The burden's on Durant
Doepp James
In the last century we have seen the rise and fall of different
ideologies, the two most prominent being facsism and "communism".
Capitalism - of various degrees and colours - has outlived both of
these, despite its faults, real or imagined. The state of the world,
despite what you say, has improved considerably in the last century.
There have been success stories - eg. Japan, Korea, Chile - which have
not been equally matched by failures. In fact, the failures tend to be
countries that have "delinked" themselves from the "world order". (eg.
Cuba - which has proved it can hardly survive without Soviet aid, North
Korea, the ex-Soviet bloc). Even India has recently discovered that it
cannot live in its relatively isolated state.
What it comes down to is this. The burden of proof is on you. We have
seen what the market can do despite the
distortions of ubiquitous government intervention; we have also seen the
failure of the socialist experiments in Central and Eastern Europe.
Why, Eva, did they fail? What kind of specific propositions do you
have to make that could be followed in the next attempt of socialism,
that would 1. avoid the failures of the past 2. be an improvement over
capitalism and 3. not create a system of socialist repression.
I would like to hear your proposals for "the day after the
revolution". Specifically what would have to be done that would
fulfill the above points?
There is also the problem of value that must be solved in creating a
socialist system. How would a socialist state determine how much of
what would be produced, and at what price it would be sold? In the
market system there is a system of prices, which are based on the
subjective evaluation by the buyer and seller. Values, in economics,
are considered subjective. You may, perhaps, agree with Marx (and Adam
Smith and David Ricardo as well) that the value of a product is
determined by the amount of labour that has been invested in it. I
think this theory has been discredited sufficiently since that time.
But supposing your model socialist government did use the labour
theory of value to determine prices. What would happen if people
really didn't want to buy at the price that was deemed appropriate? Or
if they wanted to buy more than was available? What about new
inventions? How could the planning agency decide whether to sponsor a
new invention, and then, how much of it they would produce and at what
price?
The ball is in your court, Eva. Socialism - from hard line East German
to "softie" Yugoslavian - has failed. If anyone wishes to call back
the dead, he better come up with some pretty good reasons why that
system would be better than the present system, and how that system would
not fail like the ones attempted. No use shouting slogans. I want
detailed arguments.
jim.
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_
James D. Doepp
Department of Economic Theory
University of Miskolc
I must find a truth that is true
for me... the idea for which I
can live or die.
-Soren Kierkegaard
\_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_ \_
Joe Szalai
>What it comes down to is this. The burden of proof is on you. We have
>seen what the market can do despite the
>distortions of ubiquitous government intervention;
Sorry to disagree James, but the burden of proof is on you. Why don't you
tell us how an unfettered market, whose first and only interest is to
endlessly create capital, is going to lead to a better society? And better
in what way, and better for whom?
You point to the 'market' success stories rather carelessly.
>There have been success stories - eg. Japan, Korea, Chile - which have
>not been equally matched by failures.
Oh really? How successful were/are Guatemela, El Salvador, Honduras, Haiti,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, Brazil, Bangladesh, Philippines, Sri
Lanka, Thailand, Indonesia, Botswana, Egypt, Gambia, Mali, Zambia, Tanzania,
black South Africa, etc., etc., etc.?
As sure as there are Christian fundamentalists, there are economic
fundamentalists. Of course, there are Marxist fundamentalists, and there
are free market fundamentalists. Both groups are characterized by rigid
adherence to fundamental or basic principles. From your previous posts,
James, I can only conclude that you are a free market fundamentalist.
The wellspring of your economic fundamentalist ideology is, no doubt,
Friedrich August von Hayek's, 1944 text, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek
believed that increased government control would lead both to economic
decline, as state planning replaced the free market, and to the erosion of
personal liberty. His solution was to restore economic growth by cutting
government spending and to get the state out of everything except perhaps
paving roads or guarding borders.
Hayek's theories are great if you believe that we were born to serve the
needs of the market. However, if you believe, as I do, that human,
ecological, environmental, social, and perhaps even spiritual needs, are not
met exclusively by the free market, then Hayek has nothing to offer.
Late last year, I admired your willingness to disclose how little money you
made working as an economics prof in Hungary. Now that I understand that
you're doing missionary work (of an economic kind), everything is starting
to make sense.
