[sorry that a previous posting was erroneously sent]

George (alias Gyorgy) Lazar exudes the exact same rigid
AND bankrupt policies that were characteristic to communist
Prime Ministers (e.g. by the name of Gyorgy Lazar, Sr.)

They just don't get it that debt-reconstruction must be
initiated by Hungary, not by some (nonexistent) "benevolent
foreign government and/or bank". Indeed, it is their "argument"
that Hungary is disadvantaged over Poland because her debts were
owned by select few government central banks, with which Hungary
would have a difficult time to negotiate with, assumes that debt
reduction (just as everything else) comes from "Uncle Sams".

Let me try again, showing how Hungary is better off with her
creditors, still Hungarians are much worse off with their
self-interest, compared e.g. to the Polish.

If you go bankrupt with a huge debt owed to a couple of "select"
creditors (such as a mortgage on your house, another on
your fancy car) you are in a bad shape -- as your bank will
simply foreclose your house and the other will reposses your
dream car. You lost all your belongings in a hurry.

You are in a much better shape if you, for instance, owe the
same grand total distributed to a zillion small lenders -- and
when you are unable to meet debt repayments you DON'T
declare bankruptcy, but let your lenders know that "sorry,
you are going to miss a couple of payments".  Those whom
you don't notify, will also quickly discover your "debt
restructuring".  Those whom you pay a token fraction of
your dues will feel lucky that they got anything and will
not press you into bankruptcy -- because in that case they
get even less (nothing at all) and (as someone quoted the
good old wisdom) "half a loaf is better than nothing".

Hungary is in the second category and objectively is much
better off than Poland was.

Hungary's problem is that she cannot act in her "self-interest"
since her "self" (sense of identity) has been carefully and
systematically destroyed by communist oppresion first
and now by the liberal "goebbelsque" media that maliciously
frames self-interest of a nation (patriotism) with "far right"
ideology, even denies the right of the concept of "nation"
to exist.

Lazars (Sr. or Jr., Gyorgy or George) do not speak in the
interest of the small but great Hungarian Nation -- indeed
they would like to see her currency ruined by hyper-
inflation and see to it that Hungarians end up toiling as lowly
servants to the World.

The Polish had the political will to restructure their debt,
and once bankrupt Poland today boasts the FOURTH
highest ratio of economic growth in the World (US News
and World Report).

"George-Hungarians" bellyache about sluggish Hungarian
economic growth (and enlist ridiculous fake reasons for
the stall; have to be told that "it is the national debt, stupid!")
 -- and even then they try to futher weaken the feeble political
will of Hungary to actually do something in her self interest.

Those who acquired their political power by serving the
efforts of the IMF and foreign banks to entrap small countries
in debt, cannot and will not speak for debt reduction:  their
"masters" will not let them do so (their common interest is to
milk the cash-cow dry).  And those who would like to buy up
Hungary on the cheap are motivated by their self-interest when
(with crocodile-tears in their eyes) they drive Hungarian economy
into the ground.

Eva Balogh writes

> it is very
> possible that the American government received quite a bit of money through
> the so-called sin tax.

that does not affect the financial cost of the campaign. it merely
means that smokers themselves were the source of the funds.

d.a.

Greg Grose writes:
> Eva Balogh writes
> > it is very possible that the American government received quite a bit of
 money
> > through the so-called sin tax.
>
> With respect, this is a myth.  Smoking costs the federal government, by
> way of health care costs, far more than cigarette taxes bring in.
With respect Greg, *this* is a myth. Smokers die earlier which saves
significant amounts on Social Security. Also, their medical care is actually
cheaper, because they are less exposed to the most expensive old-age
diseases (having died earlier, statistically). To be old and frail is more
expensive than to die of lung cancer relatively young, and there are also
hidden costs to society (such as the traffic accidents caused by elderly
drivers, the biggest risk group after teenagers) which are eliminated by
earlier death. There is a net budgetary gain even without the sin taxes.

Andra1s Kornai

Andra1s Kornai writes:
[myth vs myth deleted]

Would you go so far as to claim that cigarette taxes cover all the social
costs of smoking?


--Greg

Greg writes in response to Eva Durant:

> > I wouldn't listen to any (secret?) security services. They need
> > malicious rumours to stay in business. What do you need them for
> > Joe Pannon?

> Brilliant logic.  Security services are capable of lying, thus
> incapable of assasination.

> --Greg
Obvious Greg, nobody was ever killed by a lier, only by honest folks.
Regards,Jeliko.

Eva Durant writes:
> Healthy food is EXPENSIVE! Such as fresh fruit + veg, lean meat!!
> Needs time to be bought and prepared! Must be something to do
> with it, surely! 

Hmmm. Could be grown also. Now let me see that involves work......
Jeliko.

Andra1s Kornai writes:

>There is a net budgetary gain even without the sin taxes.

Never mind my previous post--I didn't read the above carefully
enough.

