Dear Doug, Darren Joe, et al:

At 09:26 AM 2/14/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> Doug understands the inherent emptiness of life.  Capitalist angst, anyone?
>>
>> Pssst!  Doug?
>>
>> Let's change the discussion.
>>
>> Are you interested in channeling or crystals?  If your into crystals, I've
>> got a real good Hungarian crystal that's reputed to cure just about anything
>> you may suffer from.  It's worked wonders for me!
>>
>> By the way, whats your sign?
>>
>> Joe Szalai
>>
>Darren would like in on thsi crystal business. Scorpio is my sing. What
>can it cure, anything for grad students that don't sleep?
>
>Darren
>
>
Hey I think you all just created an interesting new discussion.  I like
this.  However, for the graduate students that don't/can't sleep, a couple
of bits of experience.  Don't try taking 20-21 credits a quarter and working
20+ hours a week (for someone else and money), growing a garden putting up
your own vegies and fruits, sewing your own clothes, all in addition to the
usual stuff that most people do.  If you are foolish enough to think you are
superhuman watch out for the friends who figure out that you've had only 5
hours sleep in five days (finals week) and you have begun to hallucinate
besides being unable to sleep.  They may waylay you (and include your
significant other in the project) and ply you with Alice B. Toklas brownies,
a great Riesling (so you can't tell what all is in the brownies), and then
get you to sample a little excellent German beer followed by Japanese Saki.
About the time the 3' high samurai warrior shaped container holding the saki
comes to life, it's time to go to bed, but you will not remember much how
you ever got home and got to bed.  You will sleep at least 12 hours, and
have no hangover, however.

Re: crystals Edgar Cayce had some interesting things to say about that, so
do Hindu astrologers.  However, you need more than the sun sign to make it
work.  The crystals are supposed to address unbalanced "magnetic" or
whatever weaknesses in your self as evidenced by your horoscope.  Also for
certain situations, you don't wear them, just have them in a strategic
location around you somewhere.

Aww geez, now you know one of my flakier hobbies that I acquired over the
years.  Well, I did come to age in the "flower child"-new age era.  Then I
aggravated that by living in Minneapolis-St. Paul at about that time.  St.
Paul, home of Llewellyn books and one of the largest "new age" bookstores in
the world.

Now I suppose you'll want my horrorscopic data.  Sun: Cancer.-7th House
Moon: Scorpio--11th house (means I'm stubborn as Lucifer, among other
things, and very persistent) Rising sign: cusp of Sagittarius-Capricorn
(literally 0 degrees Cap.);  Mercury in Gemini (house of its rulership)
conjunct Mars -6th house (energetic imagination and strong thought
processes, also tendency to motor mouth and motor keyboard) Uranus conjunct
Sun-7th House--and Merc., Mars Uranus and Sun thus linked together.  Saturn
is in Virgo, 9th house (means I get to travel all kinds of distances, more
so in later life, but most of it unfortunately is likely to be tied to some
sort of work or other--not as much fun, nuts!)

That's the good stuff, unless you count the ability to recycle I guess
exhibited by Pluto conjunct Venus in Leo--Eighth house.  Neptune loosely
conjunct the midheaven in Libra can cut either way: mystic or
self-delusionary, or slightly wacky dreamer.  Probably more the last one.
Let's see, I'll also probably never be rich, but might have a little extra
"comfort" in my old age.--That's Jupiter in Capricorn on the cusp of the
first and second house.  Since Jupiter is part of a T-square and in
opposition to Venus, means I have to struggle a lot to make ends meet and
struggle with my own inclinations to be overly generous.



I wear opals a lot and keep some rough opal around the house to strengthen
the Jupiter.  Fortunately Mexican opals are less expensive than Australian,
and then I know where to find some nice Australian style rough in Nevada.  I
also keep track of the hobby rock and mineral shows where one can usually
find additional bargains both rough and cut.  I'm going to get some of my
Nevada stuff cut up as soon as I can drive again.  The family is beginning
to strain my generosity again, among others.

Anyone else willing to jump into what will soon be a quicksand discussion
(especially if Sam notices us--boy is he going to laugh!)

Oh yes, also Scorpios who want to sleep nights should also not accept the
offer to be commander in chief of the armed forces for any East Central
European country with Russia as a neighbor.  (Aleks Einseln--Estonia, a
friend of mine)

Ok, Sam, you can stop rolling around on the floor laughing hysterically now.

Have fun.

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

(Ooh yes, almost forgot to mention, San Jose is the headquarters for the
Rosicrucians of all the Americas and shares "world headquartership" with
France courtesy of a slight mess in the leadership a few years ago.  And no
I didn't deliberately plan on living in two "new-age" capitols in one
lifetime...)


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

Dear friends;

At 07:33 PM 2/14/96 +0000, you wrote:
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> Date:    Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:53:12 -0500
>> From:    Joe Szalai >
>> Subject: Re: The burden's on Szalai
>>
>>
>> In, 'The Counter-Revolution of Science',  Friedrich Von Hayek states that
>> the best way to describe the difference between the natural and the social
>> sciences is to call the former 'objective' and the latter 'subjective'.
Is it possible Hayek is a little dated.  I know that there has been a
considerable amount of effort devoted by a lot of good history and
anthropology professors to use scientific methodology to sort opinion from
truth.  An example: getting the description of a battle from both sides, and
any observers and finding the points that match that were observable by
everyone.  Body counts for instance.  While each side may understate
publicly it's own losses and exaggerate what they inflicted on the other
side, sooner or later they have to account for who was buried to the next of
kin, and those records end up in some military archive and are eventually
released.  I always found it interesting that one of the few incidents of
veracity and scholarship that didn't require this was the battle of Guilford
Courthouse in the American Revolution (North Carolino, near Greensboro).
Both sides publicly concurred, Americans had actually inflicted more
casualties on the English, but had to leave the field because of a
combination of exhaustion and running out of ammunition.  It was a strategic
retreat.  Cornwallis, and the English Parliament said in the media, "with
more English victories like that, they would lose the American colonies."
Both sides left records of the dead which are now obtainable, quotes from
the generals that were published are still obtainable also.  There was a
reality: a battle and certain numbers of people were wounded and killed.
Both sides agreed it was a pyrrhic victory for the English.



He
>> correctly goes on to say that the 'facts' of the social sciences are also
>> opinions.  My difficulty with Hayek is that he concludes that economics is a
>> natural science.  Certainly the mathematics component of economics is a
>> natural science but the 'needs', 'goals', and 'directions' of the economy
>> are subjective factors.  So, should society meet the needs of the 'free'
>> market, or should the market meet societies needs?   Why do I suspect that
>> you're going to tell me about the 'trickle down' theory of social
>> enrichment?  (And please don't assume that I'm thinking of you having wet
>> dreams.)
>
>I suggest you go back and read the Hayek article again, because you
>certainly have misunderstood him the first time!  Let me rewrite what
>you've said so that it accurately reflects what Hayek says.
>
>Friedrich von Hayek states that the best way to describe the difference
>between the natural and social sciences is to call the former a science
>of 'objective' phenomena, and the latter of 'subjective' phenomena.
>
>[note:  according to Hayek, all sciences should attempt to be
>objective.  What they study, however may be objective or subjective
>phenomena]
>
>He correctly goes on to say that the 'facts' of the social sciences are
>the actions of individuals based on their subjective assessment of data
>which they know or believe to exist.

The problem with this, is all the sciences can be subjective due to limited
knowledge or limited means of acquiring knowledge.  Even "hard sciences"
like geology and chemistry have new elements, minerals, etc. being
discovered all the time changing the understanding of a wide range of
relationships.
>
>For Hayek, economics is a social science; it is one of the sciences of
>human action.  Therefore, according to Hayek, mathematics is of little
>use in economics, because it cannot accurately reflect the complexities
>of human action.  The 'needs' of the economy cannot be determined by
>government, since these needs are subjective.  The 'goals' and
>'directions' of the economy should not be determined by government,
>because the because government has no way of knowing what the goals or
>directions should be.
>

All sciences are human actions.  I don't recall hearing of any other
creatures creating or performing them.  Do they exist without us? The world
does, but not the sciences themselves.

>The market is not some sort of artificial structure which is 'used' by
>society, but a competitive process, in which entrepreneurs seek to
>discover ways to make a profit (in the narrow sense).  Prices act as
>signals that indicate preferences, possibilities for profit-making, and
>inform producers when to economise on some materials or use
>substitutes.
>
>Please read Hayek a little more carefully in the future before telling
>us what he says.
>
Let's find somebody else to discuss for awhile that's more fun.

Best regards,

Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA

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

Dear Eva;

At 01:00 PM 2/14/96 +0100, you wrote:
>>
>> Whoa!  What about quality in this discussion.  There are people who produce
>> better products and services and poorer ones, and in more time, or less
>> time. Time by itself is no equivalent of valuable work.  There would need to
>> be a quality measurement somehow, at the least.
>
>If they put in the same amount of effort,  I can't see
>the reason for any differenciation.

Right. If they put in the same amount of effort. That is a qualitative
measurement that still must be made.

If one is cleverer/
>more talented, than that is not the other one's mistake.
>If the difference is in education, that can be remedied.

You still have to examine differences in performance to determine the need
for additional education or reassignment of a worker to a place where the
talents are a better match.
>
>Anyway, this argument supposes, that there are not sufficient
>amounts of goods to distribute.

Never said or implied that, sorry.  I do believe there is enough to go,
around, depending upon how well humans manage things.  The problem is not
the resources, but the human management.

Once this is not a problem,
>than rewarding is not an issue, neither.
>But todays creditcard success shows, that the initial
>change can be managed.

Sounds like we need a mass education program for better management and
conservation of resources, and to encourage the altruism to not take more
than what makes us reasonably comfortable, and recyle all the old stuff.
That's been tried, more or less, but we humans always seem to get in the way
of a good idea even managing programs like this and want to rely on sticks
more than carrots to get people to cooperate.  Maybe we need to first
genetically re-engineer ourselves to get rid of the tendency to beat each
other up at the drop of a hat.
>
>The company store was owned by the mine company, and
>did not belong to the miners.  A big difference!
>
Yes, but if we move forward with any of the existing elites heirarchies and
political systems in virtually all nations, whoever is on top, or manages to
get there will still set the rules, and judging by what's gone before, the
rules will likely be skewed to benefit one side more than another.  When we
have relatively equal transactions now, it's because both parties are trying
to do this, and are very much aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the
other side--and care to be.  Before we ever get any nationally egalitarian
system, we're looking at yet another mass education program on a grand scale.

Good discussion, though.  Thanks for the reply.

Best regards,

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

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

At 12:18 PM 2/14/96 -0500, CSABA K ZOLTANI wrote:

>Irredentism is alive and well. And rightly so. It is unlikely to
>disappear as long as people are deprived of their homelands. Witness
>the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years.

Foolishly, I continue to believe that earth is my home.

Joe Szalai

Dear Can;

Oooo! I like this one.


At 01:40 PM 2/14/96 +0300, you wrote:

>Shall we have a little fantasy: what would have happened
>if Nichael Karolyi hag gone to London and set up an exile
>government after Franz Joseph's death in 1916 ?  And what
>would have happened if Kaiser Karl had done the same in
>April 1917, duly declaring war on Germany ?
>                         Norman Stone
>
Well, if we assume the temperaments and personal behaviors of these
gentlemen continued,  Karolyi would have ticked enough people off with his
gambling, freeloading, pomposity, etc. and gotten stoned by a London mob and
sent to the U.S.--if he survived the stoning, and Wilhelm? would have been
sent to Bedlam--long before either of them created any serious problems.
Now if you mean emperor Karl of Austria Hungary, and not the German Kaiser,
assuming he somehow evaded his German guards to escape to the West, the
London fogs and general daily cool, damp and polluted air, would have
interracted nicely with his tuberculosis and he would have died even sooner
than he did in exile, probably in under a year.  Either way, none of them
would have become a serious problem. ;-)


Thanks for this day brightener!

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





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

Dear Eva;

At 01:06 PM 2/14/96 +0100, you wrote:
>There was a discussion about the sumerian link
>a while back. It was far from proven, was
>the conclusion, if I remember correctly.

In Stephen Sisa's book that is the claim, he makes.  Apparently though, he's
never looked at the proceedings of the Society of Sumerologists--to which
most of the real archeologists and scholars on the subject belong, for 1975,
or Badiny et al's work incorporating a study by 5 multi-national researchers
and the Society's response.  While it's hard to find, for those who can,
have a look at Joseph Badiny et al (his associates were from 3 other
colleges including the Sorbonne and the University of Montreal), _The
Sumerian Wonder_, 1975.  Also Noam Chomsky has published as part of his
ongoing studies for the descent of languages and relationships between one
another incidental materials saying the same thing.  Since the mid-1980's,
there have been several articles in National Geographic, major newsmagazines
("U.S. News and World Report," "Time," etc.)--one of them had a very nice
multicolor table that I think I stashed somewhere in one of my research
files now out in the garage.  The trouble is I can also remember at least 3
very thick files I might have stashed it in.  Ah, the problems of starting
out being a researcher--and related packrat, before computers.




>
>The discussion "We are more ancient and more noble
>than anybody else" somehow is not particularily
>convincing to me...

True, true, which is why I don't use it seriously.  However, look around the
rest of the world, and it's rather alarming how many people--including
national leaders do believe in and use such nonsense.  Barbara Tuchman noted
that 30 years ago in several of her books, including the _Proud Tower_.  Her
first section describing the major players of World War I, "The Patricians"
makes very interesting reading.  One exerpt, page 290-91 (paperback version):

"This was patriotism gone mad and represented a mood, not a people.  In the
same mood, Americans (as English, Germans, etc.), listened to Albert
Beveridge rant,"We are a conquering race...we must obey our blood.
        Such sentiments were the indirect result of the most fateful voyage
since Columbus--Charles Darwin's aboard the "Beagle."  Darwin's findings
when applied to human society, supplied the basis for the theory that war
was both inherent in nature and ennobling.  War was a conflict in which the
stronger and superior race survived, thus advancing civilization."

The problem was and is that far too many people in all the major powers
thought this way, and looked through their rose colored mirrors at
themselves and thought their national accomplishments were superior,
especially in recent history (i.e. recent evolution) and thus they could
prove their superiority by eliminating someone else.

Now look at the continuance.  The attitudes of Israelis and Muslim peoples
toward themselves and others; the Slovakians and Romanians in dealing with
Hungary and Hungarians, the English with the Irish (after 1,000 years, the
English _still_ refuse to sit at the same negotiating table with Irish who
want them the heck out of Ireland, yet they have the nerve to tell Arabs and
Israelis both what to do, and the Bosnians and Serbians, etc..)  Look at the
powerful religious fundamentalist blocs in many nations.  Consider the
meaning of Pat Buchanan, certain Russian  hard-liners now making big plays
involving the Russian Orthodox church, etc..  Consider the attitudes of the
5 nations' leaders who insist on maintenance of a small clique of permanent
members of the UN Security Council--ad infinitum.  If we are really all
equal, and believe this, why do we have "the big five" and the "little 195"
anyway?  Since when are the decisions of the big five consistently any
better toward their neighbors, competitors, etc. than any of the little
guys?  Who started and dragged everyone else into two World Wars anyway?

The problem is, how does a rational individual, or nation, survive among all
this, when the neighbors--big or small--are just as likely to irrational as
rational at any time?  It's nice to say "just turn the other cheek," but
after awhile you run out of cheeks.  Sticking one's head in the sand and
pretending it doesn't exist doesn't help either.  Just makes it more likely
one will run out of cheeks--and a lot more--a whole lot faster--from
preparing no defense.  I know, I know, another darned mass (global, even)
re-education program in which we hope the managers and developers of said
program are somehow better and more altruistic and rational than the
majority of us all...--and that the standards and those who set them for
hiring the managers and developers and implementers are also better...

No, I'm not optimistic about the next 40,000 years or so of the human
future--assuming we allow ourselves that much.  I think there will be a lot
more wars, and bigots, for some time to come.  I think the best we're likely
to do is to minimize the actual casualties of war before parties are forced
by other nations to the negotiating table.