So James, are you up to explaining how a free market will take us to
nirvana? I think the onus of proof is on you and not on Durant. After all,
the free market controls most of the world now. Since this is the Hungarian
Discussion Group, maybe you can tell us how the free market has helped
Hungarians. A simple request, really.
Joe Szalai
Eva Durant
> What it comes down to is this. The burden of proof is on you. We have
> seen what the market can do
That's your problem, you cannot see what the market
is incapable doing. You cannot see the unsolvable
problems. And this is your burden you are not capable
facing.
> Why, Eva, did they fail? What kind of specific propositions do you
> have to make that could be followed in the next attempt of socialism,
> that would 1. avoid the failures of the past 2. be an improvement over
> capitalism and 3. not create a system of socialist repression.
>
The main failure (umpteenth time) was, that the first democratic
structures (1917) were destroyed, and consequent revolutions
were meted out from the top, repressing all sponaineous
movement from the bottom, as the stateburocracy became strong.
If the taking over the power-structure happens by a democratic
grassroot way, there will be no role for a centralised
burocracy. People now have the means (literacy, telecommuni-
cation) to control the organisations they organise. And
they aware, how important is that the democratic control
is excercised. They have an example NOT to follow.
It would be an incredible improvement. The first consideration
for production would be genuin need and environmental health.
These can be measured now via democratic and scientific
means. No overproduction. No waste. But plenty enough
for everybody, on a higher standard than now, especially
if you count stuff like free eeducation, help, short/flexible
working hours, free art to create and to consume, etc.
All individuals will have a chance to develop to full
potential.
> I would like to hear your proposals for "the day after the
> revolution". Specifically what would have to be done that would
> fulfill the above points?
>
The way I picture it, people will take over the local
workplaces and public places, and start to run the themselves,
dipping into information networks for any information and
resources. E.g. factories/schools/sporcentres/etc will
be run by the people who work there, and people who are using
the products/facilities. The administration as a job will be
cycled, with those who are particularily good at it/like it having
more responsibilities if the others so deem it fit. But this
is a fancy detail. As the working hours will be much shorter, there
will be plenty of time to organise and participate. so everyone
will be able to do everything they like. Working hours
could be halfed at the moment, if all unemployed had a chance to work
even if all unused capacities were used.
> There is also the problem of value that must be solved in creating a
> socialist system. How would a socialist state determine how much of
> what would be produced, and at what price it would be sold?
The market place is totally useless to decide the real value
of things, not as commodities, but as necessary/unique things.
Think about it.
> are considered subjective. You may, perhaps, agree with Marx (and Adam
> Smith and David Ricardo as well) that the value of a product is
> determined by the amount of labour that has been invested in it. I
In capitalism. Where labour is a commodity. Value has
a different meaning in a socialist system. Can you
think outside an old framework? Try. It will be necessary.
If not socialism, something else. Capitalism is failing.
Even capitalists can see that, on the quiet.
Eva
Eva Durant
> outlasted socialism.
... but we did not have democratic socialism yet.
With your argument you can say feudalism outlasted capitalism
- we had it for thousands of years and bits of it still survive.
> accumulating capital inasmuch as capital is essential for the production of
> most goods.
Well, no. You need people and tools. It happend that way, for
millions of years previously...
> good are the goods? According to the true-blue (I should say true red)
> socialist, these materialistic trappings of the consumer society are not good
> for anything, in fact they are evil inasmuch as possessing them lessens
> revolutionary fervor.
I don't know what shade of red I am, but I don't say this.
There is a lot of artificially created "need", thats true.
But I think everyone should have the comfort of not
having to do repetitive/boring tasks such as housework or
assembly line and the means to education/culture/art such
as telecommunicational devices. The problem is, that
the revolutionary fervour intensifies as most people
cannot attain these minimal ambicions
> socialist logic inevitably leads to the conclusion that people actually don't
> know what's good for them, and it's up to the revolutionary avant-garde
> (forradalmi e1lcsapat) to make them see the light.
>
but a human evolutionary advantage is the learning (eventually)
from past mistakes. Now we now, there is no short cut to
democracy, if people don't take part knowingly/consciously,
there is no democracy or socialism. There are terrorists etc.
who lost their trust in the people they "work" for. Read
the classic marxists - including Trotsky - polemics proving
such tactics/philosophies wrong.
