and we find that the professionals are just as inept.
> Only the press still thinks otherwise.  Consider privatisation:  the
> HungaroHotels deal was already set, agreed to by the AVU (State Property
> Agency) and in steps Mr. Horn and nullifies the whole deal.

Since he hasn't been able to get a better deal, this was certainly a case of
incompetence.

> Phillips
> offers to buy Hungaroton, but the government decides to accept another
> deal (a Hungarian buyer) for half the price.

There are arguments why a domestic buyer may be preferable to an overseas
one, even at a lower price.

> Now the Government is
> humming and hawing over Antenna HUngaria.

A capital offence, humming a hawing.

They are also launching into the privatization of such sacred cows of left-
and right-wing statism as the energy utilities.  This would have been
inconceivable under Antall, on grounds of principle.

> The MSzP has shown itself just
> as incompetent as the MDF.  And this with an absolute majority in
> parliament, and with the SzDSz a two-thirds majority.

As I pointed out already, the MDF-led coalition also had an absolute majority.

> I am not an all-out MDF-er.  But I do think it has been given a bum rap,
> both here and abroad.  Besides the institutional developments mentioned
> above, it stood up for Hungarians living in the surrounding regions.

Indeed, Antall has even declared himself the Prime Minister of 15 million
Hungarians.  This and similar masterstrokes of diplomacy did wonders in
relations with neighbouring countries.

> There were some excellent MDF ministers, such as Kupa Mihaly, Jeszenszky
> Geza, not to mention Antall Jozsef.

Are you serious ?   Jeszenszky, who apart from having precious little
diplomatic skills was constantly putting his foot in his mouth and embarrassing
all Hungarians ?  Kupa, yes, but he was booted out soon enough.

And there were also the right-wing uglies within the MDF, Csurka and his ilk,
who were given a free run by Antall for far too long, doing serious damage
to Hungary's image abroad.

George Antony

George Antony wrote:

: ..Only if you expropriate the assets (not merely the income)
: of a large section of society can you get near.  However, in a liberal
: democracy such expropriation is not on.  ...

We shall soon hear--I suspect--that this merely proves the point that liberal
democracy is a failure...


--Greg Grose

I think Andras and I have made some progress on the question of Bardossy.
Andras admits that he treated Bardossy ahistorically, allegedly because he
held high political office. He also admits that Bardossy was not directly
responsible for Kamenets-Podolsk or for Novi Sad. I was surprised to learn
that he is against the death sentence--in general at least--but wishes "good
riddance" only to Gombos, Teleki, Bardossy, and the like and "good riddance"
to me meant sending them to the nether world.

But unfortunately I still have problems. (I promise that these will be my
last problems because I am getting a litter of puppies today or tomorrow and
I surely will not have time to think too much about Bardossy in the next few
days!) One of my chief problems is the two sets of legal standards which
Andras advocates. I thought that one of our cherished democratic ideals is
equality before the law. Therefore, I find it very difficult to swallow that
certain people should receive different sentences for the very same crimes.

Second, although Andras admits that he treated Bardossy the person
ahistorically he doesn't seem to realize that he treats Hungary in the same
manner. As if Hungary had been some little island in the Pacific Ocean, far,
far away from Nazi Germany and Europe already more than half run over by the
Germans. But more about this later. For the time being let's discuss
something else.

Since Andras likes to bring up past discussions, let me remind him of a
discussion on this list more than a year ago. At that point I tried to
explain to some people on the list that the Hungarian governments, let's say,
between 1937 and March 1944 were conservative, but they were not, by and
large, composed of extreme right-wingers while the population, under the
influence of German successes, moved further and further to the right. I
brought up, as example, the new electoral law of 1939 which allowed secret
balloting in the countryside. One could say, under normal circumstances, this
was a step in the right direction, nice, democratic move, which can be only
applauded. But, *under those circumstances,* the new electoral law was
anything but beneficial: as a result of secret balloting the extreme right's
representation in Parliament almost doubled! This case, I think, is a very
good example that one cannot think in terms of black and white or divorced
from time and space. What *by itself* was a forward-looking move, turned out
to be a retrograde step *under the circumstances*!

