> Felado :  [Canada]
> Indo-European languages and Finno-Ugrian languages are separate for at
> least in the past 20,000 years; the proto-Finno-Ugrians settled on a narrow
> region south of the iceline between the Carpathians and the Ural 13 to
> 15,000 years ago; languages began to separate about 8000 years ago;
I'm sorry to pour water on this, but such results of glottochronological
extrapolation are notoriously unreliable.  Unfortunately, the less speculative
methods of historical linguistics do not have the power to resolve any issue
beyond a roughly 2000 year time period preceding the earliest written data.
Many people (now armed with a better understanding of chaotic processes)
seriously doubt whether a better resolution is in fact possible at all,
much as professional meteorologists do not believe that one can predict
daily changes in the weather a year ahead. Since no written record goes
back before 4,000 BC, anything about the linguistic state of the world
prior to 6,000 BC is speculation based on extremely shaky models.

> The predecessors of the magyars descended from the Finno-Ugrian family of
> the Ural branch of the Ural-altaic peoples.
Whether Ural-Altaic peoples as such ever formed a single group remains an
unresolved issue. Not an unreasonable hypothesis, but by no means a proven one.

[Detailed but somewhat speculative chronology between 6,000 BC and 3,300 BC
omitted.]

> Hungarian words of Finno-Ugric origin west of the Ural: fenyo3, nyir. East
> of the Ural: me1h, me1z, nemeslazac;
Nemeslazac is a real weak point here -- compounds are highly untraceable, so
let's stick with lazac. Germanic lachs seems a reasonable contact hypothesis
here, especially as a number of rather basic flora/fauna terms are
unquestionably Germanic in origin.

> men were Europid, women were mildly Mongoloid, flat-faced
??? How could the male and female parts of the population preserve
distinct anthropological characteristics?

> 1600-1500 B.C. Horseback riding Finno-Ugrians; majority practice
> agriculture; The break-up of the Finno-Ugrians took place in the middle of
> the second millennium; in touch with the Iranians until 1600 B.C.; 26
> Hungarian words exists of Old-Iranian origin;
Could we have a list please?

> 1000 B.C. proto-Hungarians: adoption of nomad life-style,
Are you seriously proposing they went back from agricultural to nomadic?

Andra1s Kornai

> Felado :  [Canada]
> Gabor, you are no Hayekist (or Hayekite) if you see social programmes as
> being desireable.  Hayekists have no tolerance for any social programme.
Where did you get this? Even hard-liners like Milton Friedman see *some*
social programs as desirable.

> Felado :  [Australia]
> Hence, what you are criticizing in the Bokros approach is textbook NEO-
> CLASSICAL (not Keynesian) policies.
That's what I would say too, but of course I'm no economist. I think my
father supports the main thrust of Bokros' policies (he was certainly very
much in favor of putting the privatization income toward debt reduction)
though not necessarily every detail.

Andra1s Kornai

>
> P.S. -- Here's a question for the group at large -- why does almost
> everyone who challenges Durant do so on economic grounds? She's pleased as
> punch to babble on ad nauseum when you do. But when I ask her about the
> impacts of Marxism-Leninism on human thought, belief and morals, she cooks
> off like a hand grenade. Am I the only one on here who isn't locked into a
> rigid economics-oriented view of the human condition? (Szalai, get your
> fingers off the keyboard right now, young man!)
>

Would you please give me  brief rundown on the inpact of capitalism
on human thought, belief and morals. In the meantime, try to drag
yourself away from the idea, that democratic socialism can be
identified with anything you building up into the usual strawman.
When you'll actually comprehend (I am an optimist obviously)
, what it means and you won't
need yet an other explanation about the advantages of such a
system both economic and ethical.
Eva Durant

> encased yourself in (socialists are in my view sort of like religious
> zealots in their dream of a nirvana like heaven on earth and belief in the
> godlike pronouncements of Marx, Lenin et al) you might actually read some
> of the posts that have questioned socialism as a viable socio-economic
> system.  Had you done so, you would find that at least those posts that
> I've written show a strong belief that humans don't fit the mold required
> by socialist theory.  My stance has been pragmatic and somewhat cynical of
> human generosity and willingness to forgo the individual for the greater
> good.  Perhaps that's the cop in me coming out. Anyway, the allusion to
> crystals and channeling is humorous, but if anyone here has a mystical view
> of the power of humans to transcend their present state into some zombie
> like socialist new man....well, look in the mirror.
>

You are mixing with the wrong crowds. You are also building a strawman-
picture. I did not claim any individula sacrifice for the greater
good, thank you very much. It would help if you actually listened to
my ideas, before  any personal attacks.  Than you'd also notice,
that it has even less to do with any religious-like faith-thing.
Eva Durant

"Eva S. Balogh" > wrote:
> [...] Hungarian Soviet Republic's nationality policy.