> At least Brazil, the Phillipines, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and black South
> Africa seem to be doing OK, enjoying growth rates unmatched by any socialist
> experiment.
Unfortunately, growth rates seem to have no correlation to living
standard in recent decades. See the tremendous growth record of China,
and no corresponding riches, except for a narrow urban layer.
> Central America is not a happy place, mostly because the US has a
> tendency to prop up the stupid oppressive regimes there, which conserves an
> economic system (still based on latifundia) rather ill-suited for the 20th
> century.
And haven't we heard a lot about the previous marvellous growth rates
of Central American countries!
Be realistic. These days a "healthy" growthrate in a capitalist
country means undemocratic practices, e.g. Indonasia, Malaysia,
South-Korea, Singapur. Even Japan is not known to be the country
of freedom and democracy, especially in the industrial arena.
But even these regimes have no guarantee for such prosperous]
future, the signs of furure crises are there.
> Maybe it will take us to Nirvana, maybe it won't. But the burden is always on
> those arguing for a change. What reason we have to believe that socialism or
> feudalism or whatever would be better?
What reason is to believe, that capitalism is not getting much
much worse? The trend is for more and more concentration of
wealth, more and more powerful multinationals, less and less
social benefits for the majority, not to mention the sharpening
competition, reliance on arm-industry, drug-trafficing,
corruption and speculation. These could be all be dispenced
with in a democratic and socialist society, for which
reason it seems more practical future to me.
The social organization we currently
> have came about as a result of a long (and obviously unfinished) evolutionary
> process. Capitalism displaced other systems because it was better. Some other
> system might displace it later, but there is no reason to believe that it
> will be socialism, which is based on fundamentally flawed idealizations of
> the actual conditions obtaining in the world.
>
what is fundamentally flawed?
> > After all, the free market controls most of the world now.
> You are really prepared to see this as an accident? A te1nyekkel nem
> lehet vitatkozni, elvta1rsak.
>
Dinosaurs were in abundance... When they couldn't adapt
anymore, they disappeared.
> > Since this is the Hungarian Discussion Group, maybe you can tell us how the
> > free market has helped Hungarians. A simple request, really.
> Joe, you gotta be kidding. There is only one political force in Hungary that
> really wants to turn back the clock, Munka1spa1rt. They regularly get around
> 2% in the elections. I conclude that 98% of the population views socialism as
> a lost cause.
>
I wouldn't be so sure. Especially, if they will get a hint,
that there is an option to do it democratically - which
was a popular motivatioon for a lot of people in 56 and
since 56, even if they were persecuted.
> Do Hungarians like capitalism? No. Would they like peace and prosperity
> bankrolled by foreign loans, like in the golden years of Ka1da1r? You betcha.
> Do they actually want to work harder than they used to? No.
It is not humanly possible. You can only do so many "second" jobs.
> loss of job security as something positive? Perhaps the employers who thereby
> gain more hardworking employees do, but obviously they are a minority.
>
> Altogether, we have yet to see a drug addict who likes to come down from a
> high. I highly recommend the Fugs classic "I'm a-coming down" to get yourself
> in the mood of Hungary today.
>
So job security is similar to drug addiction. Just a nasty habit,
shouldn't aspire for such filthy un-capitalist dreams...
Workers should be trained for the needs of employers, and
if they not needed, should be somehow get rid off,
as they overpopulating the Earth... Now this is the very near
future scenario I should feel the hots for???
Eva Durant
Joe Szalai
>The burden is still on E1va. Whatever its failures, capitalism has at least
>outlasted socialism.
Much to everyone's relief! And cockroaches will outlive all other lifeforms
even after a nuclear war or accident.
>So the socialist logic inevitably leads to the conclusion that people
>actually don't know what's good for them, and it's up to the revolutionary
>avant-garde (forradalmi e1lcsapat) to make them see the light.
Your ideas are trapped in the past, Andras. Nostalgia just isn't what it
used to be.
>Central America is not a happy place, mostly because the US has a
>tendency to prop up the stupid oppressive regimes there, which conserves an
>economic system (still based on latifundia) rather ill-suited for the 20th
>century.
Ok. That's a good explanation.
>Botswana, Gambia, Mali, Zambia, and Tanzania are mired in tribalism.
Tribalism is another good explanation. I'm impressed.