Andras this time--and I take this as a positive step--agrees with me here:

>> In fact, they repeat time and time again the steady and dangerous
>> shift toward the extreme right both within the population at large and
also
>> in the political parties. It is also worth keeping in mind that the upper
>> echelons of the Hungarian military were wholeheartedly pro-German.
>I think this is a very valid point. Ba1rdossy didn't act in a vacuum,
>and he was by no means the most extreme right-winger that there was.

But may I remind you Andras, that a year ago when I first broached this
subject, you and quite a few others on this list considered me an absolute
heretic for saying the very same thing. Then it was considered by you and
others an attempt to whitewash the Hungarian governments. But, let me repeat
again, any government's freedom of action is circumscribed by the political
makeup of parliament and the population at large. Moreover, in Hungary's case
this time, the governments' freedom of action was circumscribed by the
presence of a very dangerous neighbor--Germany. Between these two poles all
Hungarian governments had a very hard time to avoid a series of very serious
threats to the country. Let me point out a few possibilities: (1) The
right-wing organizations get upset at seeing all that moral fiber you demand
from the Hungarian governments, they stage a coup d'etat and the military
leaders side with them. They dispose of the legitimate government, dissolve
parliament, and dutifully serve German interests. They arrest all anti-German
elements, including the brave governor, prime ministers, ministers,
undersecretaries of state, opposition party leaders, including the leaders of
the smallholders, social democrats, the liberals, and, of course, they begin
the immediate deportations of Hungary's Jewish population not in 1944 but
let's say in 1940. (2) Bardossy and company behave the way you want them to
behave. They stand up to the German pressure; they jail the organizers of
extreme right-wing organizations and keep them in jail; they refuse to submit
any anti-Jewish laws; and so on and so forth. Germany, by then direct
neighbor of Hungary, gets tired of these brave anti-German governments of
little Hungary. We know that the Fuehrer had a rather short fuse, and he
orders the immediate occupation of the brave little country, finds Szalasi or
someone else as a puppet, again, not in 1944 but in 1940. And, of course,
they forbid the activities of all opposition parties, jail their leaders and
they immediately begin the deportation of Hungary's anti-German, democratic
elements, and of course its Jewish population. I don't think that you would
applaud any of these two outcomes. And surely not "playing the game at least
half-heartedly" would have resulted in one of these or similar scenarios.

So, in conclusion, would you have preferred a brave political stance, if that
was possible, to the cowardly cat-and-mouse game played by many Hungarian
governments? Surely, in this case, we could all keep our heads high and
remind the world that we Hungarians didn't submit to German pressure. In that
case, we would not have to apologize to the world for Hungary being the "last
satellite of Nazi Germany." But what I would like to ask you is the
following: would you have been also willing to pay the price?

Eva Balogh

Thank you Jim, for your long, careful, temperate, and astute
answer to my original provocation.  Herewith, my reactions:

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Doepp James wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Richard Alexander wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > The present economic difficulties in Hungary are traceable to
> > numerous bad moves on the part of the MDF government in its incompetent
> > efforts at dismantling the goulash economy and instituting privatization.
> >
> >
>
> Or so the Socialists would have you believe.  Yes, it would have been
> better if MDF had been able to role back the state, privatise quickly and
> cleanly, etc.  But that does not mean the present problems originate in
> MDF incompetence.

Let's leave the Socialists out of it, at least at this stage of the
conversation.  I was in Hungary, at KLTE in Debrecen, 1990-92, and
my (very crude) remarks are based on my own observations and inquiries
at that time and later.  I really have no idea at all what the present
Hungarian Socialists have to say on this matter.
>
> Here there are several points I would like to make.
>
> 1.  The depression was inevitable for two reasons.  One, because of the
> extent of malinvestment by the socialist regime of the past forty years.
> Investment was according to the political whims of the elite, and not
> based on price signals, that is, not based on the demands of consumers.
> The second reason is because market institutions had to be set up.
> People in the west take it for granted that there are banks that work,
> prices send signals to consumers and investors, companies can raise
> capital via the stock market, there is a company law establishing
> corporations as legal entities, there is a functioning tax law that is
> not arbitrary, etc.  These only began to be formed in Hungary in the mid
> 1980s, and the small beginnings became major after 1989.