I take you mean "People's Republic of Hungary".

Andras

I just heard about a Hungarian festival celebrated 2/19/96. It has to do
with remembering an ancient Magyar victory over invaders in which the
Magyars donned masks and scared the invaders away. There also seems to be
some connection with masked Magyars scaring winter away.

I love the idea of scaring winter away, and I would love to know details
about this festival and to see some photos - particularly of the masks.
Can anyone send me that information or point me to it on the web? Or tell
me what it's called so I can look it up in the library?

--
Original cast paper relief, paper sculpture and graphics for home and office
walls. http://www.frontiernet.net/~mcolling

Dear Colleagues,

On the 3rd of February we held a meeting with Imre Mecs, M.P. and Jeno Fonay
the president of POFOSZ concerning the 40th anniversary celebrations of the
1956 Revolution. They agreed, that the nation must honor the memory of its
fallen heroes  in the same spirit of national unity, which prevailed during
our Fight for Freedom.
They agreed, that it is our duty to remind the world, that the downpayment
for the peace dividend, which the United States is enjoying, was paid in
Hungarian blood. They agreed, that Hungary can not regain its 1956 status of
a moral superpower (Albert Camus), unless it can rise above political
division.

 They also agreed, that as the leaders of the two main political groups,
which are organizing celebrations, it is up to them to give an example.
Therefore they agreed to do everything within their power to overcome all
political division and to jointly work for a monument to be built next to the
ones honoring the Fights for Freedom of Rakoczi and Kossuth in front of the
Parliament.

This was a very courageous step for Fonay and Mecs to take. They ofcourse are
no novices at bravery: they have both received the death sentence  in 1957.
Still, in some ways, this step was harder! They are taking this step "alone!"
They can not count on the solidarity and support of their friends. In fact,
they both will be scorned by their respective "camps." For the narrow minded,
they both are traitors to the cause of the "party."

But for us, for the people who think  not in terms of politics, but in terms
of nation and history, they are heroes! They deserve our support. I do hope
that the members of the Hungarian  Lobby in particular, but many others too,
will give them spiritual support. They can not be reached by E-Mail, but they
can be reached by fax:

Jeno Fonay's fax is: 011-361-131-7550
Imre Mecs's fax is: 011-361-268-4815

Please let them know that they are not alone.

With best personal regards: Bela Liptak

In article >, "Johanne L. Tournier"
> writes:

> Sam mentioned "<Szalai content> Peter
>Jennings," since he happens to be Canadian. Joe, do you think the problem
>these guys have with you is that they really fear your subversive
Canadian
>ideas?
>
>Schizophrenically yours,
>
>Johanne
>
>Johanne L. Tournier
>e-mail - 
>
>
>

Joe, subversive? What a laugh, eh! Think I'll go have some hot chocolate
and a cruller and watch Les Habs on the television.
Sam Stowe

At 03:23 AM 2/19/96 -0500, Andra1s Kornai wrote:

>> Felado :  [Canada]
>> Gabor, you are no Hayekist (or Hayekite) if you see social programmes as
>> being desireable.  Hayekists have no tolerance for any social programme.
>Where did you get this? Even hard-liners like Milton Friedman see *some*
>social programs as desirable.

Interesting that you put quotation marks around "some" and not around
"social programs".

(I wish Hungarian-Americans would set a good example for Hungarians who are
using this list to improve their English language skills, by using the
correct English spelling of words.  In English, "program" is spelled
"programme", "color" is spelled "colour", etc..)

The social programmes that the Hayekists "tolerate" are those that promote
the accumulation of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

Joe Szalai

In article >,
Janos Zsargo > writes:

> 'we are about to
>enter the war on the side of the triple antante because we think it is
>more benifitiuos than on the side of Germany'(USA). I was talking about
those
>who sent the soldiers to the battlefield. I am not so sure they were
thinking
>about such ideas like 'western civilization' when they decided about the
>war.