>Notice that in both cases the problem is a precapitalist (in Central
>America, feudal, and in Africa, even more primitive) system, over which
>capitalism is a distinct improvement.
Yup. I'm still with you.
>Sri Lanka is cursed by an ethnic conflict,
Very tragic indeed, as are all conflicts.
>so your list narrows down to Bangladesh. Frankly, I have no idea what's
>going on in Bangladesh, perhaps even socialism is better than what they
>have now. Give 'em a true revolutionary like Pol Pot, and the
>overpopulation problem will be taken care of, wouldn't you agree?
What you're saying is that capitalism can't really function if it is bogged
down by 'stupid oppressive regimes', latifundia, tribalism, precapitalist
systems, ethnic conflicts, and what have you. In essence, your argument is
very simmilar to Eva's except she says that socialism/communism didn't work
because there was never any 'democratic socialism'. Are you both right?
As for Pol Pot, I wouldn't wish him on anyone, not even on the two Johns who
make regular contributions to this newsgroup.
>>The wellspring of your economic fundamentalist ideology is, no doubt,
>>Friedrich August von Hayek's, 1944 text, The Road to Serfdom. Hayek
>>believed that increased government control would lead both to economic
>>decline, as state planning replaced the free market, and to the erosion
>>of personal liberty.
>Hayek indeed "believed" this, though I think this choice of the verb
>does disservice to "belief" arrived at by logical argumentation. I'd
>say Hayek "reasoned", "argued", even "concluded" this, and boy did the
>ensuing period prove him right.
So his little book is like a catechism? Reasoning and arguing is fine, but
what does that have to do with the scientific understanding of the economy?
And was it increased government control that led to the decay of American
inner cities, high unemployment, environmental degredation, and the decline
of the hinterland?
>It's not a bad idea, considering the ineptness governments handle almost
>anything. If someone came up with a better method of redistributing wealth
>(which I take to be the primary function of the modern state, given that it
>is both incapable of and unwilling to uphold contracts between private
>parties) I'd be ready to dispense with governments altogether.
Oh please! Such bravado!! You'll soon be asking us to join the citizens
militias that seem to be so popular in the States these days. Governments
work only to the extent that people allow.
>Do Hungarians like capitalism? No. Would they like peace and prosperity
>bankrolled by foreign loans, like in the golden years of Ka1da1r? You
>betcha. Do they actually want to work harder than they used to? No. Do
>they see the loss of job security as something positive? Perhaps the
>employers who thereby gain more hardworking employees do, but obviously
>they are a minority.
>
>Altogether, we have yet to see a drug addict who likes to come down from a
>high. I highly recommend the Fugs classic "I'm a-coming down" to get
>yourself in the mood of Hungary today.
Oh, I don't know Andras. You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing.
You seem to be content knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work
harder and with no job security. And people will have to do this to make
the 'boss' richer. I bet you never argued for people to work harder to make
'society' richer.
As for drugs, they may give one a false sense of well-being. But in my
books, a false sense of well-being is better than no sense of well-being.
Joe Szalai
Eva S. Balogh
>Oh, I don't know Andras. You're 'capitalist realism' is not very appealing.
>You seem to be content knowing that people in Hungary will now have to work
>harder and with no job security. And people will have to do this to make
>the 'boss' richer. I bet you never argued for people to work harder to make
>'society' richer.
You may not find it very appealing but, unfortunately, it is true.
And I will be even harsher than Andras was in his original piece. I contend
that most Hungarians misuse, abuse, take advantage of (take you pick) the
social services provided. Currently, the Hungarian people pay 65-70 percent
of their wages for social services, but somehow they don't seem to realize
the connection between the "free" social services and their own contribution
to them. Because they come from the state, they are free--manna from
heaven!! And as such you can abuse it.
Just to give you a couple of examples. The abuse of the so-called
"rokkantsagi nyugdij" (disability pension) is staggering. Gyula Horn in one
of his speeches called for its reform because as it stands "Hungary is
becoming of the country of the disabled." An incredible number of these
so-called disabled people are not disabled at all. Doctors are bribed and
give false testimonies. The so-called disabled men and women get a monthly
check but, of course, that is not the main source of their income. They work
in the black/grey economy. The disability payment is simply a little extra.