--Greg

Pellio,

In your argument you are discounting the fact that if you have few
creditors than you can "make a deal" with those few creditors, and
"forget" or delay payments on your debt to allow you economic growth.
This is exactly what happened in poland.

However, if you have small creditors, and a lot of them it is a very
different game.  Yes you can forget paying your payments, hoever the
cosequences are serious.  First, you cannot, or at least it is extremely
difficult to make a deal with all those creditors.  If you don;t pay your
credit rating will dive, therefore future credits (esential fro both
poland and Hungary, without regards to how much they owe currently) will be
outrageously expensive, if provided at all.  In other words, yes Hungary
could forget about her debts, but it would cut off all international
assistance instatantly, and plus foreig investment in the coutry would
decrease dramatically.  Hungary cannot achieve growth, and cannot
continue with economic reforms and democratization without foreign help.

One, in this situation has to weight which alternative is better.  Not
owing a cent but scrapping almost all international assistance, or having
an enourmous debt, yet have good credit rating respect, and by far the
largest foreign capital inflows into the region  Nobody says it is an
easy decision; choose between two bad alternatives :((

I opt for the second one, because I believe that without outside
assistence these democracies will not make it into the EU and NATO, and
become an integral part of the West.

Zoli )

The following is from a leaflet distributed by (H A C A)-

The Hungarian American Cultural Association (H A C A)
is a non-profit organization established in April 1994
to sponsor and promote cultural events that are of great
interest to the Hungarian American community throughout
the U.S. Donationa made to HACA are tax deductible for
federal tax purposes, the organization is fully compliant
with IRS's Section 501(c)(3) requirements.
If you want to support and promote cultural events that
demonstrate the artistic merits of Hungarians and
Hungarian Americans, you should join HACA .
Membership dues are $50 per year per person or $75 per year
per family. You will recive discounted admission fees to a
rich variety of Hungarian American cultural events -
in the U.S. and in Hungary .

The legal address is :

Hungarian American Cultural Association
14512 High Medow Way
North Potomac, MD 20878

Phone (301)-428-4426
FAX   (301)-428-9443

> ------------------------------------------------------------
Since I am not affiliated with HACA, you might want to call them
directly for any further information you need .
( yesterday's quite excellent recital by Vilmos Szabadi
  at the Hungarian Embassy was organized by HACA  )

I have received numerous questions regarding the folk dance ensembles I
have been posting about. Unfortunately, I am not affiliated with these
groups in any other way than helping them to reach a broader audience
via postings on  newsgroups. For more information on the Tisza Ensemble,
please contact Kovacs Arpad by email -  ,
or call Kati Lamon (301) 929-0120. The following lines are from Arpad -

Tisza Ensemble brings you the traditions of Hungarian folk dance and
music as it has to audiences throughout the eastern United States since
1982.  Tisza also sponsors performances and workshops by outstanding
musicians and dancers from Hungary.  The leaders of Tisza spent a year
in Hungary studying and performing with the award-winning Nyirseg Ensemble
and researching dance and music in villages where the folk arts are still
alive.  Other members of Tisza have traveled to Hungary to study and to
acquire the colorful costumes and unique musical instruments of each
region.

Tisza's performances have included shows at the Kennedy Center (D.C.),
the National Theater, the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian Museum of
American History, and the Hungarian Embassy, as well as a 1985 tour to
Hungary.

Dance house, dance teaching on the second Saturday of each month,
in College Park, MD .

Many of the americans asked me the question: who are the origins of the
hungarians. Although I learned the hungarian history, over the years
the Country changed and I assume history changed with it.

So, if you know the hungarian history, please e-mail me the story.
Also a question about the hungarian language comes up. Is it related to
any other language?

Thanks for reply's!!

A few more words about life expectancy, healthy life style, and antismoking
campaign.

For Greg: Of course, "Smoking costs the federal government, by way of health
care costs, far more than cigarette taxes bring in." This is not what I meant
but that an antismoking campaign wouldn't be as expensive as expensive as
David feared plus taxation on cigarettes would mean additional revenue.
Moreover, in the long run they would save money on health care.

For Eva: I can't believe my eyes! In 1995 somebody asks that "How do you know
what is the LONG TERM benefit of an anti-smoke campaign?" Moreover, Eva
Durant thinks only in terms of money when she says: "I am sure it saves a LOT
OF MONEY on less health expenditure and lost working hours/sick benefits."
What about saving LIVES? That somehow didn't occur to you. You really think
that the U.S. government initiated an antismoking campaign for simply saving
MONEY for the capitalists and for the government? This is unreal! There is a
direct correlation between lung cancer and smoking, and believe me if someone
has lung cancer he doesn't only miss a few hours of work and he will not draw
sick benefits for long!

And, by the way, I am anything but paranoid.