Indeed, indeed.  I agree wholeheartedly, and thought I had indicated
as much in the second section of my tirade.  The economic sins of the Old
Regime surpassed my worst imaginings!  And the extent to which even
the most simple of "market institutions" had to be cobbled up from
scratch was hard to comprehend.  As a very naive American, I had
brought with me a presumption that at least the Communists were
economists, and at least their policies must have been designed for the
benefit of the general public and the common worker.  It took months for
it to sink in that the economic system in place (which was still very
much the old socialist system in 90-92) had been botched on the most
elementary economic and management lines, and also that its working
principles had virtually NOTHING to do with the welfare of the general
public or the working stiff.

We could go on in this vein, but it wouldn't get us very
far: we would just be venting.  The real work is to choose specific
economic/social/management activities, and analyze in some detail just
how and why they went wrong, and how and why they have or have not been
successfully modernized.

> 2.  This brings us to the next point, that MDF did much more then what is
> accredited to them.  Although the tax law, corporate law and banking law
> had all had a beginning in the mid eighties, these were all developed by
> the MDF government.  The stock market was formed (thus securities laws
> set in place).  Prices and imports were liberalised.  These are
> significant developments that are often taken for granted.
>
> 3.  Privatisation, between 1989 and 1990, before the new parliament was
> elected, was done without any organisation.  They called this
> "spontaneous " privatisation.  Socialists claim it was good because it
> was fast.  Opponents said it was unjust, because managers (ie. old
> elvtaarsok) were given the spoils basically for free.  The MDF tried to
> create an orderly process of privatisation.  The problem is that it
> became overly bureaucratic.  And many old socialists still held
> government posts, and many of them just back-pedalled.

Yes, the MDF did a lot, but not always efficiently.  The Banking
system was toyed with disastrously while I was there, and the monkeying
around with it seemed to me to be less governed by economic or banking
considerations than by political principles.  In the latter years of the
MDF's government, these political principles seemed to have most to do
with the MDF's internal struggle with its right wing.

(George Anthony's message titled "The MDF government" raises a number
of other points to the same effect.)

The MDF also wasted enormous energy and good will trying to impose its
own vision of Hungary on the governmental apparatus.  In its efforts to
pack the judicial system and to control the radio and television, it took
as a given that the party in power has a mandate, an obligation, a duty,
an absolute right to remake the country--its constitution, education
system, everything--in its own preferred image.  It was as if the new
supposedly democratic government operated with the same autocratic
delusions as its predecessors.  The courts were *supposed* to be packed
with ideological compatriots.  The radio and television and press were
*supposed* to be instruments of ruling-party propaganda.

Of course, Hungary was in flux and confusion.  And there was a desperate
need to establish economic institutions on a new model.  But instead of
concentrating on economic reform, *careful* privatization and so on, the
MDF spent undue effort on ideological matters (see George Anthony's
message for examples) leaving the economy (perversely) in much the same
as under the old regime.

> 4.  The MDF, I believe, did not "clean house" so to speak, because their
> political position was not secure.  I do not wish to justify their
> actions, only explain them.  Compare, for example, the reaction of the
> press when the MDF government attempted to fire a hundred radio and
> television workers, and when the MSzP fired two hundred.  Press freedom
> was at risk, we were returning to totalitarianism, etc. when MDF did it;
> hardly a squeak when MSzP did it.

Again, I think I largely agree with you (although, like Anthony, I
haven't heard of massive firings under the present government).  It was
famous that most experienced journalists had gotten their experience and
positions through the Communist system.  Naturally, those journalists
would protest the MDF's attempts to get rid of them.  But that does not
excuse the general ham-handedness of the MDF.  Just as nothing whatsoever
can excuse the abject failure of the Hungarian press to do any serious
investigative journalism about the scandalous bankruptcies, and
managerial chicanery in Hungarian industry.

>
> 5.  The common opinion is that MDF was 'inexperienced', and could not
> handle the problems of government.  This is partly true.  But in come the
> Socialists, who run their campaign claiming to be 'szakemberek'
> (professionals) and we find that the professionals are just as inept.
> Only the press still thinks otherwise.  Consider privatisation:  the
> HungaroHotels deal was already set, agreed to by the AVU (State Property
> Agency) and in steps Mr. Horn and nullifies the whole deal.  Phillips
> offers to buy Hungaroton, but the government decides to accept another
> deal (a Hungarian buyer) for half the price.  Now the Government is
> humming and hawing over Antenna HUngaria.  The MSzP has shown itself just
> as incompetent as the MDF.  And this with an absolute majority in
> parliament, and with the SzDSz a two-thirds majority.