The same is true of certain "free" drugs which only people who earn
under a certain amount can get. Again, the doctors are bribed and give out
prescriptions by the dozen. Some of these "entrepreneurs" appear at the drug
stores with 70-80 prescriptions. Needless to say they turn around and sell
the drugs on the black market. And the interesting thing is that they can
get away with it because the necessary laws and regulations are not in place.
Disabled people could import cars from abroad without duty--do I
have to tell you more? Mercedeses were imported in the name of the so-called
disabled and sold immediately to someone else! One could continue ad infinitum.
Eva Balogh
Joe Szalai
>And I will be even harsher than Andras was in his original piece. I contend
>that most Hungarians misuse, abuse, take advantage of (take your pick) the
>social services provided. Currently, the Hungarian people pay 65-70 percent
>of their wages for social services, but somehow they don't seem to realize
>the connection between the "free" social services and their own
>contribution to them. Because they come from the state, they are
>free--manna from heaven!! And as such you can abuse it.
Eva, by all means be critical of people who abuse social services. But do
you really favour doing away with them because they are abused? It seems
that today, with the winds of reaction blowing strong, many people favour a
leaner, meaner society. We are paying for the abuse of social services
today but we'll be paying for a leaner, meaner society tomorrow.
I'll give a local example that I'm familiar with.
Last year, Ontarians elected a 'Hayekist' conservative government that
promised to reduce big government and the deficit. One of their main
targets were people on welfare and welfare cheats. They hit a raw nerve
with the voters and they got a large majority in the legislature.
One of the first acts of the new government was to reduce welfare benefits
by 21%. Sure, there are/were cheats on welfare but everyone's benifits were
reduced. Nobody seemed to care or notice that 50% of the people on welfare
were children. Hungry or malnourished children do not learn well in school.
They will be ill prepared for future jobs and may end up being unhealthy.
That will cost the next generation. Unless, of course, they'll be willing
to just let these people rot and die by the wayside. Maybe we can solve
their future problems by reestablishing the eugenics programmes of the
recent past.
To be opposed to social programmes because of abuse is a bit like being
opposed to marriage because there is sexism and inequality in many
relationships. To be opposed to social programmes because of abuse is to
declare that the abuser has won, that society is unwilling or incapable of
nabbing the abusers.
You may have given into the abusers, Eva. I have not!
Joe Szalai
Joe Szalai
>No. Places like Central America don't have capitalism.
If you can say that, then why can't Eva Durant say that Eastern Europe
didn't have true democratic socialism?
>I can point to a fair number
>of examples that do have a working capitalst system, even reasonably
>successful ones, whereas E1va can't point to a single successful example.
It's hard to point to something that dosen't/didn't exist. As you well
know, I have no use for religion but a lot of people can't seem to live
without it. Should I tell the belivers not to believe because the world
isn't the way it should be, according to the bible, koran, torah, etc..
>So we always end up comparing the ugly reality to beautiful utopias.
Yes. That is humankinds curse or perhaps a vital part of the evolutionary
process.
>Better yet, provide some substantive counterarguments, based on a better
>scientific understanding of the economy.
I don't think that would help. There are many ways of looking at the
economy. It all depends on what you want out of it. Have you ever seen a
group of economists agree on anything? Math is a science. Economics is not.
>Governments work substantially _less_ than the extent people would allow.
>The sentiment that there is too much government, so popular in the States
>these days, is rooted in this simple fact.
Less is too much? This sounds like the introduction to an infomercial.
>Perhaps not, but at least it's realism, which seems to me a distinct
>advantage compared to the utopias you and E1va still cling to.
You have no advantage over Eva or me. What you call realism is nothing more
than your desire to keep your eyes closed. Also, I don't know why you
insist that a fair, shared, more or less equal world, is a utopia. Maybe
it's your Hungarian pessimism that instructs you that this is a rough and
cruel world and nothing that you do will ever make it any better, so it's
best to take care of number one. With that attitude, you will succeed. But
you'll die a pessimist.
>Society's richness is the sum of its members' richness. Because of this
>obvious truth, no special provision is needed to make society richer: make
>the individuals richer and things will work out for society as a whole.
Andras, you haven't been reading Karl Marx lately, have you? Your last
comment makes you sound like a closet Marxist.