I agree, beliefs in racial superiority--and the justification of demands for
extra resources or privileges is wrong, but it's like a global human cancer,
and won't be easy to eradicate--especially since no nation--or national
leadership with any real money or power is even really trying to do this.
The best they do is try for a rough tolerance internally, alone.  Foreigners
don't count...

Respectfully,


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






>Eva Durant
>
>
N0BBS, Cecilia L. Fabos-Becker -  - San Jose, CA

For anyone interested in learning Hungarian, there is a new online
course at:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~arubin/hungarian.html

Check it out and please send your comments.

Dear Eva;

At 02:25 PM 2/14/96 -0800, you wrote:
>At 09:09 PM 2/13/96 -0800, you wrote:

>>>Eva Balogh wrote:
>>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>       Hungarians thought that they would have a jumpstart in the
>>>changeover to market economy because of their earlier attempts at a somewhat
>>>mixed economy. They were wrong. As for the half and half: the best from this
>>>and the best from that--is truly naive. In fact, Poland which introduced the
>>>so-called shock therapy is much better off today than Hungary which tried to
>>>do it gradually.
>>>        Eva Balogh
>>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>Uh, sorry, but this is not what I hear from Poles, Slovenes, and a lot of
>>people whom have visited these countries--and Hungary.
>
>        Well, that maybe the case--that is that people tell you other things
>but the statistics say something else. Poland's economic growth last year
>was 6 percent; Hungary's 2.

Slight problem with this.  Growth from what level, hmmm?  From "0" is bound
to be a lot more than from something higher.  It's a generally accepted
economic "fact" (remembering the recent discussion on sciences, generally),
according to a friend of mine Professor George Lee (dir. of U.S.-Russia
Business Institute, SFSU, former director of U.S.-China counterpart, and
currently and adviser to Russia, Ukrainia and Poland and testifier to U.S.
Congress and State Department, and Council of Economic Advisers, etc., etc.)
that the less developed a country is when reasonable more or less objective
international measurements of activity commence, the more likely the initial
growth will be higher.  They have a lot more to do to catch up.

Also, there's another problem, that was recently very well pointed out by a
couple of writers in "The Atlantic Monthly," whose article is now being
widely circulated and is an impetus for some changes now taking place in
measurements of the CPI, and other things by the U.S. government.  Our
current "international" and generally accepted measurements of "economic
growth" do not do anything more than count the number of transactions.
There is no measurement of efficient, inefficient, wasteful, etc.--in short
anything of the _quality_ of what's going on.  As the writers described the
way pundits currently express opinions on economies "is a lot like a chief
of police going to the public and saying, 'well there's a lot of activities
going on in the streets this year."  The local community would respond,
'huh?--well what kind of activity, sir.  How do we know whether we need your
department or not, if we don't know how much of that activity is crime?'"

It's a good article, January, 1996, I think it was.  It's causing about as
much of a stir among the economists as the child in the parade who yelled,
"but the emperor is wearing no clothes."

Sorry, but from what I've heard from a lot of people whom I trust, I think
I'll stick to visiting Hungary this year, and not add Poland just yet.

Respectfully,

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


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

Dear John:

At 06:23 PM 2/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>Haliho,
>
>Andra1a Kornai wrote:
>
>>In a situation that leaves no alternative but these two I would follow the
>>example of the Western democracies in WWII and ally myself with socialism for
>>the simple reason that the ultimate logic of fascism dictates the enemy to be
>>thrown in a death camp
>
>I'm no big fan of either, but so far OK.
>
>>, while the ultimate logic of socialism merely dictates
>>the enemy to be thrown in a "reeducation" camp.
>
>If you were a good bullshiter to avoid getting shot, murdered, or wind up
>missing, unfortunately the Polish soldiers at Katyn weren't good bullshiters,
>Raul Wallenberg wasn't one either, Trotsky was so bad at it that he got an ax
>to the head, Rajk Laszlo, Nagy Imre, those who were shot by the AVO, those in
>the Recski Tabor, Ukraines, White Russians, the Finns, Estonians, Lithuanians,
>Latvians, those associated with the Romanov dynasty, 25% of the population of
>Cambodia (wiped out) who disliked the Khmer Rogue, Tibetans monks, those in
>Tianamen Square, and so on and so on.
>
>You see we were able to nip the fascists in the butt, but we happened to let
>these folks slip by all these years.
>
>Can't catch 'em all can we, buddy??
>
>Udv.,
>Czifra Jancsi
>john_czifra @ shi.com
>
I think Andras was being facetious, or satirical, and didn't mean his
comments that seriously.  Probably needed to use a "winking smiley."  The
problem is, how do you "wink" at either choice, even if trying not to be
serious in making a choice?

I think I like my late grandmother's comment best: "communiszta puskagolyos,
facsista puskagolyos--mindegy!" (hope I got the spelling more or less
right).  She was trying to say, "communist bullets, fascist bullets, they're
all the same!"  She didn't have any use or desire for either.

Respectfully,

Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA





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

The well informed Cecilia wrote in connection with the February 9-10, 1996
meeting of successful expatriate Hungarians:

>It is a preliminary meeting.  Over 60 _business and finance_individuals are
>scheduled to meet a couple of weeks later in New York--and this includes

I am surprised that the Internet news sources did not find this important
enough to announce in their reports. The "Magyar Narancs" tried make fun
of the meeting, criticizing how the people were dressed and making other
childish comments about the participants. The "Hungary Report" ignored the
meeting completely. The Batthyany Foundations's news summary had two items
about it, but did not talk about the follow-up in New York.

>business people also have their own ideas already.  They're not terribly
>impressed with pure culture, science and economic academic theorecticians.
>They like things to be applicable to real-life goods and
>services--particularly those that serve wants or needs--and net a profit.

Sarlos and Soros are the two exceptions. I am particularly impressed with
Sarlos's work. His activities and thinking are described in his book
(Fireworks: The Investment of a Lifetime by Andrew Sarlos Key Porter
Books, 1993). He is a capitalist, with social consciousness. I never heard
anybody saying any unflattering comment about him, while Soros is often
criticised and attacked from many directions.

Sarlos's philanthropy has a very wide spectrum. He, with the support of
his business friends, brought to Toronto in 1991 a huge festival of arts
under the name "Hungary Reborn". During this festival Hungarian artistic
achievement in music and dance, film and textiles, visual art and crafts,
cuisine, architecture and literature was introduced to the Canadian
audiences.  Last year he was the main force behind the group of business
people who sponsored the showing of 20 recent Hungarian films during
Toronto Film Festival. He also made generous contribution to Canada, that
is why he received the "Order of Canada" medal.

His professional achievements are no less impressive. In recognition of
his work he received the "Fellow of Chartered Accountants" distinction.
His advice on investments is highly respected and sought after in the
Canadian business world.  He is a director of many major corporations,
including Ontario Hydro the largest North-American electric utility. He is
one of the few financial advisors, who can proudly claim, that none of his
clients ever lost money invested in his ventures.

So, if he suggests that the Bokros program may not the best and only way
to achieve results, I think he deserves a hearing.

Barna Bozoki

> Felado :  [United States]
>
> Irredentism is alive and well. And rightly so. It is unlikely to
> disappear as long as people are deprived of their homelands. Witness
> the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years.

Alive and well, perhaps. Rightly so, certainly not. Wherever people
live in a geographically discontinuous ethnic patchwork, somebody will
be "deprived of their homeland". The solution can be irredentism and
ethnic cleansing, as practiced e.g. in ex-Yu, or giving up on the idea
of "homeland" in the sense of a domain that is administered by the
"home" government. I don't find the example of the rebirth of Israel
particularly uplifting, nor do I think that Jewish nationalism is any
better than any other nationalism. Also recall that this event took
place soon after a major world cataclysm, when borders were redrawn in
many quarters. Since that time, many states gained independence, e.g.
in Africa, where the political boundaries often fail to reflect the
ethnic divisions of the region. Irredentism in all these places would
be a recipe for disaster.

Andra1s Kornai

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

(forwarded)
> :
> The assertion above is a circular one;
> it is true simply because that is the way society is currently
> organized, and the ways in which 'growth' and 'progress' are currently
> defined and measured.  One could have said, equally truly, about the
> ex-USSR:
>
> - The problem is that those Politboro members and Gosplan bureaucrats are
> - the ones who generate economic growth. They are the ones who have
> - economic knowledge; who have the vision; who have the commitment to
> - Marxist-Leninist ideals.
>

So are these statements valid?  Should a society that claims
to be "intelligent" and "civilised" be organised on
either lines?

Eva Durant

"greaving over lost lands" is exactly what the Gulf War was all about.
Should the world have ignored the occupation of Kuwait??
Based on your silly lack of logic, Eva Durant, whenever a people are
overrun they should just give up and never try to fight for their freedom.
Why should Croatia even try to recapture Eastern Slavonia? Maybe they
should just cave in and focus on "more important" things.

The burden is offloaded to you - please read
carefully, because all your questions are answered
here much more eloquantly and academically, than I
could put it, with corresponding refernces.
Eva Durant


> The bosses make the decisions because
> they have power, as they have power only their decisions
> are tested, therefore their decisions are the ones that
> are tried, so bosses are required to make the decisions
> because their decisions have been successful (ie applied).
>
> The decision making power could be decentralised and
> innovation/production/etc would not be affected (it would
> probably be better!).
>

>
> For most capitalist economics, a given wage is supposed to be equal to the
> "marginal contribution" that an individual makes to a given company.  Are
> we *really* expected to believe this? Common sense (and empirical
> evidence) suggests otherwise.  Consider Mr Rand Araskog, the CEO of ITT,
> who in 1990 was paid a salary of $7 million.  Is it conceivable that an
> ITT accountant calculated that, all else being the same, ITT's $20.4
> billion in revenues that year would have been $7 million less without Mr.
> Araskog --  hence determining his marginal contribution to be $7 million?
>
> In 1979 the average CEO in the US received 29 times more income than the
> average manufacturing worker; by 1985 the ratio had risen to 40 times
> more, and by 1988 it had risen to 93 times more. This disturbing trend led
> even conservative _Business Week_ to opine that the excesses of corporate
> leaders might finally be getting out of hand (Kevin Phillips, _The
> Politics of Rich and Poor: Wealth and the American Electorate in the
> Reagan Aftermath_, p. 180). The warning apparently went unheeded, however,
> because by 1990 the average American CEO was earning about 100 times more
> than the average factory worker (Tom Athanasiou, "After the Summit,"
> _Socialist Review_ 92/4 (October-December, 1992)).  Yet during the same
> period, workers' real wages remained flat. Are we to believe that during
> the 1980s, the marginal contribution of CEOs more than tripled whereas
> worker's marginal contribution was stagnant?
>
> Taking another example, if workers create only the equivalent of what they
> are paid,  how can that explain why, in a recent ACM study of wages in the
> computer fields, it was found that black workers get paid less (on
> average) than white ones doing the same job (even in the same workplace)?
> Does having a white skin increase a workers creative ability when
> producing the same good? And it seems a strange coincidence that the
> people with power in a company, when working out who contributes most to a
> product, decide it's themselves!
>
> ....
>
> A good manager is one who reduces the power of the company's employees,
> allowing an increased share of the wealth produced by those employees to
> go to others.  Yet without the creativity and energy of the engineers, the
> shop floor workers, the administration staff, etc, the company would have
> *nothing* to sell.  It is capitalist property relations that allow this
> monopolisation of wealth by those who own (or boss) but do not produce.
> The workers do not get the full value of what they produce, nor do they
> have a say in how the surplus value produced by their labour gets used
> (e.g. investment decisions).  Others have monopolised both the wealth
> produced by workers and the decision-making power within the company.
> This is a private form of taxation without representation, just as the
> company is a private form of statism.
>
> ...
>
> C.2 Where do profits come from?
>
> As mentioned, profits are the driving force of capitalism.  If a profit
> cannot be made, a good is not produced, regardless of how many people
> "subjectively value" it.  But where do profits come from?
>
> In order to make more money, money must be transformed into capital, i.e.,
> worplaces, machinery and other "capital goods."  By itself, however,
> capital (like money) produces nothing.  Capital only becomes productive
> in the labour process when workers use capital. Under capitalism, workers
> not only create sufficient value (i.e. produced commodities) to maintain
> existing capital and their own existence, they also produce a surplus.
> This surplus expresses itself as a surplus of goods, i.e. an excess of
> commodities. The price of all produced goods is greater than the money
> value represented by the workers' wages (plus raw materials and overheads)
> when those goods were produced. The labour contained in these
> "surplus-products" is the source of profit, which has to be realised on
> the market.  (In practice, of course, the value represented by these
> surplus-products  is distributed throughout all the commodities produced in
> the form of profit -- the difference between the cost price and the
> market price.)
>
> This surplus is then used by the owners of capital for (a) investment, (b)
> to pay themselves dividends on their stock, if any, and (c) to pay their
> executives and managers (who are sometimes identical with owners
> themselves) much higher salaries than workers.  The surplus, like the
> labour used to reproduce existing capital, is embodied in the finished
> commodity and is realised once it is sold.   This means that workers do
> not receive the full value of their labour, since the surplus appropriated
> by owners for investment, etc. represents value added to commodities by
> workers -- value for which they are not paid.
>
> In other words, capitalist profits are in essence *unpaid labor,* and
> hence capitalism is based on exploitation.  It is this appropriation of
> wealth from the worker by the owner which differentiates capitalism from
> the simple commodity production of artisan and peasant economies.
>
> C.2.1 Why does this surplus exist and are capitalists justified in
>       appropriating a portion of it for themselves (i.e. making a profit)?
>
> It is the nature of capitalism for the monopolisation of the worker's
> product by others to exist. As Proudhon noted, workers work "for an
> entrepreneur who pays them and keeps their products". The ability of
> capitalists to maintain this kind of monopolization is enshrined in
> "property rights" enforced by either public or private states. Because of
> this "right," a worker's wage will always be less than the wealth that he
> or she produces. This unpaid labour is the source of profits, part of
> which are used to increase capital, which in turn is used to increase
> profits,  in an endless cycle.
>
> However, this cycle is not a steady increase but is subject to periodic
> disruption by recessions or depressions ("The business cycle"). The basic
> cause for such crises is a fall in profit rates, which will be discussed
> later, in sections C.5 and C.6.
>
> Some consider that profit is the capitalist's "contribution" to the value
> of a commodity. However, as David Schweickhart points out, "`providing
> capital' means nothing more than 'allowing it to be used.'  But an act of
> granting permission, in and of itself, is not a productive activity. If
> labourers cease to labour, production ceases in any society. But if owners
> cease to grant permission, production is affected only if their
> *authority* over the means of production is respected" [_Against
> Capitalism_, Cambridge Univ. Press, 1993, p11].  This authority, as
> discussed earlier, derives from the coercive mechanisms of the state,
> whose primary purpose is to ensure that capitalists have this ability to
> grant or deny workers access to the means of production. Therefore, not
> only is "providing capital" not a produtive activity, it depends on a
> system of organized coercion which requires the appropriation of a
> considerable portion of the value produced by labor, through taxes, and
> hence is actually parasitic.
>
> Other common justifications of profit are based on claims about the
> "special abilities" of a select few, e.g. as "risk taking" or "creative"
> ability, and are equally unsound.
>
> As for risk taking, virtually all human involves risk.  However, the risk
> theory of profit fails to take into account the different risk-taking
> abilities of that derive from the unequal distribution of society's
> wealth.  As James Meade puts it, while "property owners can spread
> their risks by putting small bits of their property into a large number of
> concerns, a worker cannot easily put small bits of his effort into a large
> number of different jobs. This presumably is the main reason we find
> risk-bearing capital hiring labour" and not vice versa [quoted in
> Schweickhart, Op. Cit., page X]. Needless to say, the most serious
> consequences of "risk" are usually suffered by working people who lose
> their jobs.
>
> As for the "creative" spirit which innovates profits into existence, it is
> true that individuals do see new potential and act in innovative ways  to
> create new products or processes.  As discussed in the next section,
> however, this is not the source of profit.
>
> ...
>
> C.2.3  Wouldn't workers' control stifle innovation?
>
> Contrary to much of capitalist apologetics, innovation is not the monopoly
> of an elite class of humans. It is within all of us, although the
> necessary social environment needed to nuture and develop it in ordinary
> workers is crushed by the authoritarian workplaces of capitalism. If
> workers  were truly incapable of innovation, any shift toward greater
> control of production by workers should result in decreased productivity.
> What one actually finds, however, is just the opposite:   In the few
> examples where  workers' control has been implemented, productivity
> increased dramatically as ordinary people were given the chance, usually
> denied them, to apply their skills, talents, and creativity.
>
> This has been strikingly confirmed in studies of the Mondragon
> cooperatives in Spain, where workers are democratically involved in
> production decisions and encouraged to innovate.  As George Bennello
> notes,  "Mondragon productivity is very high -- higher than in its
> capitalist counterparts. Efficiency, measured as the ratio of utilized
> resources -- capital and labor -- to output, is far higher than in
> comparable capitalist factories" ["The Challenge of Mondragon" from
> _Reinventing Anarchy Again_, edited by Howard Ehrlich, forthcoming from AK
> Press in 1996].
>
> The example of the Lucus workers in Britain, during the 1970's, again
> indicates the creative potential waiting to be utilised. The workers in
> Lucus created a plan which would convert the military based Lucus company
> into a company producing useful goods for ordinary people. The workers in
> Lucus designed the products themselves, using their own experiences of
> work and life. The management just were not interested.
>
> During the Spanish Revolution of 1936-39, workers self-managed many
> factories following principles of participatory democracy. (See section
> XX for further details).  Productivity and innovation in the Spanish
> collectives was exceptionally high.  The metal-working industry is a good
> example.  As Augustine Souchy observes, at the outbreak of the Civil War,
> the metal industry in Catalonia was "very poorly developed."  Yet within
> months, the Catalonian metal workers had rebuilt the industry from
> scratch, converting factories to the production of war materials for the
> anti-fascist troops.  A few days after the July 19th revolution, the
> Hispano-Suiza Automobile Company was already converted to the manufacture
> of armored cars, ambulances,  weapons, and munitions for the fighting
> front.  "Experts were truly astounded," Souchy writes, "at the expertise
> of the workers in building new machinery for the manufacture of arms and
> munitions.  Very few machines were imported.  In a short time, two hundred
> different hydraulic presses of up to 250 tons pressure, one hundred
> seventy-eight revolving lathes, and hundreds of milling machines and
> boring machines were built."
>
> Similarly, there was virtually no optical industry in Spain before the
> July revolution, only some scattered workshops.  After the revolution, the
> small workshops were voluntarily converted into a production collective.
> "The greatest innovation," according to Souchy, "was the construction of a
> new factory for optical apparatuses and instruments.  The whole operation
> was financed by the voluntary contributions of the workers.  In a short
> time the factory turned out opera glasses, telemeters, binoculars,
> surveying instruments, industrial glassware in different colors, and
> certain scientific instruments.  It also manufactured and repaired optical
> equipment for the fighting fronts. . . .What private capitalists failed to
> do was accomplished by the creative capacity of the members of the Optical
> Workers' Union of the CNT" [in _The Anarchist Collectives: Workers'
> Self-management in the Spanish Revolution, 1936-1939_, ed. Sam Dolgoff,
> Free Life Editions, 1974, Chapter 7].
>
> C.2.4 Aren't Executives workers and so creators of value?
>
> Of course, it could be argued that executives are also "workers" and so
> contribute to the value of the commodities produced.  However, this is
> not actually the case. Though they may not own the instruments of
> production, they are certainly buyers of labour power, and under their
> auspices production is still *capitalist* production.  The creation of a
> "salary-slave" strata of managers does not alter the capitalist relations
> of production.  In  effect, the management strata are *de facto*
> capitalists.  As exploitation requires labour (it does not "just happen"),
> management is like the early "working capitalist" and their "wages" come
> from the surplus value appropriated from workers and realised on the
> market.  Or, to use a different analogy, mangers are like the slave
> drivers hired by slave owners who do not want to manage slaves
> themselves.  The slave driver's wages come from the surplus value
> extracted from the slaves; it is not in itself productive labor.
>
> Thus the exploitative role of managers, even if they can be fired, is no
> different from capitalists.  Moreover,  "shareholders and
> managers/technocrats share common motives: to make profits and to
> reproduce hierarchy relations that exclude most of the employees from
> effective decision making" [Takis Fotopoulos, "The Economic Foundations of
> an Ecological Society", page 16,  _Society and Nature_ No.3, pages 1-40]
>
> This is not to say that 100 percent of what managers do is exploitative
> and thus eliminable.  The case is complicated by the fact that there is a
> legitimate need for coordination between various aspects of complex
> production processes -- a need that would remain under libertarian
> socialism and would be filled by elected and recallable (and in some cases
> rotating) managers (see G.X).  But under capitalism, managers become
> parasitic in proportion to their closeness to the top of the pyramid.  In
> fact, the further the distance from the production process, the higher the
> salary; whereas the closer the distance, the more likely that a "manager" is 
a
> worker with a little more power than average.  In practice, executives
> typically call upon subordinates to perform managerial (i.e. coordinating)
> functions and restrict themselves to broader policy-making decisions. As
> their decision-making power comes from the hierarchical nature of
> the firm, they could be easily replaced if policy making was in the hands
> of those who are affected by it.
>