Undoubtedly, given the conduct of some of the Allies during the Versailles
Treaty talks, it's easy to think the most cynical worst of their
leadership. In doing this, you do a grave disservice to the American
people and to President Wilson in particular. Much as Trianon broke the
dream of an independent greater Hungary, Versailles broke Wilson's dream
of a comprehensive peace in Europe. You are not so sure about the motives
of the American leadership because it's a lot easier to blame a faceless
international conspiracy for some of the hard knocks Hungary has received
in this century than it is to accept that simple bad luck -- the country's
geographical proximity to a belligerent, expansionist Germany in two world
wars -- and repeated failures in statesmanship -- allowing Hungary to be
drawn into two world wars as a client of Germany -- led to the
fragmentation of a greater Hungary.

The Magyar minorities living in adjacent states are not a result of
American imperialists somehow stepping in to keep the poor Hungarians
down. They are a direct result of the failure of Hungary's political
leadership for most of this century to articulate and implement a
rational, realistic foreign policy.
Sam Stowe

Andras Kornai:

>> Hungarian words of Finno-Ugric origin west of the Ural: fenyo3, nyir. East
>> of the Ural: me1h, me1z, nemeslazac;
>Nemeslazac is a real weak point here -- compounds are highly untraceable, so
>let's stick with lazac. Germanic lachs seems a reasonable contact hypothesis
>here, especially as a number of rather basic flora/fauna terms are
>unquestionably Germanic in origin.

        I am not as well versed in linguistics as Andras but I am very
interested in ethymology. So, I took the trouble and I looked up the word
"lazac" in A magyar nyelv torteneti-etimologiai szotara." On the basis of
what I read there I must agree with Andras. In the first place the word
didn't even appear in writing before 1685! The dictionary's conclusion is
that the word came into the Hungarian language through a "northern" Slav
language (I think in English we call that group of Slavic languages "western
Slavic" languages), most likely Slovak, where that particular fish is called
"losos." And, I assume that the Slovak "losos" came from the German "Lachs."
And let's not forget about "lox," that wonderful smoked salmon (origin:
Yiddish "laks") with bagels and cream cheese, which had become so popular in
the United States. I love them.

        Eva Balogh

At 03:35 AM 2/19/96 GMT, Andras Kovacs wrote:
>"Eva S. Balogh" > wrote:
>> [...] Hungarian Soviet Republic's nationality policy.
>
>I take you mean "People's Republic of Hungary".
>
        No, I mean the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 (Magyar
Tanacskoztarsasag).

        Eva Balogh

>
> If the factory workers, or farm workers, or whatever truly were in an
> egalitarian collective society in which the workers made the decisions, they
> wouldn't be made in capitol cities by bureacrats who either never held
> factory, farm, or whatever jobs, or last held them 20, 30 or 40 years
> previous to decisions being made.  The five year plans for production, and
> the yearly quotas within them were set in capitol cities, not in the
> factories and fields by the workers themselves.

That is exactly what I said.  That would be the nature of democracy
no uneducated guesses in isolated high offices.
Coordination/planning could be done by just collecting the data
of capacities and needs.


> >You have to substanciate this, if it is a claim.  Human
> >civilisation is the result of cooparation from start,
> >and the degree of cooparation improved all the time,
> >especially with capitalism.  I'm talking about an even
> >more (conscious/voluntary/democratic) cooperation for
> >the future, as per the logical outcome of this so far
> >fairly successful tendency.
> >
>
> Apparently I didn't word this as well as could have been.  The point is not
> cooperative alone, but egalitarian as well.  We have evolved more
> transactions--and confrontations--simultaneously because not all the
> cooperation has been voluntary and egalitarian.  Just one example, colonies
> for the big powers.  Yes there is some economic cooperation there, and even
> dependency, but were the colonies consulted and allowed to voluntarily
> negotiate the types of relations?  In a few cases, maybe, but in most, no.
> Then their are the so-called military co-operations, alliances and
> satellites.  When Austria-Hungary tried to pull free of the war in 1916, the
> Germans literally put the Austro-Hungarian royal family under a kind of
> house arrest (see _The Last Habsburg_, etc.)  The result was Austria-Hungary
> stayed in the war, but it's debatable that this was an
> egalitarian,voluntarily cooperative arrangement of both parties.
>

So what is so unpractical about striving for a society of
least compulsion?  Surely, that would be the most satisfactory
one!