Eva Balogh

I found a few statistics which may interest readers of the list concerning
eating habits, life expectancy, death rate, causes of death, and so on and so
forth. I am afraid my source is a bit dated: it is Gyo2rgy Balo1 and Iva1n
Lipovecz, eds., *Te1nyek--Ko2nyvek: Magyar e1s nemzetko2zi almanach,*
Budapest, 1987. However, it shows trends between 1950 and 1986. Let's start
with meat (chicken and fish included) consumption in kilograms. While in 1950
per person consumption was 34.9 kg. per year, in 1970 it was 60.4; in 1980 it
was 73.8; and in 1986 it was 80.3. Number of eggs: in 1950 only 85; in 1986
318. Lard in 1950: 14.4 kg; in 1986: 22.3 kg. Cooking oil: 1.8 kg in 1950 and
5.6 in 1986. Sugar in 1950: 16.3 kg; in 1986 35.4 kg. Vegetables: in 1960
84.1 kg; in 1986 75.0 kg (so actually consumption of vegetables declined with
the increase of meat consumption). Hard liquor in 1950 1.5 liters; in 1986
10.5 liters; wine in 1950: 33 liters; in 1986: 23.3 liters (that is, wine
drinking declined). Beer consumption, on the other hand, soared: 1950: 8.3
liters; in 1986: 99.4 liters! Consumption of tobacco: in 1950 1.1 kg; in
1980: 2.4 kg and in 1986: 2.2 kg. I assume a great deal of this growth comes
from women who began smoking in the 1950s. And finally alcohol consumption
almost doubled between 1960 and 1983. Not surprisingly the number of cases of
death from cirrhosis of the liver also increased rather dramatically.
Numbers/100,000 inhabitants in 1960: 8.9; and in 1982: 32.2. Unfortunately, I
don't have separate statistics for lung cancer but deaths from cancer in
general have increased dramatically since 1950: 142 per 100,000 inhabitans to
267.4 in 1985. When it comes to deaths caused by heart diseases in 1950 there
were 147 deaths per 100,000 while in 1972 there were 375.3 and in 1985 there
were 323.4.

Eva Balogh

On Sat, 10 Dec 1994 18:20:33 -0500 > said:
>And, by the way, I am anything but paranoid.
>
>Eva Balogh

--Nothing wrong with being paranoid.  I have been for years and managed
to make a good living out of it.  As a card-carrying paranoid, I must
rise to the defense of paranoia.  Paranoia is good.  Beats the alternative.

Charles

On Fri, 9 Dec 1994 09:43:21 +0000 Eva Durant said:
>I can't comment as I've never even heard of such an
>American left.

--Well, now you have.  They are dated, miserable, and not
very effective.

 All I know is, that the conservatives'
>favourit democratic left wants to do bxxall different from them,
> like your beautiful Blair.

--He's your Blair.  I asked if I could join the current Labour Party,
because Blair sounds like a moderate Republican, but I was told I
would have to queue up.

 That's why you happily tolerate
>them, no threat of change in your cosy setup, where you are
>doing very well ('cause God loves you and you are clever)

--I wish it were cosy, and I'm not doing all that well, and God
doesn't love me.  I am clever, however, and it was good of you
to notice.  I think that I'm pretty cute, too, but nobody else
seems to think so.

>and sod everyone else on Earth.

--Well, Red Eva, I don't think that.  Just sod some of them.

  For your God's sake, you cannot
>leave it to the chaos of the market, you end up with wars
>and the ultimate Big Bang! And in this Marx is as right as ever.

--Actually, wars are not good for the market.  Other than arms
dealers, most capitalists oppose them.

>Your sister on Earth.

--I would be proud to claim you as a sister.  I admire your fire,
even though I believe you to be among the mistaken.

Charles
>>
>> --You miss the point, Red Eva.  Democracies need a healthy Left.
>> What we have got here is a bunch of intellectuals who talk to each
>> other in their own language about a vision of society that most
>> Social Democrats, and even the Labour Party, have long since
>> discarded as unworkable and unappealing to working people.  I
>> doubt if many of the American left ever plowed a field, worked
>> in a factory, or tuned an engine.  Their doctrine is an idealistic
>> blend of Classical Marxism and 1960s rhetoric.  It is old-fashioned.
>> It is sterile.  It has no reference to poor people except as they
>> can be used as pawns in a power game.  Our Left has no program
>> other than anti-capitalism, anti-Amerikanism (they spell it with
>> a K), and anti-white, male, heterosexual, religious, etc.
>> rhetoric.  They do not seek an inclusive society, but merely
>> are anti.  They are like the dog chasing the VW bug.  They wouldn't
>> know what to do with it if they caught it.
>>
>> Your brother in Christ,
>>
>> Charles

>Eva Durant writes:
>
>> Exactly. Everything alternative is crank and kook automatically,
>> without a serious consideration.
>
--Not quite.  Newt Gingrich is a kook and a crank, yet some
take him seriously.

Charles

Subject line says it all.  Any help appreciated.

__________________________________________________________________________
Michael Pollak................New York 

     "I'm optimistic because it's intellectually more challenging"
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%