> Felado :  [Hungary]
> 1.  The petrol prices are not low because of government policy, but
> because of the supply and demand conditions on the international oil market.
Yes. But a rational tax system collects revenues to cover the externalities.

> 2.  If the price of gas were high you would probably be talking about
> the plight of the rural poor.
No. I think the average suburban commuter drives more than the rural poor.

> It is hard for farmers to operate their machinery, or to drive their goods
> to market.
So they need to raise the prices of food.

> 3.  If you wanted to be more accurate, instead of mentioning the price
> of petrol you would say the American love affair with the automobile, which
> makes it politically impossible to place European-style taxes on gas.
Yes, that's pretty much what I meant. The same goes for the mortgage
interest deduction -- it is "the American dream" that gets the subsidy.

> 4.  The American love affair with the auto, or high taxes on petrol is
> only one of many reasons middle class people are leaving (or have left)
> the cities.  One reason is because the rise in the crime rates in the
> cities.  Another is the high taxes and poor services.  Of course this
> is self-perpetuating:  there is a rise in crime rates, taxes, etc,
> and as a result the middle class and wealth leave the cities, which means
> there is a lower tax base, and taxes are raised and services further
> deteriorate (including police services)...
You mean _low_ taxes. But yes, it is exactly this cycle that I meant.

> 5.  The deterioration of the situation in the cities is not only
> because of the emigration of the middle and upper class.  It also has
> to do with the welfare mentality, poor housing policy, bloated city
> bureaucracies.
Also true. But without the outflux of the middle and upper class welfare
mentality would not be perceptible -- it would still be there, but would be
averaged out. Similarly, policy-driven housing would be a minor issue in an
otherwise healthy housing market. Even the bloated city bureaucracies (very
true!) would appear less bloated in relation to a larger city population.

Andra1s Kornai

>
> =C9va Durant wrote:
>
> >=20
> > All those government handouts to those farmers are making them
> > so benefit-dependent! Someone should stop this rot!
>
> So at last, =C9va (Durant) and I have found something we agree upon!
>
> jim
>
>

ok, from now on I use them stinking smilies.
Eva Durant

The burden stuff from a slightly different angle.
Cecilia, there are a few words on progressive
companies at the end.
Eva Durant


>
> 1. In the sentence "thanks to them we manage to live quite well", you should
> ask, Who is "we"? Given that the workforce is exploited -- forced by
> the current social arrangement to work for employers -- they live *less
> well* than they might if the society were organized differently. For one
> thing, part of exploitation is that we are not self-determining in our
> work lives, or in choosing the collective fate of our communities.
>
> 2. In re question 1, it is noteworthy that the working class in the U.S.
> is certainly living *less* well than it used to. The bottom 80% of
> income earners in the U.S. have had declining real incomes for quite a
> few years now. So much for the value to "us" of those executives and
> moneybags who run things.
>
> 3. In what *way* is "economic growth" due to the capitalists? What
> activity do they do that is responsible for economic growth? Note, to
> begin with, that this statement confuses two social groups: (a) executives
> who make business decisions, and (b) capitalists, who own the shop.
> The executives may make important decisions that affect the survival
> prospects of this or that business but this is distinct from the role
> of being an owner of capital. Being an owner of capital contributes
> zip to "economic growth" in general or the prospects of any particular
> firm. Reflect on the fact that owners of capital often hire "money
> managers" or "investment managers" who have the expertise to make
> savvy investment decisions. These people are hired labor. So, it is not
> qua capitalist that any contribution at all is made to the prospects
> of any particular firm owned by that capitalist or group thereof.
>
> If someone responds, "Well, a firm wouldn't exist without capital",
> an appropriate response would be: "Production could be organized
> on the basis of collective social ownership, so that society's
> production capability would not be held hostage to the wealth-seeking
> motivations of a small minority." Also, note that the statement "A firm
> wouldn't exist without capital" doesn't tell us what actual *contribution* is
> made to production by capital-ownership. The *decision* to invest
> in an area of production on the basis of expectation of profit is an
> activity that can be done by hired labor, as pointed out above.
>
> 4. Just as the statement confuses capitalists and executives, it
> also confuses the prospects of this or that firm (affected by
> the sorts of business decisions this person refers to) with
> overall "economic growth." The decisions of individual firm management
> do not control overall "economic growth." On the contrary, they
> are at the mercy of the overall tendencies and conjunctural situations
> of the system.
>
> 5. Although it is true that there are marketing and leadership skills
> that some managers may have that can make a difference to the prospects
> of this or that firm, given the particular competitive environment it is
> in, nobody has yet succeeded in developing a working crystal ball. Hence,
> decisions that managers are often credited with as particularly savvy
> may simply have been good luck on their part, ie. they got the right
> product out at the right time. But other firms with equally skilled
> managers may have made unlucky decisions, and have seen their fortunes
> shrink. Look at the volatility in the computer industry as an example,
> and how in a matter of a few years former up-and-coming firms are
> later visited with hard times and forced shrinkage.
>
> 6. Nonetheless, there is an element of truth to this person's
> statement, i.e. that *so long as* the capitalist social structure,
> based on private accumulation and wage-labor, continues to exist, the
> skills that help firms to successfully navigate the shark-infested
> waters of competition will be in high demand, that is, people with
> market savvy and business leadership skills will be able to command
> high salaries.  This is, by the way, one of the reasons that a
> building-co-ops-within- capitalism strategy for socialism wouldn't
> work. People within cooperatives who develop marketing and leadership
> expertise will tend to be weaned away by firms willing to provide
> higher salaries and greater authority, especially if the coop sticks to
> an egalitarian wage policy and an internally democratic decision-making
> structure.
>
> The market -- including the labor market -- tends to drive out good
> conditions in favor of worse ones (from a worker's point of view).
>
> Tom Wetzel
>

>
> "greaving over lost lands" is exactly what the Gulf War was all about.
> Should the world have ignored the occupation of Kuwait??
> Based on your silly lack of logic, Eva Durant, whenever a people are
> overrun they should just give up and never try to fight for their freedom.
> Why should Croatia even try to recapture Eastern Slavonia? Maybe they
> should just cave in and focus on "more important" things.


This "helping people to regain their rightful land" is sort of
variable sentiment.  Quwait was actually part of Iraq, the Brits
helped a few rebellious tribes to set up their not particularily
democratic domain.  Why aren't you so bothered about East-Timor
being run over by  Indonesia?   China gulping up Vietnamese
islands?  And loads of other stuff which did not deem the
attention of our glorious free press?  Whenever you "give back"
a disputed peace of land, you are taking it away from lawful
owners as well, so the viscious cycle never stops.
I am not alone with this "silly luck of logic", which is again
not a valid argument in my vocabulary, though admittedly,
I had many worse manifestation of no valid arguments...

I think if craving for lost lands were just a little bit lower
on the agenda in Ex-Yugoslavia, we could have by now a peaceful
and prosperous place with federal/autonomous regions and no
never-ending vendetta and millions of landmines.

Eva Durant

>
> Yeah, well the "democratic and non-capitalist system" for which you are a
> relentless toady dedicated an incredible amount of resources to stifling
> individual thought and expression and did it in a distinctly undemocratic
> manner. Do you really believe this tripe you ladle out or is this some
> strange kind of performance art?
> Sam Stowe

You live in the past. Wake up, and plan for the future by learning
from past mistakes.
Eva Durant

> >
> >Uh, sorry, but this is not what I hear from Poles, Slovenes, and a lot of
> >people whom have visited these countries--and Hungary.
>
>         Well, that maybe the case--that is that people tell you other things
> but the statistics say something else. Poland's economic growth last year
> was 6 percent; Hungary's 2.
>

and China's in double figures. Unfortunately growth figures
tell you nothing about living standards. Not related, due
to  the market economy...
Eva Durant

>
> Eva Durant and Joe Szalai think that I am exaggerating the question of
> medical fraud when it comes to diability pensions. Just last night I
> happened upon an article, which appeared in Nepszabadsag (February 3). In
> this article I found the following: "Forty percent of people between ages of
> nineteen and fifty-nine live on some kind of aid, or depended on other
> people's income. Those who are so depended doubled in the last four years."
> The writer's conclusion is that something must be done.
>
> Eva Balogh

I wouldn't be surprised, if most of them were women looking after
not yet school-aged children. Any data on nursery closures?
You reckon they could all find jobs if they were not this
horridly idle types? :) :) :(

Eva Durant

The Serbs have achieved a goal that they wanted for a long time.
The end. They will achieve even more in the near future because they have
the stomach for it and they have the terrain that lends itself to that
kind of warfare.
George, perhaps you might want to think once in a while.

At 05:05 PM 2/14/96 -0500, Sam Stowe, slamming Eva Durant, wrote:

>Do you really believe this tripe you ladle out or is this some
>strange kind of performance art?

No, Sam.  It is not performance art.  It is a soliloquy.  What I do, --
soliloquy in an echo chamber, -- is performance art!

And I thought you liked the Hungarian theatre on this newsgroup!

Joe Szalai

At 09:09 PM 2/13/96 -0800,Cecilia wrote:
>Dear Group;
>
>At 02:34 PM 2/9/96 -0400, you wrote:
>>Eva Balogh wrote:
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>       Hungarians thought that they would have a jumpstart in the
>>changeover to market economy because of their earlier attempts at a somewhat
>>mixed economy. They were wrong. As for the half and half: the best from this
>>and the best from that--is truly naive. In fact, Poland which introduced the
>>so-called shock therapy is much better off today than Hungary which tried to
>>do it gradually.
>>        Eva Balogh
>>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Uh, sorry, but this is not what I hear from Poles, Slovenes, and a lot of
>people whom have visited these countries--and Hungary.

        Well, that maybe the case--that is, that people tell you other
things, but the statistics say something else. Poland's economic growth last
year was 6 percent; Hungary's 2, alongside Romania and Bulgaria.

Eva Balogh

(I agreed with a lot of what you said)but

> Yes, but if we move forward with any of the existing elites heirarchies and
> political systems in virtually all nations, whoever is on top, or manages to
> get there will still set the rules, and judging by what's gone before, the
> rules will likely be skewed to benefit one side more than another.

I cannot picture any move forward within the present hierarchies etc.
Without democracy bottom-up, which would change all the existing
structure, there would be no progress.

Eva Durant

After reading Cecilia L. Fa'bos-Becker's last post on "government control",
I don't feel so bad that Andras Kornai lumped me in with a bunch of
right-wing, nationalist, kooks and losers.

I'm so glad that Mr. Kornai and Mr. Doepp can delineate between the
subjective and objective sciences.  Given their fellow travellers, they'll
need those skills, real bad.