The more things change, the more they remain the same.  What about the
botch of the Icarus privatization, or the behavior of GE with Tungsram,
or the collapse of DEKO???  What about all those radically
polluting 30's technology heavy industries in Miskolc???  There
is something very wrong here, which obviously *cannot* be explained
simply by accusing one party or another, since both parties make exactly
the same mistakes.

Or are the mistakes in fact *the same*?  The results are the same,
perhaps; but similar results can flow from quite different causes.

I know that chat-lines like this list exist mostly to trade opinions,
but I have hoped that the number of historians and other serious students
of Hungary who subscribe to this list are also aware of harder evidence
and better argued theories.  So I will ask again--

Are there solid, well-argued sources *in English* that deal with this
recent history and offer cogent explanations for Hungary's slide down,
and its signal loss of it's early advantage in shifting to a market
economy?

And another question, which pestered me continually while in Debrecen,
and for which I have been able to piece together only the shakiest
explanation myself--  Are the developments from 1989 to the present
typical of a Hungarian style of politics?  Are there patterns of
Hungarian political culture which would allow us usefully to connect the
shape of current events to events of 1848, of 1919, of 1944, of 1956....

Thank you,

Richard Alexander

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Richard Alexander wrote:

<snip>
> The present economic difficulties in Hungary are traceable to
> numerous bad moves on the part of the MDF government in its incompetent
> efforts at dismantling the goulash economy and instituting privatization.
>
>

Or so the Socialists would have you believe.  Yes, it would have been
better if MDF had been able to role back the state, privatise quickly and
cleanly, etc.  But that does not mean the present problems originate in
MDF incompetence.

Here there are several points I would like to make.

1.  The depression was inevitable for two reasons.  One, because of the
extent of malinvestment by the socialist regime of the past forty years.
Investment was according to the political whims of the elite, and not
based on price signals, that is, not based on the demands of consumers.
The second reason is because market institutions had to be set up.
People in the west take it for granted that there are banks that work,
prices send signals to consumers and investors, companies can raise
capital via the stock market, there is a company law establishing
corporations as legal entities, there is a functioning tax law that is
not arbitrary, etc.  These only began to be formed in Hungary in the mid
1980s, and the small beginnings became major after 1989.

2.  This brings us to the next point, that MDF did much more then what is
accredited to them.  Although the tax law, corporate law and banking law
had all had a beginning in the mid eighties, these were all developed by
the MDF government.  The stock market was formed (thus securities laws
set in place).  Prices and imports were liberalised.  These are
significant developments that are often taken for granted.

3.  Privatisation, between 1989 and 1990, before the new parliament was
elected, was done without any organisation.  They called this
"spontaneous " privatisation.  Socialists claim it was good because it
was fast.  Opponents said it was unjust, because managers (ie. old
elvtaarsok) were given the spoils basically for free.  The MDF tried to
create an orderly process of privatisation.  The problem is that it
became overly bureaucratic.  And many old socialists still held
government posts, and many of them just back-pedalled.

4.  The MDF, I believe, did not "clean house" so to speak, because their
political position was not secure.  I do not wish to justify their
actions, only explain them.  Compare, for example, the reaction of the
press when the MDF government attempted to fire a hundred radio and
television workers, and when the MSzP fired two hundred.  Press freedom
was at risk, we were returning to totalitarianism, etc. when MDF did it;
hardly a squeak when MSzP did it.

5.  The common opinion is that MDF was 'inexperienced', and could not
handle the problems of government.  This is partly true.  But in come the
Socialists, who run their campaign claiming to be 'szakemberek'
(professionals) and we find that the professionals are just as inept.
Only the press still thinks otherwise.  Consider privatisation:  the
HungaroHotels deal was already set, agreed to by the AVU (State Property
Agency) and in steps Mr. Horn and nullifies the whole deal.  Phillips
offers to buy Hungaroton, but the government decides to accept another
deal (a Hungarian buyer) for half the price.  Now the Government is
humming and hawing over Antenna HUngaria.  The MSzP has shown itself just
as incompetent as the MDF.  And this with an absolute majority in
parliament, and with the SzDSz a two-thirds majority.