> >(limit being ofcourse the respect for other people's safety
> >and freedom) if you don't need capital, after all you can eat and
> >wear so many things and can live in limited number of abodes...
>
>
> One would think that yes.  But how do we explain all these millionaires and
> banana republic elites with small families and multiple mansions and 30 and
> 40 classic cars, etc. and the fact that so many of them never seem to be
> satisfied?

Even their new generation is not happy with it, into drugs etc.
I think they could balance the extra luxuries for a peaceful
and threatfree life.

>
> People need food, clothing, shelter, sanitation and medical care to survive.
> However, the quantity, types and quality of each are all subjective choices
> and people may accept/demand more or less than they really need depending
> upon both how well they really know their own needs.  Look at how many obese
> people there are in the U.S. who eat all the time, feel hungry and just
> comply with their feelings, yet do not actually need the amount of calories
> they consume.  Or conversely, look at how many people in many countries
> where political change may be difficult but not impossible cram themselves
> into shacks with many family members rather than getting together with the
> quantities of other people in similar circumstances and demanding better
> wage laws and environmental conditions to enable them to earn what they
> really need.
> >

However their need is not so vastly different, than their income
is at the moment.  I think if the shack-dwelling people knew
what to do todemand efficiently better conditions, they'd do
it. However, the few times they try they are shot at, their
leaders are murdered. They risk their lives, if they don't
manage to move everybody.  Quite a choice...

Eva Durant

It is called BUSOJARAS and Mohacs (southern Hungary) is renowned for
Buso festivities at the end of the carnival season. There is lots of
literature, pictures attached to this event in books on folklore or
ethnography. Nora

At 10:32 AM 2/19/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>I am not as well versed in linguistics as Andras but I am very
>interested in ethymology.

You mean etymology, don't you?  "Ethymology" might be explained
etymologically by future etymologists. ;-)

Joe Szalai

So when did Hungary start to borrow? I thought it was
well into the seventies.
Eva Durant


>
> Eva Durant:
>
> >First, the facts: I've never said it was paradise, and I've never
> >said, that living standard were growing, as from the end of
> >the seventies they were not.
>
>         Of course, you didn't say it in so many words but the message, with
> some exaggeration, was still the same.
>
> >All I wanted to point out, that even in a system where there
> >was a the terrible waste of burocracy etc, etc, some things
> >were positive, and even better, than in a western country,
> >even before the years of the loans there were good education,
> >nurseries, libraries, cheap culture. Is this a fact or not?
>
>         Oh, that is a fact. The only problem with these services was that
> the country's economy didn't provide enough money for their maintenance.
> They were subsidized from money borrowed from abroad--thus the incredible
> indebtedness of the country. Sure, it would be very nice to have let's say a
> sailboat or a house on the shore costing 2 million dollars--but if I don't
> have the money to own either, or if I buy them on borrowed money which I am
> unable to repay, then I am not really entitled to these goodies. I will have
> to give them up or the bank will take them away from me. The same was true
> about all those goodies the Kadar government was giving to the population:
> they coudn't really afford them.
>
> Eva Balogh

>
>
> >Will stopping benefits create new jobs?
>
> Yes. Because the entrepreneurs will not have to pay such high benefits once
> these payments will be smaller. Therefore they will be able to afford hiring
> more people.
>


Larger percentage of taxes are going to corporate
and military/administrative expenditure, than for benefits.

Eva Durant

>
>         And a long story about poverty in Mexico. I am no economist but
> there can be no rise in living standards without economic growth! So, you
> can "heartily agree" to your heart's content, but unfortunately you are,
> along with Ms. Durant, wrong! If there was economic growth in Mexico
> somebody's living standards did go up--not necessarily the poor people's but
> most likely the rich ones because Mexico is basically a corrupt country
> where the bureaucrats and the capitalists get the fruits of economic growth
> and not the population at large. But we are not talking about Mexico; we are
> not talking about South America; we are talking about a fairly democratic
> country in Central Europe. There, if there is sustained and steady economic
> growth the population's living standards will go up--not just a few chosen
> ones, but everybody's.
>

We established, that growth doesn't mean rising living standards.
However, living standards could rise, if there were no military/
financial/speculative elites to be kept on our expence.
There is no growth necessary, if there is enough produced
for everybody.  Which is the case.
Eva Durant

On February 24, 1996.  The Tulipan Hungarian Dancers of Ottawa are holding
thier annual concert.