Joe Szalai

Like two stern schoolmasters, James Doepp and Andras Kornai, doxoligize the
profundity of thought, of their great guru, August von Hayek.

Just like Marxist scholars, they only except criticism if the critic can
show the chapter and verse of Hayek's oeuvre before they acknowledge that
the critic might be on to something.

Perhaps I'm not on to anything.  I can live with that.  But I wonder if the
two scholars can enlighten us if Hayek had anything to say about:

1) full employment
2) medicare for all
3) old age pensions for all
4) housing/shelter for all
5) affordable higher education for all who are qualified
6) adequate food for all

Joe Szalai

>Leave the military budget alone!  It's an excellent way for capitalist
>societies to waste resources.  Can you imagine the 'utopia' that could be
>created with hundreds of billions of dollars?  Geez, it could even create
>unemployment if all the soup kitchens were closed and their staff were let
>go.  Or maybe not, if the staff were working for 'profit', a la James Doepp.
>Capitalism has a symbiotic need for waste, whether that be the automobile,
>the military, a war now and again, or just sending multi billion dollar
>missiles into space.  Without this waste, capitalism would collapse.  It's
>as simple as that.  But I don't expect you to see that or to believe me.

Interesting Joe,

        When talking about the billions wasted on military expenditures
lets not forget that spent by the former Soviet and the current communist
regimes.  Capitalism has no patent on gross military budgets.

Regards,

Doug Hormann

On Wed, 14 Feb 1996, Joe Szalai wrote:

> At 12:18 PM 2/14/96 -0500, CSABA K ZOLTANI wrote:
>
> >Irredentism is alive and well. And rightly so. It is unlikely to
> >disappear as long as people are deprived of their homelands. Witness
> >the rebirth of Israel after 2000 years.
>
> Foolishly, I continue to believe that earth is my home.
>
> Joe Szalai
>


Take a look at China/Taiwan brouhaha ...alive and thriving is the better
term.


darren

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

> Part of it is American nationalism--and the feeling of manifest
>destiny, social Darwinism, etc.--what these people _believed_ about
>themselves and their own identity.
>
>Although by World War I, the largest singly recognizable ethnic group in
the
>U.S. was German Americans, they had not been in the U.S. long enough to
>achieve substantial political power at state, regional and national
levels

<snip>
Come on, Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker. You know as well as I do that the bulk of
German immigration into the United States came during the colonial era and
during the 1840s through the 1880s. Most Americans of German descent had
roots in this country going back at least four decades before the start of
the First World War. That doesn't mean there wasn't a great deal of
sympathy for German and Austria-Hungary among Americans of German descent
-- just witness the Bundist movement here before and during the first few
years of the war. But most Americans of German descent supported the
nation's entry into the war.

> The second largest group can be
>roughly described (see _Albion's Seed_) as Southern American, mostly
>Celtic-ancestored.  From my mother's family history, I know that large
>sections of that group were still recovering from the Civil War and
>"Reconstruction."  While the South was re-emerging, (after all, Wilson
was
>from Virginia) it too, did not have substantial influence in many things
at
>the national level.  Northerners were often still willing to view
>Southerners with a certain amount of suspicion as to national loyalty.
>There were still plenty of parents and grandparents of World War I
>politicians around with vivid memories of the Civil War.
>
>Thus, the third largest ethnic group, Northern U.S., English descended,
had
>the upper hand.  Woodrow Wilson, himself is somewhat comparable to
England's
>LLoyd George.  Nominally George was Welsh--but he clearly thought of
himself
>as English, and the Welsh (and other Celts) came to consider him English
>also.  Woodrow Wilson may have begun life in Virginia, along a
predominantly
>Celtic descended frontier, but also shed his environment to suit his
goals
>and ambitions.

You make it sound like Wilson was reared in a rough-hewn log cabin. And
the insinuation that he somehow abandoned his "Celtic" Southern roots to
succeed up North is unfair and ahistorical. Wilson's Presbyterianism (the
Scots were still Celts last time I checked) remained one of the principal
sources of his moral and intellectual orientation throughout his lifetime.
By the bye, Wilson's ambassador to the Court of St. James during the war
was Walter Hines Page, a good, old North Carolina intellectual who never,
ever lost touch with his Southern ties. Southerners overwhelmingly
supported America's entry into the war and were well-represented, both
blacks and whites, among the ranks of the men who served on the Western
Front.

>However, complicating this, was although many upper crust English and
>Americans saw eye to eye on concepts of "manifest destiny" and
>"racial/social Darwinism" (if you win a war it must be because you are a
>superior evolution), and language and essentials of much culture, and
trade,
>there still was the small matter of which of the two was to be regarded
as
>the top dog.  The U.S. actually almost went to war against England over
the
>British Guyana-Venezuela boundary.  It was a very near thing.  This along
>with the Spanish American war did indeed cause Europe to think about the
>potential of the U.S.--and the potential threat to their own goals of
world
>domination.  All this is well documented in Barbara Tuchman's book, _The
>Proud Tower_.

Again, much of this is taken out of context and is ahistorical. The
Spanish-American War occured in 1898, almost 20 years before America's
entry into the First World War. American Progressives of every stripe, had

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

>, the final and biggest straw in the mess was the Germans own
>ham-handedness in its dealings with the U.S..  They were just so
blatantly
>threatening.  Contrast the battle for the press for instance.  The
English
>controlled the overseas cables for news information and thus, from a
>distance, gave all the American media news that favored England.  All
they
>had to do was be selective in a service they already provided, and to
which
>American media had become accustomed.  The Germans sent agents and tried
to
>openly bribe, and sometimes bully, reporters and editors to print items
>favorable to Germany.

The United States already had its own established worldwide print media,
one far larger and, in many ways, far more sophisticated than anything the
British, the French or the Germans possessed at the time of the First
World War. You're sailing out over the edge of conspiracy theory here, the
last refuge of those for whom the historical facts simply will not say
what they want them to say.

> Then there was the stupidity of the Zimmerman
>telegram and the move to make Mexico an ally of Germany right after the
>"terror" of Pancho Villa.  First Mexico, despite the U.S. inability to
>capture Villa, was to any moderately intelligent person, absolutely
nothing
>in comparison with the U.S., but the imagined threat of lots of Villas
>disrupting the entire U.S. southwest... The German activities with
>Mexico can only be described as sheer lunacy, and the best example ever
>contrived by man as to how _not_ to conduct psychological warfare and win
>friends.
>

Typical Prussian arrogance, perhaps, but not lunacy. And the threat from
Mexico was real. Pershing spent years chasing Villa around the border
because the Mexican bandido had crossed into Arizona and was burning
American towns and looting and killing American citizens.

>Finally, the Germans stupidly did not see the set up of the Lusitania.
>Churchill and some Americans actually hoped the Germans would sink it.
>There were arms, but mostly ammunition aboard--in direct violation of
U.S.
>declared neutrality and certain related treaties.  These facts have been
>repeated in several recent film documentaries prepared by the English
>themselves that have appeared on PBS, A&E, etc..--the generally
considered
>professional educational television networks.  However, the Germans had a
>choice.  They could have considered the psychological consequences, and
the
>fact that the load of arms and munition was not well known.  They chose
to
>act on the intelligence of the illegal arms and munitions alone.  Very
>stupid for supposedly bright people.

Once again, not stupidity, but typical Prussian arrogance. The same
arrogance, by the way, that led the Kriegsmarine to resume unrestricted
submarine warfare off the U.S. coast against U.S.-registered shipping
despite clear warnings from the German Foreign Ministry that this would
draw the U.S. into the war. The same arrogance that led the Germans to
casually commit atrocities against civilians in Belgium in front of
American newspaper reporters, then wonder why everyone in the neutral
countries were so upset what they'd done.
>
>Basically the U.S. entered the war first surreptiously, but on the
strength
>of believed cultural affinities (beliefs held by most decision makers,
media
>moguls, etc.), but finally full bore because England was in the light of
all
>the incidents, the lesser of two evils.  The smart thing would have been
to
>stay out of the whole mess in every way, entirely, but the majority of
>decision makers were on average no smarter than the majority of people
>anywhere.  We seldom make far-sighted geniuses either high ranking
>government officials or media moguls.

No doubt, after witnessing Germany's conduct of the war, most Americans
did see a cultural affinity between themselves and Britain and Fran

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>
>You are the one with the straw-bogeyman of systems of the
>past. In not one of my contributions I advocated
>ideological conformity or moral corrosiveness, whatever that
>is.  I did answer your answer umpteen times, you prefer
>not to read them I think, which is your prerogative.

I am asking you to explain what happened in reality. You prefer to dwell
on what you would like to happen in a utopian fantasy. I see from your
previous posts that you worked for an arm of the state that was dedicated
to performing exactly the task I have asked you about -- stifling
individual thought and encouraging people to actively participate in a
lie. This might have been enough to get you a prison sentence at
Nuremberg. You're getting off light, lady. You lost your war, but we're
not conducting war crimes tribunals. All you're being asked to do is
explain why a system you worked for and helped perpetrate committed so
many intellectual and moral crimes against those who lived under it. If
you can't do that, you need to shut your mouth and crawl back under the
rock from which you came. You are the walking embodiment of Hannah
Arendt's phrase about the banality of evil. You can't even muster up a
weak defense for your continued advocacy of an oppressive political
regime. Even Goering did better.
Sam Stowe

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

>Cornwallis, and the English Parliament said in the media, "with
>more English victories like that, they would lose the American colonies."
>Both sides left records of the dead which are now obtainable, quotes from
>the generals that were published are still obtainable also.  There was a
>reality: a battle and certain numbers of people were wounded and killed.
>Both sides agreed it was a pyrrhic victory for the English.
>
>

Interesting that Cornwallis and the Parliamentarians should mourn their
victory by echoing Pyrrhus the Epirote's own words: "One more such victory
and I am undone."
Sam Stowe

In article >, Tony and Celia
Becker > writes:

>Anyone else willing to jump into what will soon be a quicksand discussion
>(especially if Sam notices us--boy is he going to laugh!)

Excuse me, Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker? I'm sorry, I was casting the tea leaves and
I didn't hear what you said.
Sam Stowe

In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:

>You live in the past. Wake up, and plan for the future by learning
>from past mistakes.
>Eva Durant

Ha! Look, everybody, she's losing it! There is apparently no way to bait,
bully or cajole her into discussing the actual performance of
Marxism-Leninism on the ground, as it actually unfolded in Hungary and the
rest of eastern Europe over nearly half a century. She will inevitably try
to avoid the subject by either attempting to divert the focus back onto
capitalism or by suggesting that you do something she herself is
manifestly unwilling to try -- learn from past mistakes. Okay, let's take
a straw poll. Everyone who thinks Elvtars Durant is embarrassing herself
with her transparent hypocrisy, say "Aye." All those who don't, say "No."
Sam Stowe

Barna Bozoki wrote:

>I am surprised that the Internet news sources did not find this important
>enough to announce in their reports. The "Magyar Narancs" tried make fun
>of the meeting, criticizing how the people were dressed and making other
>childish comments about the participants. The "Hungary Report" ignored the
>meeting completely. The Batthyany Foundations's news summary had two items
>about it, but did not talk about the follow-up in New York.

        There is apparently an easy explanation. According to my private
source (someone who was present) Hungarian journalists don't like meetings
like this: "boring," they say. Therefore, very few newspapers sent out
reporters. Moreover, the Magyar Narancs people poked their heads in for a
little while and left in a great hurry. Duna TV was there, but I am not even
sure whether MTV made an appearance or not.
        As my own comments on this. Long-time readers of this list must know
what I think of Hungarian journalism--not much. Most Hungarian journalists
think that they are not just ordinary reporters, but writers of exquisite
Hungarian prose and thinkers of the first order. And most of all, political
commentators of great renown. Therefore, it is beneath them to sit through
"boring" economic discussions. In the first place, most of them know nothing
about economics. Second, straight reporting is considered to be not their
jobs. An Internet friend from England told me a funny story about a
journalist of a very well known Hungarian paper who was visiting England.
During their conversation about The Times and my friends' comments on the
excellence of its reporting news, our renowned journalist said: "Every idiot
can do that!"
        Barna in an earlier article said something about the government's
attempt to replace or undermine the World Federation of Hungarians by
organizing a group of "successful Hungarians living abroad." I find the idea
a good one. At last there is some willingness on the part of the Hungarian
government to listen to Hungarian businessmen. The World Federation of
Hungarians cannot do what this group could do. The World Federation also has
a somewhat tarnished reputation: all the infighting, for example. They
strike me as a "gittegylet." But, of course, I might be wrong.
        Eva Balogh

Eva Durant, quoting me:

>Poland's economic growth last year
>> was 6 percent; Hungary's 2.

And adding,

>and China's in double figures. Unfortunately growth figures
>tell you nothing about living standards.

Unfortunately, without economic growth there can be no rise in the living
standards! Except, of course, in your favorite Kadar regime, when this was
achieved by borrowing from those dreadful capitalists and bankers.

>Not related, due
>>to  the market economy...

That is fascinating! Could you explain that a little more fully? They are
not related?

Eva Balogh

J. Ferengi writes:

>The Serbs have achieved a goal that they wanted for a long time.
>The end. They will achieve even more in the near future because they have
>the stomach for it and they have the terrain that lends itself to that
>kind of warfare.

And they have a wonderful reputation, too. And we better not talk about the
economiv blockade either. It almost strangled the Yugoslav economy. Why do
you think Milosevic decided to go to the negotiating table.

Eva Balogh

Here is a new item from Magyar Hirek:

>A Vilagbank uj szocialis rendszert javasol, mert szamitasai
>szerint a szocialis tamogatasok 45 szazaleka nem a raszorulokhoz
>kerul

This comes from BLA news service. In English:

The World Bank suggests the introduction of an entirely new social system
because according to their calculations 45 percent of financial assistance
[from the state] goes to those who are not in need.

        Eva Balogh

Eva Durant, again, quoting me:

>> Eva Durant and Joe Szalai think that I am exaggerating the question of
>> medical fraud when it comes to diability pensions. Just last night I
>> happened upon an article, which appeared in Nepszabadsag (February 3). In
>> this article I found the following: "Forty percent of people between ages of
>> nineteen and fifty-nine live on some kind of aid, or depended on other
>> people's income. Those who are so depended doubled in the last four years."
>> The writer's conclusion is that something must be done.

Adding:

>I wouldn't be surprised, if most of them were women looking after
>not yet school-aged children. Any data on nursery closures?
>You reckon they could all find jobs if they were not this
>horridly idle types? :) :) :(
>
>Eva Durant

        It really doesn't matter what the source is. The problem is that no
country can survive economically with forty percent of their working-age
population idle!

        Eva Balogh

At 08:47 PM 2/14/96 -0800, Cecilia wrote in connection with my contention
that Poland is in better position economically today than Hungary is, due to
the shock therapy:

>Slight problem with this.  Growth from what level, hmmm?  From "0" is bound
>to be a lot more than from something higher.