I am not an all-out MDF-er.  But I do think it has been given a bum rap,
both here and abroad.  Besides the institutional developments mentioned
above, it stood up for Hungarians living in the surrounding regions.
There were some excellent MDF ministers, such as Kupa Mihaly, Jeszenszky
Geza, not to mention Antall Jozsef.

On Sat, 2 Dec 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:

>
> Capitalism, by definition, undermines democracy and freedom.  If capitalism
> is the only system that meets our needs, then we are a condemned species.
> But I don't think we are.
>
 What is upsetting about this type of harangue is that the people making
such statements are normally living within and off of (many times
well-off) the system they condemn.  Do they not realize that the internet
itself is a evil capitalist instrument from the Great Satan?

Mr. Szalai, people are free and should be given the freedom to think as
they wish.  But please have the decency to be consistent in the way you
act.  My suggestion is that you change your place of residence from
Canada to perhaps North Korea.  Only problem:  if the world continues to
move in the direction it is now, you may be forced away from North Korea,
and perhaps you can live your bitter life on a small deserted island -
well, we can send you Ms. Durant for company, thankyouverymuch.

jim doepp




/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory


"...if pleasure and liking, pain and dislike, are formed in the
soul on right lines before the age of understanding is reached,
and when that age is attained, these feelings are in concord with
understanding, thanks to early discipline in appropriate habits -
this concord, regarded as a whole, is virtue.  But if you consider
one factor in it, the rightly disciplined state of pleasures and
pains whereby man, from his first beginnings on, will abhor what
he should abhor and relish what he should relish - if you isolate
this factor and call it education, you will be giving it its true name."

Plato, Laws II

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Sandor Lengyel x2495 wrote:

> >>but his movements were away from democracy.
>
> That is your opinion. But even if you are right, does the end justifies
> the mean.
> What you say is, that democratic principals are allright as long as it suits
> our will, but if the result is not to my whim, they should be broken.
>

No, what I mean is that there are certain rules to democracy.  No
elected government adheres to the rules of democracy perfectly, it is
true.  But when an elected government moves in such a way that the whole
democratic system is in jeopardy, then that government has forfeited its
legitimacy as democratically elected government.

For example, if the Socialists here in Hungary pass a media law that is
somewhat undemocratic, it still remains its legitimacy as democratically
elected government.  If, however, they decided to remove whole democratic
institutions, postpone any further elections, etc. etc., one could no
longer sit back and say, "well, that's what the people wanted."  Or if we
could, then people would desire not to have a voice, and expressed that
desire by voting (ie. expressing that desire, and using that voice.)  In
other words, people would be acting in a self-contradictory manner.


jim doepp


!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!

James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory



"Mr Turnbull had predicted evil consequences,...
and was now doing the best in his power to bring
about the verification of his own prophecies."

A. Trollope

!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!%!

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:

>
> Thank you for your mini-lecture on indebtedness.  It must be a comforting
> bromide to pontificate with such certainty.  We all understand that borrowed
> money has to be paid back.  What I don't understand is why governments are
> afraid to tax back that money from the wealthy.

That has already been shown not to work.  In 1963, the top tax bracket
was 91 % (!!) in the US.  Kennedy (!) proposed tax cuts on the wealthy,
and the top rate was reduced to 75%.  After the cuts, tax revenues from
the wealthy (people under that tax bracket) *increased*, and they paid
more taxes as a result.  That's one reason.  For other reasons, read
Mallock, _A Critical Examination of Socialism_.


>
> >What is evident in Hungary is similar in many ways to Canada.  Living
 standards
> >and social services were paid for from borrowed money, because the country's
> >socio-economic system was not productive enough to provide resources for suc
h
> >level of services.
>

Sorry, your parallels are really going too far.  If Canada were going
through what Hungary is going through today, it would be called the
"second great depression".  Look at growth rates and real wages.*

        real wages      real GDP growth
1988                    -0.1
1989    -4.3            -0.2
1990    -3.8            -3.3
1991    -7.5            -11.9
1992    -2.1            -4.5
1993                    -1.0
1994                    +2.8

*Source OECD

This year growth has slowed again (maybe even to under 2 percent), and
real wages have fallen again.