Following the Performance there will be a Tanc Haz in the cafeteria of the
school.  Admission is only $10.00 for adults $8.00 for students and
seniors, and children under 12 are free.  We will be holding the concert
at the De La Salle High school.  That is First right off St. Patrick, East
of King Edward.

The concert starts at 7:00pm and will end about 10:00.  After this during
the Tanc Haz you will be able to taste our delicious Debreceni and our
mouth watering pastries.  Beer and Soft drinks will also be available.

For more information write or call me at
828-1197  or  


> ---------------------------------------------/\--------/\--------------
Christina Magyar                             | {}    {} |   Keep
Carleton University                          |    \/    |  Smiling
                                             |  \____/  |   !!!!
Email address:        \        /     :)
> ------------------------------------------------{ || }-------------------

Joe Szalai wrote:

(I wish Hungarian-Americans would set a good example for Hungarians who are
using this list to improve their English language skills, by using the
correct English spelling of words.  In English, "program" is spelled
"programme", "color" is spelled "colour", etc..)

    Joe,

       You are not only trying to impose  your views on us in every-
    thing else, now you want us to use "English" when we have a very
    nice American. And guess what?  We are very  happy with our own.
    So leave our language alone.
       Not a hyphenated American,
                                   Amos

Joe Szalai wrote:
>
> At 12:39 PM 2/18/96 -0500, Farkas D. Gabor wrote:


> >That is not true. Americans are either covered by priovate insurance or if
> >they are too poor for that, there are government programs that cover them
> >(Medicaid).

I must correct Mr. Gabor in his assertion about health care in the U.
S.  The fact is that there is a great percentage of people in the
Unites States that do not have health car.  Often you hear them being
called the "working poor", etc.Medicaid/Medicair are only available to
those on welfare, who are retired and of age to collect Social
Security, or are disabled and collecting Social Security.  There are
millions of citizens who work in jobs that do not have health benefits
and are therefore without any health insurance.  These people, when in
need of health care, often resort to the emergency room at hospitals,
often when a medical condition has progressed to a point where more
expensive attention is needed.  This because those without health care
often try to "tough it out" hoping they will get better.
These people receive care at the hospital, but the cost is passed on
to those who have insurance or can pay out of pocket.  This is one of
the reasons for high health care costs in America, but not the only
one.
When Clinton came to office, one of his campaign platforms was to
institute universal health care coverage for all Americans.  This was
defeated, in large part due to large insurance providers (and from the
Republican congressmen who were the recipients of their largess at
election time) who saw the end of the obscene profits that they were
getting from the present system.  Some states, Hawaii and Oregon to
name two, have instituted their own type of universal coverage to
grant at least basic coverage to those in need.
Many people are frightened that completely socialized medicine would
mean poor quality medicine. This has been the reality in many
countries where medicine was centrally managed by the same people who
did such a wonderful job with food production. Still, several have
done a credible job of providing decent care, so I see this as showing
that it CAN be done.

Regards,

Doug Hormann

I have such admiration for people who are so sure of themselves and
who, regardless of subject matter, feel totally at home in every topic. Joe
Szalai is one of these people. Unfortunately, very often he is not right.
See Hayek, or see the question of nation state.

Says Joe Szalai:

>The development of the nation state DID NOT presuppose homogeneity.  Eastern
>Europe was not the only place to 'have patches of this or that nationality'.

>The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has English, Welsh, Scotch
>and Irish people.

The United Kingdom certainly had people who considered themselves English,
Welsh, Scottish, and Irish. But they spoke the SAME language! The problem
with the Irish was not nationality-based but religion-based. The Irish
became secondary citizens because of their religion and English
discriminatory laws against Catholics.

>France has Bretons, Basques, Germans.

France has several other nationalities beside Bretons, Basques, and Germans.
But, 94.7% of the population is French and I bet close to 100 percent can
speak French.

>Spain has the Basques and the Catalans.

Yes, but the Catalans consist only 17 percent of the population and the
Basques who cause so much trouble is only 2 percent of the total.
>
>Turkey has Greeks, Tartars, Armenians, Albanians, Kurds and others.

        Eighty-five percent of the population is Turkish, Kurds cause enough
trouble although they are a relatively small minority: 12%. And all those
others you mention makes up the rest. If I calculate right it is 3%.