        Certainly. There is nothing new about this, but the difference
between Polish and Hungarian economies were not so great that it would
account for an economic growth three times greater in the former than in the
latter. Polish GDP/person (1993): $2,270.00; in Hungary (1993): $3,300.00.
All the more developed East-European countries had very similar GDP figures.
Exception is, on the richer side, Slovenia, and, on the poorer side,
Romania, Bulgaria, and, of course, Albania. But the Visegrad four's economic
developments are fairly comparable.
        Eva Balogh

In article >, Joe Szalai,
street insurgent and NEA grant applicant >
writes:

>No, Sam.  It is not performance art.  It is a soliloquy.  What I do, --
>soliloquy in an echo chamber, -- is performance art!
>
>And I thought you liked the Hungarian theatre on this newsgroup!
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>

This in no way is a justifiable defense for singing in the shower either,
bub. I do like Hungarian theater. But her off-off-off Broadway stuff is
just too one-note shrill and self-important. "Two thumbs way down" --
Siskel and Ebert.
Sam Stowe

At 10:11 AM 2/15/96 -0500, Sam wrote:
>In article >, Eva Durant
> writes:
>
>>You live in the past. Wake up, and plan for the future by learning
>>from past mistakes.
>>Eva Durant
>
>Ha! Look, everybody, she's losing it! There is apparently no way to bait,
>bully or cajole her into discussing the actual performance of
>Marxism-Leninism on the ground, as it actually unfolded in Hungary and the
>rest of eastern Europe over nearly half a century. She will inevitably try
>to avoid the subject by either attempting to divert the focus back onto
>capitalism or by suggesting that you do something she herself is
>manifestly unwilling to try -- learn from past mistakes. Okay, let's take
>a straw poll. Everyone who thinks Elvtars Durant is embarrassing herself
>with her transparent hypocrisy, say "Aye." All those who don't, say "No."
>Sam Stowe

        Sam, it is hopeless. Eva Durant has been saying the same things over
and over and over again--it really doesn't matter what anyone else says. She
is a true believer! Her answer to everything is that REAL socialism, REAL
communism haven't been experienced by us yet, but, don't fear, the REAL
thing will inevitably come. You know: the second coming! And it will come by
way of the most democractic of democracies! Of course, here and there, Ms
Durant gets a bit mixed up. On the one hand, she claims that the "letezo
szocializmus" (existing socialism) had nothing to do whatsoever with the
REAL thing, but, on the other, she keeps defending that very "existing
socialism" against all criticism. In those days, Hungarian mothers were
happily bearing children; in those days, although there was no schoolbus, an
ordinary bus took the children to the next village, and Uncle Pista, the
driver, was waiting for all the little tardy children. The village she lived
was the happiest of paradises: toddlers in the nurseries and four- and
five-year-olds in kindergarten, while the teachers were teaching on an
incredibly high level those little Hungarians. And, of course, the living
standards were going up and up and up while, according to Ms. Durant, living
standards have nothing whatsoever to do with economic growth. (It sure
didn't in Kadar's Hungary!) And, of course, now everything is rotten--all
because of capitalism.
        Admittedly, Ms. Durant was, until very recently, totally alone on
this list with her ideas (although she claims that she had received many
letters from closet socialists who were "afraid" to express their opinions
openly!). Now, we have our Canadian nationalist-socialist to help her along.
Not being entirely alone must be a great relief to her. But aside from all
the jokes, we mustn't forget that Ms. Durant is not alone. In Hungary,
25,000 people are registered members of the Munkaspart (the unreformed,
unabashedly communist party). They didn't quite receive enough votes to have
parliamentary representation, but it was close (the cut-off point is 5%).
Then there is the so-called Baloldali Tomorules (Left-wing Cluster) of the
MSZMP. Their political views are not terribly far off from those in the
Munkaspart. These people are the true believers but over fifty percent of
the population today think that the Kadar regime and life under it was
preferable to market economy "piacgazdasag").
        Of course, I think that Ms. Durant is an extremely naive person, but
she is no longer a teenager and it is unlikely that she will change her
views. (As I mentioned once, with age we all become a little more
conservative, but that generalization doesn't apply to Eva Durant.) So, the
best thing is leave Ms Durant in her happy state of dreaming about the
coming of the REAL thing.

        Eva Balogh

As I was saying, no doubt most Americans did see cultural affinities
between the U.S. and Britain and France by 1917. But those affinities were
expressed within a framework of allying themselves with Western
civilization against barbarism, not as some sort of mystical racial
solidarity with the Anglo-Saxons.

Once again, your anti-English bias has overwhelmed your sense of
historical accuracy. Let's hope Barbara Tuchmann and David Fisher Hackett
(did I get those in the right order?) don't monitor this newsgroup and, if
they do, they don't mind having their work so grossly misinterpreted. And
I beg of you, once again, to stop using this awkward and untrue opposition
of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon cultures in Southern society. There is no
scholarly basis for this other than a wild misreading of Hackett Fisher.
(There -- at least I'm bound to get it right once) As always, I bow to Eva
Balogh's opinion in this particular thread.
Sam Stowe

Dear Johanne and group;

At 10:19 PM 2/14/96 -0400, you wrote:
>At 21:09 13/02/96 -0800, Celia Fa'bos-Becker wrote:
>>
>>Hungary doesn't dare apply for even autonomy of minorities in other
>>countries, much less reunification until she can be certain of support and
>>friendship of those who really took her lands in the first
>>place--particularly the current residual great powers of that decision,
>>England and the U.S..  From the situation in Bosnia, the Hungarian
>>government cannot feel any optimism.  Hungary was, and still is, a
>>non-European intruder to too many West Europeans, as much as the Muslim
>>Bosnians, and a defeated enemy of both World War I and II.  Clinton and
>>Majors have made their feelings about Hungary--and Hungarians--very clear,
>>many times, and the feelings are not warm and cozy.
>>
>Dear Celia -
>
>It's great to have you back. I spent quite a bit of time in the last week or
>so wondering if there were unexpected complications from the surgery, or if
>you had just run out of things to say, or if your husband had pulled the
>plug on the computer, or what. I am pleased to see that the answer to those
>questions is "none of the above."  8>)

Thanks for the welcome back, one and all.  The surgery had a couple of minor
complications--like what they thought was wrong turned out not to be it, and
the mess was actually larger, but they got it cleaned up.  Basically it
turned out the structures were mostly sound, but a lot of old scar
tissue--into which some of the structures had extended themselves to
continue working--had torn loose and was acting something like a spanner
tossed into some gears.  They had to reduce the size of the kneecap among
other things, which created extra soreness for a longer period of time.

However, literally the day before surgery, while I was trying to send my
last replies for awhile, my computer crashed--big time.  Of course these
things usually come in 3's, so a time-consuming crisis erupted at my
husband's start-up company also.  Since I was confined for a week to one
floor--upstairs--and the computer was downstairs, needless to say repairs
didn't get made very quickly  in that department, either.  He finally
figured out it was _both_ hard drive and controller card.  The former has
been replaced, and we've finally after numerous antics recovered most of the
data files, but not all yet, and modem communications still seem to be
whimsical occasionally.  The controller board is supposed to be replaced
either Friday or Saturday.  The company is doing better also--now all we
have to do is convince my worry-wart husband it really is.


>
>Now, I know that you don't bear particular love for the English and,
>frankly, since I know diddly-squat about the Crewe House or pre- or post-WWI
>hanky-panky by the British, I cannot express any opinion at this point on
>those matters. But, I would be interested to know specifically what
>statements Bill Clinton and John Majors have made to indicate that their
>feelings about Hungary and Hungarians are not "warm and cosy." As Allan
>Fotheringham would say, "Please fuzzify the muddification."

First of all, I like the English people, mostly, it's _some_ of the darned
"patricians" to use Barbara Tuchman's description I have a problem with--as
well as some of the darned "patricians" in the U.S., and a few other
countries as well.  The problem is, when it's patricians in the U.S. and
England, they generally have a lot more effect on the rest of the world than
say those in Mexico or Indonesia--or even Russia.  They also claim to hold
higher standards of altruism and responsibility--ergo we should trust them
running huge corporations and governments.  It's the hypocrisy of those who
have the education, culture, freely given support and trust of and in their
countries to be better human beings and merit respect as real leaders but
behave like third world types and claim to be otherwise.

The people I love and want to trust behave too often like a 600 pound
gorilla or bear and not an Atlas.
>

Next item: fuzzifying the muddification.  I had to think about this, because
I still have to work with some people, and may have to put up with them
after November 1996.  I can't be effective if I say too much and lose access
to them.  So, I'm not going to name names, and I'll have to hope that the
following helps clarify the situation.

I was approached in 1992, several months before the national convention by
the chief of staff for a local Congressperson who himself was very close to
a key adviser and assistant to Bill Clinton.  He wanted help on behalf of
the Clinton campaign obtaining the East Central European American (not just
Hungarian but all East Central European Americans) vote, and the Chinese
American votes.  I was a director of several key organizations, and a member
of a couple of national networks where, yes, I could, have influence, and I
certainly had a whole list of names in several regions, as well as knowledge
of relative strength.  The late Professor Jur Lerski and I spent 3 hours one
day with this representative of the Clinton campaign going over the East
Central European American demographics, major issues and the like.  I was
asked to follow up with additional written materials.  I did and I provided
most of the materials Bill Clinton's speech writer used for his now famous
"Milwaukee speech," which led us all to believe he'd take a different
attitude toward East Central Europe than George Bush had.  I did a couple of
other things also that were regarded as significant in changing the tide in
several southern-Great Lakes states.

  I also have a lot of relatives in Arkansas, including first cousins, and
once spent an hour and a half talking with Bill Clinton myself--20 years
ago.  Also, I have close relatives in Tennessee, and before Albert Gore
became vice-president had managed direct correspondence with the then
Senator on some issues, and had the respect of some of his top aides.  They
knew me.

So, at times I have spoken by telephone with several very top aides to the
President and Vice-president.  I have met with a couple of people in person
who over the past four years have become key advisers in the State
department.  I met with the interface to the White House on the Armed
Services Committee in the House of Representatives.

Suffice to say, I constantly found myself confronting and trying to overcome
the same darned attitude, over and over again.  The best expression of it
came from the Armed Services committee interface: "you East Central
Europeans should forget about trying to get us to listen to you about
anything in East Central Europe, especially you Hungarians.  Don't you know
that most people around here still consider you responsible for starting
World War I and being allies of Hitler?  You can't be trusted to have your
own self defense or run yourselves."  Hungarians?--"quit complaining about
the treatment to your minorities--you did the same thing to them for
centuries.  You deserve what's happening now."   Also, "you're exaggerating
the problem."

Regarding the refugees pouring in from the Voivodina and Transylvania, the
classic had to be the response from a very high ranking State department
official: "well, that was a problem recently, but the rate has slowed and
the Romanians and Serbians assure us they're working on imf problems and need."
 Regarding Croatians and Bosnians,
it was even worse, "UN officials were siphoning off money, Slovenians were
charging huge bribes for anything to pass through their country, and
militias of all sorts were hijacking a lot of trucks to sustain their
soldiers."  In short, refugee aid anywhere in southeastern Europe was a
complete disaster.  Oh yes, we heard from several sources that "to avoid
jeopardizing the UN efforts to bring peace to the region, ABC and CNN were
both asked personally by the President not to show their film footage on
this situation."  Both network heads complied.  After this expensive, futile
tour, now neither network wants to spend much time in the region--except
when it is clear to them the top U.S. officials approve of their visits.
(That's from an insider at ABC.)

Now besides that, before 1994, there were the very public statements, as
well as some semi-private ones to the Hungarian and German ambassadors, made
to Hungary by both Prime Minister Majors and President Clinton warning them
not to aid the Croatians or else suffer sanctions.  Never mind the fact that
a heck of a lot of victims from Vukovar and Osijek were actually Hungarians.
It's ironic that now the Clinton administration is taking credit for a wise
decision to let the Hungarians and Germans help and thus stop the Serbians
at least in Croatia.  I think my late friend, the former governor of
Minnesota, Rudi Perpich--who was an adviser to the Croatian government and
in Croatia until 1993 is probably spinning in his grave on that one.  Of
course the Clinton administration is claiming that the real assistance
stopping the Serbians that the Clinton administration itself allowed made
the difference after 1994.  That's not what Rudi said, and he was there...
It was the surreptious Hungarian and German defiance of Clinton before 1994
that made the difference--and the Croatian capture of several Serbian arms
warehouses in a daring midnight raid.  Gee, suddenly the Croatians could
shoot back--big time, and suddenly it didn't look so easy for the Serbian
bullies, better go pick on the still defenseless Bosnians instead.

Besides that, there have been some other public situations.  Poland's loans
forgiven by the U.S. and other Western nations--to the tune of adding $6
billion to the U.S. taxpayer's deficit burden--but no Hungarian loans.  The
French finding the "smoking gun documents" about who really started WWI
(found in 1988) and making a public apology to Austria and Hungary, but the
apology was not followed by England and Russia who were also incriminated by
the French documents.  You would have thought they all would have had the
decency to figure out how much interest and principal on war debts was
wrongfully collected, as well as the interest that Hungary might have earned
if their money had been rightfully allowed to "stay home" for 70 years, and
used that figure to at least offset some of the current Hungarian debt--if
not all.  But it didn't happen.  Not even the French have done more than
make a verbal apology.

Then there were all the trips the President made to East Central Europe.
Haven't you noticed that Hungary was the _last_ East Central European nation
he visited, and he spent the shortest time there?  Do you have any idea what
East Central European American lobbyists went through to get him to spend a
lousy twelve hours there?  We were after that visit for almost two years.
He only made it when Dole became Senate Majority Leader and Pataki governor
of New York.  That's when his administration suddenly started being polite
to us.  Did you know that a former senior adviser of Senator Dole--and still
a close friend, is Laszlo Pasztor, the head of AMOSZ, and a director of two
national East Central European American coalitions.

Yes, I know, AMOSZ, and even Mr. Pasztor do not always have a good
reputation among all Hungarian Americans.  I've had my differences with him
and them also from time to time, but Mr. Pasztor is a professional, and a
real diplomat when it comes to the highest levels of the U.S. government and
many embassies, and is treated with the utmost respect by them.  He does
keep the internal Hungarian disputes out of the major issues he has to
discuss with non-Hungarians, and has supported and extensively lobbied
for--largely at his own expense--every major item of interest to
Hungarians/Hungarian Americans upon which there has been a consensus of all
the groups.  He also works to build consenses also, maybe not always
perfectly, but he tries.  Don't confuse him with some of the more irrational
members of AMOSZ.  Every organization has its extremists--look at the
national U.S. political parties as just one case in point.  Why should
Hungarian organizations be any different?

Anyhow, the Republican Party Heritage Council, led in some key areas
(California and New York, for instance) by Hungarian Americans, helped
engineer the Republican Congressional takeover in 1994, and the single
foremost driving reason was Clinton's treatment of East Central
Europe--particularly Hungary and Bosnia.

Another "for instance:"  Remember the grand opening of the Holocaust Museum?
Do you remember that just before the visits of all the East Central European
presidents/prime ministers to the U.S. for that, that John Majors had been
here?  He got to spend over 2 hours in consultation with the President, just
the first day, and to stay to an exclusive dinner etc., and a large part of
the discussions were about East Central Europe.  However, the East Central
European presidents were herded through the President's oval office, one
after another all in one day, in 15 minute increments--like a darned
Hollywood "cattle call."  Fortunately the East Central European Americans
correctly anticipated that, and had some private meetings with all the
ambassadors and presidents before they met with President Clinton.  We got
them to agree to focus on the Balkan situation and the refugees and all make
exactly the same points in less than 10 minutes.  That's exactly then what
happened and we were informed by several insiders that "it really shook up
the White House to realize so many of the East Europeans had unified
themselves on that issue and weren't budging."  They didn't like it, and
then tried to play a game of "divide and conquer," to avoid having to comply
with anything we wanted (outside of business investment).

The Hungarians were correctly pegged as one of the primary instigators of
the  "Holocaust Memorial visit embarrassments," and especially targeted.
Both Frank Kozorucs and Laszlo Pasztor can tell you of numerous incidents
when they were invited to meet with the highest ranking State Department,
NSC members, and even the President--separately and different things were
promised to different groups, if we'd just be patient and supportive--and by
the way would we persuade the other groups to go along with whatever
conflicting strategy was being promoted this visit.  This practice finally
stopped when both Frank and Laszlo flatly told the highest ranking people
that they were well aware of what they were trying to pull, and that it
wouldn't work because they (Frank and Laszlo) were members of two of the
same  national committees and were making a point of checking with all the
national and regional leaders to compare what Hungarians were being told
after every White House visit.

Now can you imagine President Clinton or Prime Minister Majors pulling that
kind of stuff on each other, or any Western European country--or even the
Polish/Polish Americans?  Of course not.  But they have tried this on
Hungarians, and a few others, but especially on Hungarians.  Trust me, the
groups have been comparing notes on the ethnic treatment differences too,
not just the differences for a single ethnicity's leaders.