ps. speaking of taxing the rich, the Socialists want to increase the top
tax bracket to 48%.  And who is in the top tax bracket?  Those who earn
over 900,000 HUF per year, that is, 7,000 USD equivalent!  Those are the
"rich" here.  If you visit Hungary, you will find the cost of
living is quickly approaching the western cost of living.  If you come to
Hungary, leave all your ideological baggage at home.  We don't need it here.


jim



/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory


"...if pleasure and liking, pain and dislike, are formed in the
soul on right lines before the age of understanding is reached,
and when that age is attained, these feelings are in concord with
understanding, thanks to early discipline in appropriate habits -
this concord, regarded as a whole, is virtue.  But if you consider
one factor in it, the rightly disciplined state of pleasures and
pains whereby man, from his first beginnings on, will abhor what
he should abhor and relish what he should relish - if you isolate
this factor and call it education, you will be giving it its true name."

Plato, Laws II

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:

> Jim Doepp wrote:
>
> >That has already been shown not to work.  In 1963, the top tax bracket
> >was 91 % (!!) in the US.  Kennedy (!) proposed tax cuts on the wealthy,
> >and the top rate was reduced to 75%.  After the cuts, tax revenues from
> >the wealthy (people under that tax bracket) *increased*, and they paid
> >more taxes as a result.  That's one reason.  For other reasons, read
> >Mallock, _A Critical Examination of Socialism_.
>
> It matters little if the top tax bracket for the wealthy is 5% or 110%.  The
> point is they don't pay.  Do you know of any wealthy person who pays tax?
> If they do, they wouldn't be rich for long.  Who do you think employs all
> the accountants?  Lets face it.  The wealthy, or their 'professional'
> politicians make the laws.  And make no mistake about it.  They are NOT
> going to screw themselves.


That's just the point.  Taxation should not be there in order to avenge
people for the sin of being rich.  The purpose of taxation is to raise
revenues.  If the tax is too high, people will avoid or evade it.  The
rich are most adept at doing this.

(By the way, in case you were wondering, I don't earn enough to fall
under the top Hungarian tax bracket - I make a third of that:})


>
>
> >> >What is evident in Hungary is similar in many ways to Canada.  Living
> > standards
> >> >and social services were paid for from borrowed money, because the
 country's
> >> >socio-economic system was not productive enough to provide resources for
> such
> >> >level of services.
>
> >Sorry, your parallels are really going too far.  If Canada were going
> >through what Hungary is going through today, it would be called the
> >"second great depression".  Look at growth rates and real wages.*
>
> I'm sorry too Jim.  The last quote you attributed to me belongs to my
> friend, George Antony, down under.  Be nice to him.  He's on your side in
> this debade.
>


OOPS.  Well, what I said is true anyway (I don't make comments to support
people, but ideas.)  The essence is, modern welfare states are suffering
as well, but to a much smaller degree.  The greater the state
involvement, the more mistakes tend to be made, and the greater the final
adjustment crisis.  Post socialist countries are a witness to this.

jim



/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /


James D. Doepp
University of Miskolc (Hungary)
Department of Economic Theory


"...if pleasure and liking, pain and dislike, are formed in the
soul on right lines before the age of understanding is reached,
and when that age is attained, these feelings are in concord with
understanding, thanks to early discipline in appropriate habits -
this concord, regarded as a whole, is virtue.  But if you consider
one factor in it, the rightly disciplined state of pleasures and
pains whereby man, from his first beginnings on, will abhor what
he should abhor and relish what he should relish - if you isolate
this factor and call it education, you will be giving it its true name."

Plato, Laws II

/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /

On Tue, 5 Dec 1995, Joe Szalai wrote:

> James, you make some interesting points in your last post 'Re:
 anti-American??'
>
> Your assumption, however, is that the MSzP and the MDF are very different in
> their politics.  They may, in fact, be different in their political ideology
> but they act more or less the same when they are the government.  Could it
> be that the difference between pro-capitalist and pro-state-capitalist
> political parties is an illusion?   In time, both parties will sell
> themselves as 'szakemberek' (professionals).
<clip>

The danger I see is that now the Hungarian people will lose all
confidence in the democratic system (as you seem to have) and not go out
to vote next election.  If that happens, it would be easier for the
'extremists' to gain power, or at least to have a greater presence in the
parliament.  Joe, political ideology does have at least some effect on the
way people govern, you must grant me that.  A MIEP government would
govern differently than a FIDESz government, wouldn't you say?