>Switzerland has French, German, Italian and Romanish.


        Switzerland is not a centralized nation-state.

>Belgium has Dutch-speaking Flanders and French-speaking Walloons.

        Belgium is an artificial creation not an organically grown nation
state. Moreover, both Flemish and French are official languages. It is
therefore not a nation state in the accepted sense of the word.

>Russia is an obvious example.

        Russia began as a state with fairly homogeneous population but
thanks to Peter the Great and Catherine the Great the Russian state greatly
expanded and included many, many people, most of them against their wills as
a result of conquest. Just in this century twice certain border regions
managed to free themselves from Russian tutelage. Already Peter called
himself emperor and his country an empire. It was certainly not a
nation-state before 1917 or after. At the moment rump Russia is as close to
homogeneity as it ever was: 87% of the population is Russian.

>The continent of Africa is another.

        From this last example I gather that you mix up the concept of
"country" with the concept of "nation state." The two are not the same.
There are many, many countries in Africa, but as far as I know not one of
them can be called a nation state. Most Africans would know what the word
"nation"  means.

>Where did you get the idea that the modern nation state has homogeneity as a
>prerequisite?

        Since I am not in the best of moods today (thanks to Mr. Bokros's
resignation) I will be nasty and I will say "az ujjambol szoptam."

        Eva Balogh

At 12:08 PM 2/19/96 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:32 AM 2/19/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:
>
>>I am not as well versed in linguistics as Andras but I am very
>>interested in ethymology.
>
>You mean etymology, don't you?  "Ethymology" might be explained
>etymologically by future etymologists. ;-)
>
>Joe Szalai
>
Szalai, you are rubbing me the wrong way!

        Eva Balogh

At 05:57 PM 2/19/96 +0000, Jim Doepp wrote:

>Bokros is out, and I don't expect the government will choose anyone who is
>any better.

        And it seems that the Budapest Stock Exchange neither. The news of
Bokros's resignation had a terrible effect on the market: it lost more than
5 percent--115 points. In the New York Stock Exchange a similar drop would
have constituted a 289 points drop in the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
        Eva Balogh

I have been watching the incredible rise in volume on this list. There are
hundreds and hundreds of lines, quotations, quotations of quotations, most
of them coming from two or three people. Please cut down the traffic. I
can't keep up. I lose the thread. I don't even remember what the original
question was. Lately, as soon as I see certain headers, I immediately send
the whole message into the trash without reading it.

Two people--who can be only called fanatical ("megszallott")--can't talk
about anything else but the coming of socialism. Who on earth is interested
in this Utopistic nonsense, except perhaps Joe Szalai and Eva Durant.
Meanwhile there are interesting articles which are much, much more important
to Hungary's well being. For example, David Hinds's comments on Hungarian
difficulties of adjusting to new realities. Or, there is the resignation of
Lajos Bokros, the finance minister. Joe Szalai's and Eva Durant's rantings
and ravings about a Marxist Utopia will not help the Hungarian people at
their present plight. Instead, let's concentrate on the achievable and the
important.

        Eva Balogh

Eva Durant:

>We established, that growth doesn't mean rising living standards.

        I must be again in Wonderland. "We established"? Who are these we?
Eva Durant and me? Joe Szalai, Cecilia Becker-Fabor, and Eva Durant, maybe?
I am saying exactly the opposite. There is an accompanying rise in living
standards after sustained economic growth. The question is who are the
beneficiaries of these improved living standards: the few thousand
plutocrats or the population as a whole. Obviously in Mexico--if Cecilia's
anecdotal story about Mexican living standards are correct--the population
as a whole doesn't benefit. Some SOMEONE/S DOES/DO.

        Eva Balogh

Amos commented on Joe Szalai's latest impertinence. This time American
versus Canadian spelling of English. This list happens to originate from
George Washington University in Washington, D.C. but people write from all
over the world, including the U.K., Australia, and Canada. Up to now, no one
but no one commented negatively on American spelling--it is absolutely
outrageous.
        Eva Balogh

At 03:47 PM 2/19/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>        I have such admiration for people who are so sure of themselves and
>who, regardless of subject matter, feel totally at home in every topic. Joe
>Szalai is one of these people. Unfortunately, very often he is not right.
>See Hayek, or see the question of nation state.