Hungarians are not treated with the same diplomatic respect as many other
nations, unless we darned well insist on it and can back up our insistence
with surprises like 1994.


>>Frankly, I'm looking forward to November, 1996...
>
>Well, so am I, but I am afraid that if the Republicans don't get their act
>together, Bill Clinton's going to end up winning the election by default. 8>(

True, true.  We're working on that.  However, we've been told we'll have to
wait for the biggest changes after the national convention.  The Republican
candidates, like the Democrats in 1992, have to play to two different
audiences--before and after the convention.  The best we can hope for
between now and then is that the rational ones keep a relatively low profile
and don't give the Clinton campaign something stupid to use against them.
Unfortunately, this means we won't hear or see much until later, because the
media doesn't find deliberate silence/restraint in a short-term situation
that doesn't relate to the long-term interesting to cover.

I think the election could go either way.  Whomever wins, it probably will
not be a landslide.  Congress will probably stay Republican for a few more
years.  People can only vote for "their representative" and most often
believe the problems with Congress are "the other guys."  Probably the House
majority won't be as big. A few of the frothing-mouthed freshmen will
probably go, but then again, some of them may lose in their own primaries,
and a Republican still get elected in November, because of the "pork-barrel"
wish to be "part of the probable majority."

After more than 25 years of inside activism in U.S. politics, (longer than
even ethnic politics) I have been left with few illusions.  A couple of
years ago, I turned down a job in DC, because (and I meant this) "I wanted
to keep a few illusions  about human decency and some optimism for the human
future, and my increasing visits to DC were making it harder and harder to
do that..."  The audience started to laugh, then thought about it, and said
they understood and appreciated the thought.  I may be in DC more in 1997,
but I have again refused a permanent position.  I told the gentleman I would
only be part-time adviser to be able to maintain greater objectivity--and
sanity.


I hope this fuzzifies a few things better without getting me into too much
trouble.  Fortunately I don't think a couple of my most difficult contacts
ever check into this group, or would be likely to meet with anyone here.

Finally, I want to make it clear that there have been gradual, voluntary
changes in attitudes going on below the top levels of the U.S.
administration, and there have always been some good and supportive people
among the klunkers. Especially since 1994, but beginning earlier,
Hung, as well as other East Central Europeans are getting increasing
attention and respect.  I think eventually the kind of nonsense that we saw
so much of particularly between 1988 and 94 will stop.  It's going to take
time, however, a lot of education for them on our part, and a lot of
patience.  Even well-educated political advisers don't change attitudes much
less long-term policies overnight.  The changes are incremental, and
cautiously done; they want to keep their jobs and access, too.

They need to be reminded of the French documents, for instance, and the
effect they should have on any residual mentalities related to the two world
wars.  They need to be told wh we are aware of diplomatic differences in
the treatment of officials that we are aware of these things and do not
believe this in keeping with our U.S. national ideals of egalitarian
respect.  They need to keep hearing about real, verifiable mistreatments of
our minorities, and the strains of hundreds of thousands of refugees still
in Hungary, etc., etc..  The letters and calls need to be polite, but firm,
and they need to come from more than just a few people.

Thanks for reading and replying.

Best regards,


Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA

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

At 12:01 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Doug Hormann wrote:

>        When talking about the billions wasted on military expenditures
>lets not forget that spent by the former Soviet and the current communist
>regimes.  Capitalism has no patent on gross military budgets.

Nobody had a patent on gross military budgets.  All military budgets are gross.

Joe Szalai

Dear Eva;

Thanks for the welcome back.  It's a nice feeling to find people missed me.
I'm not going to try to answer all the following, but just a couple of
points.  Also, what I write is just one view, not something to try to
resolve what I think is largely an unresolvable discussion.

Dear Group;

At 09:22 AM 2/15/96 +0100, you wrote:

>The burden stuff from a slightly different angle.
>Cecilia, there are a few words on progressive
>companies at the end.
>Eva Durant
>
>
>>
>> 1. In the sentence "thanks to them we manage to live quite well", you should
>> ask, Who is "we"? Given that the workforce is exploited -- forced by
>> the current social arrangement to work for employers -- they live *less
>> well* than they might if the society were organized differently. For one
>> thing, part of exploitation is that we are not self-determining in our
>> work lives, or in choosing the collective fate of our communities.

While depending upon the national situation it is more or less difficult for
workers to either leave situations they believe are exploitative (such as
through strikes), or change the governmental laws that favor one group over
another, or in a worst case scenario to revolt, it is a reality that
ultimately the workers _do_ have choices and have often allowed themselves
to be exploited.  I went through a messy situation representing a union at a
negotiating table that was made difficult precisely because the majority of
members although they claimed they wanted better treatment were not willing
to put themselves on the line when push came to shove.  _They_, not the
negotiators, backed down in the face of the employer.  I also know of many
such incidents since then.  As a massive case in point; consider Mexico and
the Mexicans.  Tens of millions of Mexicans find it preferable to simply
immigrate to the U.S. rather than do anything to change the system at
home--and Mexico, although somewhat oppressive, is not the worst nation of
that genre.  The U.S. armed forces haven't been in Mexico since 1913, and
they've had no civil war or been blasted to bits by a World War since then.
They have a huge country and lots of resources, certainly more than most
little European countries.  Sorry, but at this point, they are literally
running away from their own mess and responsibility.

It's also like pulling teeth many times to get people to participate in the
political process even when every possible measure has been taken to include
them--even rely upon them--for all key decisions, schedule caucuses and
conventions at times convenient to the majority and even provide
transportation and babysitting.  The caucus states such as Minnesota and
Wisconsin do bend over backward to ensure that all candidates and platform
planks come from the people, yet too often in many precincts and districts,
the majority don't even bother to use what's been made available to them.

The same is true of education and libraries. Free public schools and
libraries are not used well by the majority of people.  The vices as well as
the virtues of the human species are not confined to the upper classes.

>>
>> 2. In re question 1, it is noteworthy that the working class in the U.S.
>> is certainly living *less* well than it used to. The bottom 80% of
>> income earners in the U.S. have had declining real incomes for quite a
>> few years now. So much for the value to "us" of those executives and
>> moneybags who run things.
>>
>> 3. In what *way* is "economic growth" due to the capitalists? What
>> activity do they do that is responsible for economic growth? Note, to
>> begin with, that this statement confuses two social groups: (a) executives
>> who make business decisions, and (b) capitalists, who own the shop.
>> The executives may make important decisions that affect the survival
>> prospects of this or that business but this is distinct from the role
>> of being an owner of capital. Being an owner of capital contributes
>> zip to "economic growth" in general or the prospects of any particular
>> firm. Reflect on the fact that owners of capital often hire "money
>> managers" or "investment managers" who have the expertise to make
>> savvy investment decisions. These people are hired labor. So, it is not
>> qua capitalist that any contribution at all is made to the prospects
>> of any particular firm owned by that capitalist or group thereof.
>>

"Economic growth" is simply a measurement/statement of the changes in the
quantity of economic transactions--mostly financial. I'm sure someone will
correct me if I'm wrong, but the term and the concept don't seem to have
existed prior to the age of "mercantilism" (early capitalism) and Adam
Smith.  So, it's roughly argueable that the very nature as we define and use
it currently, doesn't, or didn't, exist without those darned capitalists. ;-)

>> If someone responds, "Well, a firm wouldn't exist without capital",
>> an appropriate response would be: "Production could be organized
>> on the basis of collective social ownership, so that society's
>> production capability would not be held hostage to the wealth-seeking
>> motivations of a small minority." Also, note that the statement "A firm
>> wouldn't exist without capital" doesn't tell us what actual *contribution*
This assumes all individuals, in a nation, or an entire world,  will
collectively agree to be egalitarian and treat all with mutual respect. It
hasn't happened yet, anywhere in history.

is
>> made to production by capital-ownership. The *decision* to invest
>> in an area of production on the basis of expectation of profit is an
>> activity that can be done by hired labor, as pointed out above.

Yes the _decision can be made_ by hired labor, my husband's company does it
all the time, but the _means to implement it_ isn't completely among the
hired labor.  True, our little company is not part of a collective nation,
but even in those nations that did become collective, the majority of
workers were neither allowed to make decisions for products and services nor
determine the means of implementation. It all seemed to be done from the
capitol cities of the nations by people who sometimes never saw the inside
of any production facilities in their entire lives, nor ever polled the
majority of their own citizens to learn just what products and services were
wanted.  When was the last time most of the highest ranking folk in Moscow
or Beijing ever worked in a factory?--20 years ago, 30, 40 or more?  How
many workers were/are allowed to be members of the communist party in most
of these nations?  5%, 10% maybe a whopping 20%?  What kind of egalitarian,
fully collective management of resources and production is that?  And given
this history, what is the likelihood of any better version of this system
developing in the future?

Sorry, I just don't think individual human nature will ever allow a _real_,
cooperative, fully collectivized egalitarian society.


>>
>> 4. Just as the statement confuses capitalists and executives, it
>> also confuses the prospects of this or that firm (affected by
>> the sorts of business decisions this person refers to) with
>> overall "economic growth." The decisions of individual firm management
>> do not control overall "economic growth." On the contrary, they
>> are at the mercy of the overall tendencies and conjunctural situations
>> of the system.

No system related to human economics exists without human beings--or human
choices.  WE all created the systems and we all can change them if we
choose.  Darned few choose to make changes, though.  They'd/we'd rather
watch sports events and crime shows on television, or play
"Nintendo."--settling for bread and circuses--same as 2,000 years ago...

>>
>> 5. Although it is true that there are marketing and leadership skills
>> that some managers may have that can make a difference to the prospects
>> of this or that firm, given the particular competitive environment it is
>> in, nobody has yet succeeded in developing a working crystal ball. Hence,
>> decisions that managers are often credited with as particularly savvy
>> may simply have been good luck on their part, ie. they got the right
>> product out at the right time. But other firms with equally skilled
>> managers may have made unlucky decisions, and have seen their fortunes
>> shrink. Look at the volatility in the computer industry as an example,
>> and how in a matter of a few years former up-and-coming firms are
>> later visited with hard times and forced shrinkage.

Unfortunately, in all the research I have done, with several companies,
insititutions, etc., I've found "luck" has little to do with the situations.
Good or bad, they can all somewhere in the line be attributed somewhere to a
deliberate human decision--including the decision not to acquire more
knowledge.  I should explain, that most of my non-political business career
literally involved going into troubled processes and situations, determining
all the elements of them and figuring out how to improve them. I was always
successful in obtaining some improvement, even if it were not all that could
be.  Again, the level of success was determined by those to whom I made the
reports and whom made the final decisions as to just how much change and
where they were willing to make.  And no, this was not just a "mechanical
efficiency expert" career.  Human relationships and feelings were always in
the elements to be examined.


>>
>> 6. Nonetheless, there is an element of truth to this person's
>> statement, i.e. that *so long as* the capitalist social structure,
>> based on private accumulation and wage-labor, continues to exist, the

>> skills that help firms to successfully navigate the shark-infested
>> waters of competition will be in high demand, that is, people with
>> market savvy and business leadership skills will be able to command
>> high salaries.  This is, by the way, one of the reasons that a
>> building-co-ops-within- capitalism strategy for socialism wouldn't
>> work. People within cooperatives who develop marketing and leadership
>> expertise will tend to be weaned away by firms willing to provide
>> higher salaries and greater authority, especially if the coop sticks to
>> an egalitarian wage policy and an internally democratic decision-making
>> structure.

The fundamental problem is that non-capital "socialism" depends upon
everyone, literally everyone, involved to be mutually altruistic and
cooperative, not selfish.  Again, that has happened in no nation, yet.
>>
>> The market -- including the labor market -- tends to drive out good
>> conditions in favor of worse ones (from a worker's point of view).

The market reflects mostly what less than altruistic people see as their
needs and wants.  If more people are altruistic and egalitarian then
conditions are better, if more people are not, then conditions are worse.
However, altruism and egalitarianism cannot be forced, because if that is
necessary, those that exert the force will be in reality more powerful and
influential than those on the receiving end--no egalitarianism there, at
that point...
>>
Finally, can we please change the title of this thread?  This sounds too
much like less than altruistic and mutually respectful beating one another
up.  If the human race is ever to get any better, we might as well start
with ourselves.  Hmmm? ;-)

Respectfully,


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

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

Szervusztok,,

AmberSass wrote:

>Please pray to God that He gives you strength and endurance because you seem
>discouraged. A nation contains only a few truly dedicated souls, the rest are
>willing to go along the best they can. Maybe we should pray harder for the
>Hungarians in Rumania. Maybe we should demand to cross the border in mass so
>we can pray in solidarity with them. Will they shoot us while we are unarmed?

Kosz for the support, but one thing I would hate to see happen is a mass exodus
to Hungary from anywhere. Not only would they be treated as the "other
Hungarians" in Hungary, but the idea of leaving native Hungarian lands and
towns for the powers that be to erase any Hungarian identity that was there for
hundreds of years would be even more tragic. You can't replace that, once it's
gone. Erdely is a great example. If people left, Erdely would be only a distant
memory and there would be no use in fighting for it, anymore. You do what you
got to do, but it's a form of giving in as well.

Isten veled,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com,

Hali,

AND Books Janos wrote:

>youre rite on re:himnusz et al... but far too bitter for 26!

Wait till I'm 70!!! :)

Seriously, why not be bitter?? Are you satisfied with what's been going on in
Hungary for the past 75 years?? I'm sure as hell, not!!

>wait till the 56's die off

In North America?? Then what?? Rely on the Hungarian American/Canadian youth to
start something?? Surely you jest!! I'd rather put my mouth over a pair of
scissors and have someone drop a rock on the back of my head (like that 80's
flick with Christopher Walken in it... Oh I forgot it!! Damn!!). Crude, but
effective. Those who are hardcore into the Cserkesz and such are too arrogant
and worried about fitting in the Hungarian cliques to even care about this
shit!! Then there are many who don't give a hoot about Hungary or let alone
know where it is on the map. Face it, the Hungarian culture that used to exist,
is dead!! What you have left are these cliques, that either belong to or not.
They all are just going through the motions.

>and Toronto remains the only haven for mgy culture
>ala csardas/disco w bacon-bits as tepertu, white foam bread ball surrounding
>a single prune as szilvas gomboc, hotdog as kolbasz, chocolate twinky az dobos
>torta, and no immigrunt remembers anything beyond dinty-moore is something
>like the gulyas mama used to make. By 2020 you'll pack it up and return to
>_____? or get even more bitter. Hint: stay away from hungarians, but remain
>magyar.

That sucks!! I'll be in Toronto in March. I wanted to get some good Hungarian
food, too. This just reinforces what I've said.

>BTW if youre still in NBNJ area, is Atilla still doing his foreign car yard?

Atilla Nagy right?? Yeah, he's still there. Which reminds me..... I've always
wanted a Volvo P1800, just like Simon Templar in The Saint. Great car!!!


Udv.,
Czifra Jancsi
john_czifra @ shi.com

At 02:37 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Eva Balogh wrote:

>   Admittedly, Ms. Durant was, until very recently, totally alone on
>this list with her ideas (although she claims that she had received many
>letters from closet socialists who were "afraid" to express their opinions
>openly!). Now, we have our Canadian nationalist-socialist to help her
>along. Not being entirely alone must be a great relief to her.

Eva, you can label me whatever you want, although, I fear that one day
you'll run out of adjectives.  What will you do then?

You know, I'll admit that I may be wrong in my views.  It wouldn't be the
first time and hopefully it wont be the last.  But what I have always done,
and will always continue to do, is to speak up when I see social, economic,
racial, or sexual injustice.  And no, I don't have all the answers and
solutions to the worlds problems but I've never found that reason enough to
keep my mouth shut.

You, and several other writers on this list, are apologists for the excesses
of capitalism.  You are constantely bringing our attention to yet another
statistic about the number of people abusing this or that system.  If we had
an inquisition for those who abuse social programmes, you would be
delighted.  The school of hard knocks has certainly taken its toll on you.

You, and others on this list, have shown that your thinking and reasoning
faculties are rather stilted and limited.  I criticize capitalism (that is
the name of our economic system, isin't it?) and whammo!, I'm a
socialist/communist/nationalist, worthy of ridicule.  Your response is
identical to that system that you love to hate.  If anyone had the nerve or
the guts to publically criticize that system, whammo!  They were in deep
shit.  Yes, I am very greatful that I'm not being dragged off to jail!

You, and others on this list, have something else in common with the
ideologues of the former socialist/communist system.  All of you believe
that we have reached the pinnacle of human development and cannot, or are
incapable of, understanding why someone would disagree or criticize your
achievement, especially when that person can't come up with a better plan.
Perhaps you believe that we have reached the end of history.

Joe Szalai

Sam Stowe wrote:

>Once again, not stupidity, but typical Prussian arrogance. The same
>arrogance, by the way, that led the Kriegsmarine to resume unrestricted
>submarine warfare off the U.S. coast against U.S.-registered shipping
>despite clear warnings from the German Foreign Ministry that this would
>draw the U.S. into the war. The same arrogance that led the Germans to
>casually commit atrocities against civilians in Belgium in front of
>American newspaper reporters, then wonder why everyone in the neutral
>countries were so upset what they'd done.

Dear Sam, let me ask why the US created a blocad around Cuba during
the Cuban-crisis? Was it a typical American arrogance or rightful self-
defence. I have to remind you that great part of those U.S.-registered
shipping was actually weapon or warfare shipment for England and/or
France. No doubt those prussian barbarians in the submarines did not
really understood that killing german soldiers by american weapons is
fine because it is done for the civilization while sinking ships is an
ugly crime against human kind.

>As I was saying, no doubt most Americans did see cultural affinities
>between the U.S. and Britain and France by 1917. But those affinities were
>expressed within a framework of allying themselves with Western
>civilization against barbarism, not as some sort of mystical racial
>solidarity with the Anglo-Saxons.

Sam, are you serious? I can imagine, a teuton barbarian with blood on his
teeth attack two virgins (England & France) but Joe (not Szalai!) grab
his revolver, jump over the Atlantic and k..k the s..t out of that barbarian.
Like in Holywood. Let me remind you some nice acts of that 'Western
Civilization'. You probably know about the opium war(s) against China, when
the Brittish attacked because the Chinise goverment was against the
 drog-dealing.
Or in India, where millions starved to death because the Brittish sold their
product in domping prize. Why could they do it? (hint: Royal Navy) Or the
'szipoly' uprising(s), I saw a picture how the prisoners were executed by
the Brits. They were tied and stood in front of canons(!). The scenario after
the execution was not shown but you can imagine. Or the boer, and Zulu wars
in South Africa and  so on, one can find several nice example of the cultural
superiority. But this was not barbarism of course because no US reporter was
around, and these victims was only africans, indians, or chinese.

This barbarism, western civilization stuff is the most redicoulus. How
can adult people still believe this propaganda material. Beside that
I don't see any reason why the Germans can be excluded from the so
called 'western civilization', I do not think that any bellingerent of
the WWI was more barbarian than any other. The whole war was a barbarian,
senseless thing where nobody fought for any 'great values' or 'civilization'
but for selfish interests.

Janos

Dear Sam;

Much as I would like to agree with you, on many things, sorry, I can't
always do so.

At 09:52 AM 2/15/96 -0500, you wrote:
>In article >, Tony and Celia
>Becker > writes:
>
>> Part of it is American nationalism--and the feeling of manifest
>>destiny, social Darwinism, etc.--what these people _believed_ about
>>themselves and their own identity.
>>
>>Although by World War I, the largest singly recognizable ethnic group in
>the
>>U.S. was German Americans, they had not been in the U.S. long enough to
>>achieve substantial political power at state, regional and national
>levels
>
><snip>
>Come on, Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker. You know as well as I do that the bulk of
>German immigration into the United States came during the colonial era and
>during the 1840s through the 1880s. Most Americans of German descent had
>roots in this country going back at least four decades before the start of
>the First World War. That doesn't mean there wasn't a great deal of
>sympathy for German and Austria-Hungary among Americans of German descent
>-- just witness the Bundist movement here before and during the first few
>years of the war. But most Americans of German descent supported the
>nation's entry into the war.
>
As you pointed out, and I did earlier, "most Americans of German descent
came between 1840-1880."  About half of those had roots that were four
generations old.  Again, the Germans were also divided among
themselves--particularly between Catholics and Protestants.  Talk to the
Stearns County, Minnesota, historian about that sometime.

True, also many German Americans, indeed many Americans, wanted the U.S. to
enter the war, but most?  How do you explain Wilson's campaign speeches then
asking to be re-elected in 1916, because he'd keep (and had kept) the U.S.
_out_ of the war?  Also, even among the many, there was the slight question
of _which_ side to join.

>> The second largest group can be
>>roughly described (see _Albion's Seed_) as Southern American, mostly
>>Celtic-ancestored.  From my mother's family history, I know that large
>>sections of that group were still recovering from the Civil War and
>>"Reconstruction."  While the South was re-emerging, (after all, Wilson
>was
>>from Virginia) it too, did not have substantial influence in many things
>at
>>the national level.  Northerners were often still willing to view
>>Southerners with a certain amount of suspicion as to national loyalty.
>>There were still plenty of parents and grandparents of World War I
>>politicians around with vivid memories of the Civil War.
>>
>>Thus, the third largest ethnic group, Northern U.S., English descended,
>had
>>the upper hand.  Woodrow Wilson, himself is somewhat comparable to
>England's
>>LLoyd George.  Nominally George was Welsh--but he clearly thought of
>himself
>>as English, and the Welsh (and other Celts) came to consider him English
>>also.  Woodrow Wilson may have begun life in Virginia, along a
>predominantly
>>Celtic descended frontier, but also shed his environment to suit his
>goals
>>and ambitions.
>
>You make it sound like Wilson was reared in a rough-hewn log cabin. And
>the insinuation that he somehow abandoned his "Celtic" Southern roots to
>succeed up North is unfair and ahistorical. Wilson's Presbyterianism (the
>Scots were still Celts last time I checked) remained one of the principal
>sources of his moral and intellectual orientation throughout his lifetime.
>By the bye, Wilson's ambassador to the Court of St. James during the war
>was Walter Hines Page, a good, old North Carolina intellectual who never,
>ever lost touch with his Southern ties. Southerners overwhelmingly
>supported America's entry into the war and were well-represented, both
>blacks and whites, among the ranks of the men who served on the Western
>Front.

First, the major prejudices of the day did not extend to "log cabin"
origins.  In fact many politicians all over the country were still getting
themselves elected on the basis of such "claimed" origins--to suggest they
were just like the rest of the little people.  The prejudices against
southerners often were directed at those whose ancestors might have
voluntarily fought with Lee against the Union, mostly as supposedly better
educated officers, and whose descendants might be born in something
resembling antebellum mansions.  Even in the 1940's my mother when she was
in the U.S. armed forces--and many of her relatives and friends learned to
drop the drawl and most known "southernisms" and sound--in attitude--as well
as speech behavior--like "northerners" if they wanted to get ahead.
>
>>However, complicating this, was although many upper crust English and
>>Americans saw eye to eye on concepts of "manifest destiny" and
>>"racial/social Darwinism" (if you win a war it must be because you are a
>>superior evolution), and language and essentials of much culture, and
>trade,
>>there still was the small matter of which of the two was to be regarded
>as
>>the top dog.  The U.S. actually almost went to war against England over
>the
>>British Guyana-Venezuela boundary.  It was a very near thing.  This along
>>with the Spanish American war did indeed cause Europe to think about the
>>potential of the U.S.--and the potential threat to their own goals of
>world
>>domination.  All this is well documented in Barbara Tuchman's book, _The
>>Proud Tower_.
>
>Again, much of this is taken out of context and is ahistorical. The
>Spanish-American War occured in 1898, almost 20 years before America'
>entry into the First World War. American Progressives of every stripe, had
>
>Oh really?  First of all her book _The Proud Tower_, is subtitled, _A
Portrait of the World before the War 1890-1914_.  Then she states in her own
foreword (unabridged sentence):  "This book is an attempt to discover the
quality of the world from which the Great War came."  Now, since 1890
definitely is included in her book and definitely preceded both the
Venezuelan incident (1895-6) and the Spanish-American War (1898), it seems
to me that Barbara Tuchman herself did not consider these incidents
"ahistorical" to World War I.

Let's see, about half way through her book, under the section, "The Steady
Drummer" she begins this section of what she considered important events
leading to World War I  with the Czar's manifesto proposal to end the arms
race of that day, manifesto dated August 29, 1898.  Here's a completely
unabridged several sentences of what she had to say was one of the incidents
of concern to Europeans that might have led to this manifesto.  (page 268,
paperback version, Barbara Tuchman's _The Proud Tower_.)

"Many peace advocates considered it a response to the Spanish-American War,
which seemed to them a prelude to world disaster.  Many Europeans were
convinced by the taking of the Philippines of the necessity of curbing
American expansion.  Americans themselves were not averse to the thought
that the Czar had been prompted by their victory over Spain.  Speaking for
the anti-imperialists, Godkin sadly noted that the 'splendid summons' came
at a time when the United States was more deeply committed to 'the military
spirit and idea of forcible conquest' than ever before in her history."
(Edwin Godkin was the editor and publisher of "Nation" magazine at the time.)

On the subject of the Venezuelan dispute in 1895, here are some more
unabridged sentences, even paragraphs:  (From the first section, "the
Patricians" pages 34-36)

"As a nation, Britain in 1895 had an air of careless supremacy which galled
her neighbors.  The attitude, called 'splendid isolation' was both a state
of mind and a fact.  Britain did not worry seriously about potential
enemies, felt no need of allies, and had no friends.  In a world in which
other national energies were burstin old limits, this happy condition gave
no great promise of permanence.  On July 20, when Salisbury's government was
less than a month old, it was suddenly and surprisingly challenged from an
unexpected quarter, the United States.  The affair concerned a long-disputed
frontier between British Guiana and Venezuela.  Claiming that the British
were expanding territorially at their expense in violation of the Monroe
Doctrine, the Venezuelans had been goading the United States to open that
famous umbrella and insist on arbitration.  Although the American president,
Grover Cleveland, was a man of ordinarily sound judgement and common sense,
his countrymen were in a mood of swelling self-assertion and, as Rudyard
Kipling pointed out for purposes of venting chauvinistic sentiment, France
had Germany, Britain had Russia, and America had Britain, the only feasible
country, 'for the American public speaker to trample upon.'  On July 20,
Cleveland's Secretary of State, Richard Olney, delivered a Note to Great
Britain stating that disregard of the Monroe Doctrine would be 'deemed an
act of unfriendliness toward the United States,' whom he described in terms
of not very veiled belligerence as 'master of the situation and practically
invulnerable against any and all comers.'
        This was truly astonishing language for diplomatic usage; but it was
deliberately provocative on Olney's part, because as he said, 'in English
eyes the United States was then so completely a negligible quantity,' that
he felt 'only words the equivalent of blows would be effective.'  Upon Lord
Salisbury who was acting as his own Foreign Secretary they failed of effect.
He was no more disposed to respond to this kind of prodding than he would
have been if his tailor had suddenly challenged him to a duel.  Foreign
policy had been his metier for twenty years. He had been at the Congress of
Berlin with Disraeli in 1878 and had maneuvered through all the twists and
turns of that perennial entanement, the Eastern Question.  His method was
not that of Lord Palmerston, whom the Prince of Wales admired because he,
'knew his own mind and put down his foot.'  Issues in foreign affairs were
no longer as forthright as in the days of Lord Palmerston's flourishing, and
Lord Salisbury sought no dramatic successes in their conduct.  The victories
of diplomacy, he said, were won by 'a series of microscopic advantages; a
judicious suggestion here, an opportune civility there, a wise concession at
one moment and a farsighted persistence at another; of sleepless tact,
immovable calmness and patience that no folly, no provocation, no blunder
can shake.'  But he regarded these refinements as wasted on a democracy like
the United States, just as he regarded the vote as too good for the working
class.  He simply let Olney's note go unanswered for four months.
        When he finally replied on November 26 it was to remark coldly that,
'the disputed frontier of Venezuela has nothing to do with any of the
questions dealt with by President Monroe,' and to refuse flatly to arbitrate
'the frontier of a British possession which belonged to the Throne of
England before the Republic of Venezuela came into existence.'  He did not
even bother to obey diplomacy's primary rule: leave room for negotiation.
The rebuff was too much even for Cleveland.  In a Message to Congress on
December 17 he announced that after an American Committee of Inquiry had
investigated and established a boundary line, any British extension over the
line would be regarded as 'wilful aggression' upon the rights and interests
of the United States.  Cleveland became a hero; a tornado of jingoism swept
the country; 'WAR IF NECESSARY,' proclaimed the New York "Sun."  The word
'war' was soon being used as recklessly as if it concerned an expedition
against the Iroquois or the Barbary pirates.
        Britain was amazed, with opinion being divided according to party.
The Liberals were mortified at Lord Salisbury's haughty tone, the Tories
angered at American presumption.  'No Englishman with imperial instincts,'
wrote the Tory journalist and novelist Morley Roberts in the inevitable
letter to the "Times," 'can look with anything but contempt on the Monroe
Doctrine.  The English and not the inhabitants of the United States are the
greatest power in the two Americas; and no dog of a Republic can open its
mouth to bark without our good leave.'  If the tone was overdone, the
outrage was real.  Although the absurdity of the issue was recognized on
both sides of the Atlantic, belligerence surged and blood boiled.
Aggressiveness born of power and prosperity was near the surface.  The
quarrel was becoming increasingly difficult to terminate when happily a
third force caused a distraction."

The distraction was Kaiser Wilhelm's meddling in the English-Boer dispute in
South Africa, during which he sent a telegram displaying such animosity
toward the English one can only wonder if this was the model for the later
Zimmerman telegram.  For ordinarily bright people, the Germans can be such
slow learners some times...  Since the German activities did help the
situation develop into a real war, unlike the Venezuelan situation, after
that, the U.S. probably seemed to the English like the lesser of two evils
to have as an ally, much as the English would later appear to us in contrast
to the mutual other evil--the Germans.

Now, Ms. Tuchman doesn't list a whole lot of military events in her book as
significant to the development of World War I, and the attitudes of the
English, and others, to the Americans at that time.  Why do think she would
have included _these_ incidents, if she did not consider them significant?
especially since she deliberately claims to be relating them to the
development of the pattern of alliances in the war itself. She certainly had
a lot of choices she could have made, but did not.


Perhaps someone else in the group would like to obtain and read completely
Ms. Tuchman's book and venture an opinion or two.

By the way, she mentions that after the Spanish-American War the
"anti-imperialists" took over in the next elections.  It was that group
Wilson and Churchill ultimately had to confront.  So, sorry, Sam, I still
can't agree with you on this thread, yet.

Respectfully,


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

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

Eva Balogh wrote in response to my observation of a lack of interest in the
Hungarian media of the meeting between the Hungarian government and a
group of successful expatriate Hungarians:

>        There is apparently an easy explanation. According to my private
>source (someone who was present) Hungarian journalists don't like meetings
>like this: "boring," they say. Therefore, very few newspapers sent out
>reporters. Moreover, the Magyar Narancs people poked their heads in for a
>little while and left in a great hurry. Duna TV was there, but I am not even
>sure whether MTV made an appearance or not.

I agree that the quality of reporting in many cases, or may be in most
cases, is poor in the Hungarian media, but I don't think this explains the
hostile tone of the "Magyar Narancs".  Somebody just told me, that the
"Magyar Forum" also reported the event in a sarcastic manner.  So the
meeting was ridiculed, ignored from left, right, centre.  A similar
attitude can be observed against the World Federation of Hungarians. They
are also being attacked from each directions. [BTW, some WFH leaders
falsely interpret this as an indication that they are on the right track.]