Thanks for caricaturizing me.  Because you disagree with most of what I
write, you can now use this caricature to invalidate it.  Congratulations.
You have made me what you pretend I am.

It seems somewhat pointless to debate the finer points of nation states with
you, since you have all the answers.

Joe Szalai

Re:  Joe Szalai and Eva Balogh's exchange on the question of what consti-
tutes a nation-state--
        I think we need to keep in mind the ancient political theory-based
notion of an "ideal" state in contrast to the messy reality of the "actual-
ly existing state."  Certainly the "ideal" of the nation-state, in Western
Europe in the 19th century and in Eastern Europe in the unhappy post-WWI
period, was based on the idea of ethnic homogeneity, despite the utter ab-
sence of any such thing at least in Eastern Europe--one political scientist
has estimated tthat between 1920 and 1939 approximately *33%* of the popula-
tion of Eastern Europe was considered to belong to an ethnic minority, and
the population of Poland at that time to contain about the same proportion
of non-Polish minorities.
        We might also bear in mind the messy fact that neither "nations"
nor "nation-states" constitute objectively-identifiable entities; both rep-
resent rather the subjective acts of the corporate will of their constitu-
ents.  The problem comes in of course where there is no such corporate will,
as in Northern Ireland, Romania, or Bosnia-Herczegovina, or rather where
there are competing corporate wills.  Sadly, the solution too often sought
is "ethnic cleansing," population transfers, or outright genocide, in order
to rid a territory of those deemed outside the "genuine" corporate will of
the real "nation".  The result, as we all know too well, is primarily an
addition to the total of human misery.

Udv.,
Be'la

James Doepp wrote:

> You are correct to say Keynes and Keynesians generally propose
> expansionist government policies (loose monetary policy, higher government
> spending, lower taxes, etc.) to climb out of recession.
>
> The Keynesian policies I was refering to were the income adjustment
> mechanism in an open economy.  Check it out in any international
> economics texbook, and compare it with what Bokros was trying to do.

You do not seem to get it.

The CENTRAL TENET of Keynes and the Keynesians has been, as you describe
above, for the government to spend its way out of a recession.  Compared to
that, all else is secondary.

Bokros was not only not spending its way out of a recession, his main policy
instrument was a very restrictive fiscal policy, the exact opposite of what
Keynesians tend to recommend in such situations.

Hence, whatever secondary policies or instruments Bokros may have used, he
cannot be called a Keynesian.

George ("no H") Antony

At 09:29 AM 2/19/96 -0500, Joe Szalai  wrote:
>
>(I wish Hungarian-Americans would set a good example for Hungarians who are
>using this list to improve their English language skills, by using the
>correct English spelling of words.  In English, "program" is spelled
>"programme", "color" is spelled "colour", etc..)

Common Joe, let's not split hairs. We are Americans and we use the American
spelling. Everybody knows that American English is different from British
English in both spelling and meaning of words.

Gabor D. Farkas

P.S. I am sorry I have been signing my name the Hungarian way (Last name
first, MI and then first name). It resulted in some calling me Farkas (and I
assume they meant to call my first name).

Joe Szalai > wrote:
>(I wish Hungarian-Americans would set a good example for Hungarians who are
>using this list to improve their English language skills, by using the
>correct English spelling of words.  In English, "program" is spelled
>"programme", "color" is spelled "colour", etc..)

You mean that those are the British English spelling (which supposed to be used
in
Canada and other Commonwealth nations). Americans do have different, but valid
spelling rules. I don't want to go off on 'linguistic correctness', but you
shouldn't either. 'Color' and 'program' isn't incorrect spelling; for that,
check
out some of the other newsgroups.

As an aside, on my BBC Acorn Archimedes (a Brit machine), the BASIC interpreter
accepts both 'colour' and 'color' :-)

Andras
----

Dear George Anthony,

You are correct to say Keynes and Keynesians generally propose
expansionist government policies (loose monetary policy, higher government
spending, lower taxes, etc.) to climb out of recession.

The Keynesian policies I was refering to were the income adjustment
mechanism in an open economy.  Check it out in any international
economics texbook, and compare it with what Bokros was trying to do.

Bokros is out, and I don't expect the government will choose anyone who is
any better.

jim (the pessimist)


\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_

James D. Doepp
Department of Economic Theory
University of Miskolc

I must find a truth that is true
for me... the idea for which I
can live or die.
-Soren Kierkegaard

\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_