I believe the problem is caused by prejudice and generalization. The name
Habsburg is enough to turn off the Magyar Narancs's interest, and the
Magyar Forum is automatically against it, if Soros is there. This
narrow-mindedness is not unique to the Hungarian media. There is evidence
of it everywhere, even here in the Internet.

This is unfortunate. There is much the diaspora could help, especially
the second and third-generation Hungarians, people like Cecilia, with their
perfect English and good connections. But many off them are turned off by
the unfriendly and sometimes rude reception they get.

Barna Bozoki

At 20:47 14/02/96 -0800, Celia Fa'bos-Becker wrote:
>Dear Eva;
>
>At 01:06 PM 2/14/96 +0100, you wrote:
>>There was a discussion about the sumerian link
>>a while back. It was far from proven, was
>>the conclusion, if I remember correctly.
>
>In Stephen Sisa's book that is the claim, he makes.

I just got Sisa's book, *The Spirit of Hungary* and am in the process of
reading it now. Here is what he says about the proposed Hungarian-Sumerian link
:

"The Finno-Ugrian(-Turkic) theory was quasi sanctioned by the state from the
middle of the 19th. century to recent times. After World War II, however,
this concept was challenged by a new coalition of scholars and orientalists.
The Finno-Ugrian theory, they argue, is *based on linguistics alone,*
without support in anthropology, archeology or written records.

"The orientalists point, instead, to apparent evidence that the cradle of
the Magyars and their language lay not in the Ural region, but in an area of
*Central-Asia,* earlier known as the *Turanian Plain.* Now known as Soviet
Turkestan, this area stretches from the Caspian Sea eastward to Lake
Balchas. Ancient chronicles called this huge area *Scythia.*. . . .

"Today, students of Far-Eastern history believe that the Magyars were
strongly exposed to *Sumerian culture* as well since proto-Sumerians too,
had inhabited the Turanian Plain until about 3000 B.C. This people then
migrated to Mesopotamia, where they built a brilliant civilization, whose
most important achievement was the invention of writing.

"By 1950 B.C. the Sumerian empire was gone, but their *cunei form writings*
endured on the tablets they had used. Famous linguists of the 19th century,
including Henry C. Rawlinson, Jules Oppert, Eduard Sayous and Francois
Lenormant soon found that knowledge of the Ural-Altaic languages -
particularly Magyar - can greatly facilitate the deciphering of Sumerian
writings. Cunei form writing was used by the Hungarians long before their
arrival in the Carpathian Basin, and afterwards as well.

"The similarity of the two languages strongly inspired Hungarian
orientalists to seek a deeper *Sumerian-Hungarian connection.* To the
present day, however, no indisputable and decisive proof has yet emerged."

That doesn't exactly seem like a wholehearted endorsement of the theory,
although he seems impressed by the findings of the linguists he refers to above
.

>never looked at the proceedings of the Society of Sumerologists--to which
>most of the real archeologists and scholars on the subject belong, for 1975,
>or Badiny et al's work incorporating a study by 5 multi-national researchers
>and the Society's response.

There is another theory which Sisa goes into some detail about, and I find
it rather persuasive. He continues further on:

"Highly interesting in the quest for the ancient Hungarian homeland have
been recent efforts to study the Magyar-Uygur connection. The Uygurs are a
people with a Caucasian appearance in the Xinjiang province of China. This
region still reflects its ancient role as a meeting place of Chinese
civilization and Central Asia's nomadic peoples. Here, members of a dozen
ethnic groups outnumber the nationally predominant Han Chinese. The largest
among them are the Uygurs, 7 million strong, who still hold fast to their
Turkic language.

"The Uygurs inhabit the Tarim Basin and a chain of oases between the
forbidding Taklamakan and Gobi deserts. Traversing the region is a 4,000
mile trade route used by caravans traveling from China to the shores of the
Mediterranean. "Taklamakan" in the folklore of the Uygurs means "once you
get in, you can never get out.". . . .At the Uygurs' northern border
stretches the Dzungarian Basin, a steppe-like region where dry grain farming
is practiced.

"The very name *Dzungaria* has a striking similarity to *Hungaria,* the
Latin word for Hungary, a word still used in poetic terms in Hungary today.
Northeast of Dzungaria lies the *Altai Mountain Range,* a name used by
linguists in defining the *Ural-Altaic* language group to which Magyar also
belongs. . . .

"It was not until the 1980's that Hungarian orientalists could finally
overcome natural and political barriers to finally take a good look at the
Uygurs. They returned impressed by what they had seen, and one after the
other gave glowing accounts, documented by audio-visual presentations, of
the similarities in facial features, music and folk arts. In addition,
reports mention that the Uygurs have an unwritten tradition about their
kinship with the Magyars whom they call "vingirs," and who had left many
centuries earlier, finally emerging as "conquerors" in Europe."

Again, he concludes this discussion by saying that it would be premature to
draw definite conclusions from all this until further anthropological,
archeological, and linguistic research is done.

For those interested in reading more about the Uygurs and the region of
Xinjiang, there is an in-depth article in the latest issue of *National
Geographic,* March 1996, with much material on the Uygurs, and especially
fascinating archeological material, including photographs of several of the
mummies which have been found preserved in the sand of the Taklimakan
Desert, including a man with a sun-ray symbol painted on his temple.
Glancing through the written material, I didn't notice any mention of
putative links with the Magyars, but there are many references to possible
kinships with western peoples.

Thought this might be of interest.

Yours,

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Dear Sam;

At 09:56 AM 2/15/96 -0500, you wrote:

>In article >, Tony and Celia
>Becker > writes:
>
>>, the final and biggest straw in the mess was the Germans own
>>ham-handedness in its dealings with the U.S..  They were just so
>blatantly
>>threatening.  Contrast the battle for the press for instance.  The
>English
>>controlled the overseas cables for news information and thus, from a
>>distance, gave all the American media news that favored England.  All
>they
>>had to do was be selective in a service they already provided, and to
>which
>>American media had become accustomed.  The Germans sent agents and tried
>to
>>openly bribe, and sometimes bully, reporters and editors to print items
>>favorable to Germany.
>
>The United States already had its own established worldwide print media,
>one far larger and, in many ways, far more sophisticated than anything the
>British, the French or the Germans possessed at the time of the First
>World War. You're sailing out over the edge of conspiracy theory here, the
>last refuge of those for whom the historical facts simply will not say
>what they want them to say.

Sorry, Sam, but I had an awful lot of time to read and reread with the
limitations of said knee.  Here's the exact exerpt from one of the books I
was reading.  By the way, this is a textbook in one of two most prestigious
junior college in California, one which regularly sends its transferees to
Berkeley, Stanford, and the East Coast Ivy League.

>From _Mass Media Issues_, edited by George Rodman, Brooklyn College, City
University of New York, published by Science Research Associates, 1984.
Chapter 8, "International Propaganda," "Some Trends in International
Propaganda," reprint of article by W. Phillips Davison that first appeared
in "The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,"
November, 1971. Subsection: "Twentieth Century Propaganda" (the first three
of the four paragraphs about World War I--unabridged.)

        "Bribery of the press continued to occur during the First World War.
The Committee on Public Information, which conducted the worldwide
propaganda of the United States, issued uniform instructions to its agents
not to spend money on bribing or subsidizing newspapers and other
information media; but the committee's files show that this rule was not
strictly enforced, and sometimes the committee gave specific permission to
break its own rules.  It is probable that all major powers spent substantial
sums to influence the press in neutral countries, although specifics are
difficult to document.
        In any case, means other than outright bribery were found effective
in influencing the content of the press during World War I.  These included
not only carefully constructed hand-outs, but also the provision of
transportation and other services--for instance, office space--to
journalists, as well as parties, conducted tours and special "news scoops."
The British arranged for neutral newspapermen to interview important public
figures, knowing that many stories in the neutral press would find their way
behind enemy lines.  George Creel, who directed American propaganda,
reported that one of the most effective methods of the Committee on Public
Information was to bring delegations of foreign newsmen to the United States
so that they could make personal observations about American strength and
morale.  'These trips were of incalculable value in our foreign educational
work...'  A German embassy official, who came to Washington as a
correspondent of a Berlin Newspaper just before the war broke out, claims
that he was able to influence the publisher of "The New York Sun" to give
more favorable treatment to Germany by promising preferential status for the
"Sun's" Berlin correspondent and favorable access to the cable that Germany
planned to lay to the United States.  The German cable did not materialize
and British control over major channels of communication from Europe to the
United States proved important in insuring that the American press
predominantly carried news that favored the Allies."

Although we had a well developed national media, and propaganda
orchestration, it seems to have run into some limits at our border.  The war
was largely in Europe, and the Brits seem to have had the international
communications from that point under control, not us.  If you would care to
further dispute Prof. Davison's work, or Professor Rodman's editing, I
suggest you locate them and take this issue up with them--and tell them what
you think of _their_ "lack of substantiated historical fact."

You see, Sam, to be able to work on a master's degree in International
Public Relations, I first had to take some basic "mass communications"
courses--which included materials on a lot of the history of mass
communications, and propaganda. I also kept all the books. How many courses
have you taken on this subject?  Hmmm?

>
>> Then there was the stupidity of the Zimmerman
>>telegram and the move to make Mexico an ally of Germany right after the
>>"terror" of Pancho Villa.  First Mexico, despite the U.S. inability to
>>capture Villa, was to any moderately intelligent person, absolutely
>nothing
>>in comparison with the U.S., but the imagined threat of lots of Villas
>>disrupting the entire U.S. southwest... The German activities with
>>Mexico can only be described as sheer lunacy, and the best example ever
>>contrived by man as to how _not_ to conduct psychological warfare and win
>>friends.
>>
>
>Typical Prussian arrogance, perhaps, but not lunacy. And the threat from
>Mexico was real. Pershing spent years chasing Villa around the border
>because the Mexican bandido had crossed into Arizona and was burning
>American towns and looting and killing American citizens.
>
>>Finally, the Germans stupidly did not see the set up of the Lusitania.
>>Churchill and some Americans actually hoped the Germans would sink it.
>>There were arms, but mostly ammunition aboard--in direct violation of
>U.S.
>>declared neutrality and certain related treaties.  These facts have been
>>repeated in several recent film documentaries prepared by the English
>>themselves that have appeared on PBS, A&E, etc..--the generally
>considered
>>professional educational television networks.  However, the Germans had a
>>choice.  They could have considered the psychological consequences, and
>the
>>fact that the load of arms and munition was not well known.  They chose
>to
>>act on the intelligence of the illegal arms and munitions alone.  Very
>>stupid for supposedly bright people.
>
>Once again, not stupidity, but typical Prussian arrogance. The same
>arrogance, by the way, that led the Kriegsmarine to resume unrestricted
>submarine warfare off the U.S. coast against U.S.-registered shipping
>despite clear warnings from the German Foreign Ministry that this would
>draw the U.S. into the war. The same arrogance that led the Germans to
>casually commit atrocities against civilians in Belgium in front of
>American newspaper reporters, then wonder why everyone in the neutral
>countries were so upset what they'd done.
>>
>>Basically the U.S. entered the war first surreptiously, but on the
>strength
>>of believed cultural affinities (beliefs held by most decision makers,
>media
>>moguls, etc.), but finally full bore because England was in the light of
>all
>>the incidents, the lesser of two evils.  The smart thing would have been
>to
>>stay out of the whole mess in every way, entirely, but the majority of
>>decision makers were on average no smarter than the majority of people
>>anywhere.  We seldom make far-sighted geniuses either high ranking
>>government officials or media moguls.
>
>No doubt, after witnessing Germany's conduct of the war, most Americans
>did see a cultural affinity between themselves and Britain and Fran
>
Hmmm. I presume there was some other comment here, but it didn't make it
into my computer, or else into the network.  Gee Sam, you really have to
watch that temper, it's burning up more things than my husband's errant
amateur radio antennas.  I'd really hate to have to get a _third_ controller
card or hard-drive in less than six months... ;-)

Sincerely,

Cecilia Fa'bos-Becker
San Jose, CA, USA




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

Dear Sam;

At 10:08 AM 2/15/96 -0500, you wrote:

>In article >, Tony and Celia
>Becker > writes:
>
>>Anyone else willing to jump into what will soon be a quicksand discussion
>>(especially if Sam notices us--boy is he going to laugh!)
>
>Excuse me, Mrs. Fa'bos-Becker? I'm sorry, I was casting the tea leaves and
>I didn't hear what you said.
>Sam Stowe
>
Oooo.  I like that.  Should you ever visit this way, I'll trade you a tarot
or I-Ching reading for a tea leaves casting.  ;-)

Cecilia
San Jose, CA, USA

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

>=20
> ------------------------------
>=20
> Date:    Wed, 14 Feb 1996 18:53:01 -0800
> From:    Tony and Celia Becker >
> Subject: Re: The burden's on the Szalaiek
>=20
> Dear friends;
>=20
> At 07:33 PM 2/14/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Date:    Tue, 13 Feb 1996 12:53:12 -0500
> >> From:    Joe Szalai >
> >> Subject: Re: The burden's on Szalai
> >>
> >>
> >> In, 'The Counter-Revolution of Science',  Friedrich Von Hayek states t=
hat
> >> the best way to describe the difference between the natural and the so=
cial
> >> sciences is to call the former 'objective' and the latter 'subjective'=

In a previous post Balogh =C9va mentioned the necessity of Bokros'=20
restrictive policies.  It is quite easy to declare that we need restrictive=
=20
policies -- or policies that promote growth (I think Kornai J=E1nos argued=
=20
for the latter in 1993 - Andr=E1s can correct me, I got the information=20
second-hand).  I think, though, Bokros' policies need to be considered=20
more closely.

These policies are actually textbook Keynesian policies.  According to
Keynesian theory, to reduce trade imbalances, government should apply=20
restrictive measures (reduce real income, government spending, increase=20
taxation).  This is because the quantity of imports depends on income,=20
while exports depend on other countries' incomes.  Bokros has applied all=
=20
three of the above-mentioned restrictive meaures, and also devalued the=20
forint (using a crawling peg) and applying new tariffs.

These measures have had a positive impact on the balance of trade,=20
though it has created an imbalance in the balance of payments (current and=
=20
capital accounts) which is reflected in the increase in the foreign=20
reserves.

With regard to the internal debt, the central bank has been doing all=20
it can to reduce the interest rate, since much of the budget spending=20
goes to interest payments on government debt. The problem with this is=20
that the low interest rate (along with the currency devaluations) fuels=20
inflation.  The central bank argues that the reason they are able to=20
reduce the interest rate is because the inflation rate has been=20
dropping since September, and thus they are only lowering the nominal=20
interest and not the real interest rate.  The real interest rate,=20
however, is not dependent on past inflation but expected inflation, and=20
I do not think there are expectations for further decreases in=20
inflation.  Further, central banks normally are more careful about=20
lowering the interest rate than the Hungarian central bank has been=20
recently.

Keeping these things in mind, some of the western reaction is, I think=20
overly positive.  Not long ago the French paper *Le Figaro* declared=20
that Horn was a "Thatcher of Hungary".  It is true that the Horn=20
government has done some things that I support - such as trying to cut=20
government spending.  But the reason behind these cuts are not that=20
Bokros and company wish to create a smaller, more efficient=20
government.  Their concern is with the budget deficit, the public and=20
foreign debt, trade balance, etc.  As far as I can see, these people are=20
purely technocrats.  The latest tax fiasco is evidence of this.

My main problem against these policies, though, is not that they are=20
put into place by technocrats.  My main problem is that they are based=20
on Keynesian principles, which I cannot accept.  I don't want to bore=20
people with a criticism of Keynes and Keynesianism.  All I wish to do is=20
alert people to the fact that the questions involved in the Bokros=20
plan are not as simple as many might think, and many commentators=20
(pro and con) would have you believe.

Andr=E1s, if you have any comment on the above, I would appreciate=20
hearing your perspective.

jim.

\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_=20

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=20
can live or die.
-Soren Kierkegaard

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

=20