Joe Szalai
Eva Durant
deathrates of middle-aged people in Hungary, probably the
worst ina fairly well developed country. This doing two+
jobs for a living is not good, the stress factor probably
infuences people to smoke and drink as well. In the eighties
a lot of people claimed disability statust and they were
ill, used up people. Perhaps they managed to look after
their garden, poultry and a pig, but whatever is the pension
it wasn't enough to live on than, and is worse now.
Eva Durant
-Eva Balogh-
> And I will be even harsher than Andras was in his original piece. I contend
> that most Hungarians misuse, abuse, take advantage of (take you pick) the
> social services provided. Currently, the Hungarian people pay 65-70 percent
> of their wages for social services, but somehow they don't seem to realize
> the connection between the "free" social services and their own contribution
> to them. Because they come from the state, they are free--manna from
> heaven!! And as such you can abuse it.
Eva Durant
> of examples that do have a working capitalst system, even reasonably
> successful ones, whereas E1va can't point to a single successful example.
>
So we shouldn't think about the future, because it hasn't happened yet.
You cannot give me a valid argument about capitalism taking us to a safe
future. That is not yet totally collepsed everywhere, is not a very
good argument.
> Perhaps not, but at least it's realism, which seems to me a distinct
> advantage compared to the utopias you and E1va still cling to.
>
It is more utopistic to think that you can have a safe future
looking at the present trends of the beautiful countries/people.
> Content? I'm delighted they work harder on more productive things.
>
And I think, that they always worked hard enough.
Eva Durant
Eva Durant
> countries which do meet the criteria for capitalism, while she can't point to
> anything that meets her criteria for "democratic socialism".
>
And I thought I wasn't patient. Just wait a little bit longer.
Ami kesik nem mulik...
> New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, etc. etc.) all fine examples of capitalism.
>
Hm. Fine? If you are not unemployed/homeless/stressed perhaps so.
The tendency is for the number of these to grow. The top 10%
owning 90% of wealth, etc. Your state failing both in the
redistribution job you assigned to it, but also in saving the
capitalist system from failing the majority of the people one
way or the other.
Anyway, what about the rest of the world? They are following
this system and are getting nowhere, in most cases only into
deeper mess.
-list of comprehensive state inefficiencies cut-
So how would your capitalism solve the problem of millions of
state-employees, military, administrative people being put out
of work? I'm just curious. I know workfare program! They can
sweep the streets for their state benefits!
Oops. No good. You don't want to pay out more benefits.
Ok, I give up, tell me!
> Closed to what? To the fact that the capitalist countries, as we know them,
> managed to bring incredible wealth to the majority of their populations?
>
But not to a large minority, who have the new psychological
trauma to put up with - being told 24 hours per day, that they
are inadequate for not being able to comply to the expectations
of the consumer society. They made to think, that everyone
lives in the magic world of advertisements and Dallas-type soaps.
> > Also, I don't know why you
> > insist that a fair, shared, more or less equal world, is a utopia.
> Maybe it's achievable, though I would prefer to take a closer look at
> your notion of fairness and equality before I'd be willing to endorse it.
>
I am eager to see, how would you achieve any fairness as defined
by you without dropping capitalism.
> I didn't present an ideology of selfishness, nor do I think that "taking care
> of number one" is such a big part of one's life. Certainly once a reasonable
> personal living standard (which we can equate with median income in capitalist
> countries) is achived, few people feel compelled to make increasingly bigger
> and bigger bucks.
Sorry, that is the heart of the system. If there is no growths, than
it is bankrupcy. That is the mechanism. It's not down to
how the individual entrepeneur feels.
But the fact that I'm actually not one of them does not mean
> that I feel compelled to brand such people as speculators, exploiters, or
> whatever. To the contray, it seems to me that such people fill a positive role
> in society, and it is better to have society so structured that their
> ambitions can be harnessed to the benefit of all than to deny such ambitions
> altogether.
>
Sorry, the captains of industry/finance/govt. do not aspire
me around here, I can picture a world without their role.
Their ambicions are not harnessed to the benefit of all.
If you say that, you are being more naive, that I ever
been capable of being!
Eva Durant
Eva S. Balogh
>
>Eva, by all means be critical of people who abuse social services.
as Finance Minister Bokros says time and time again. Or, as our famous
economist Janos Kornai coined the phrase: Hungary is a premature welfare
state. I doubt whether you have any idea about the indebtedness of the
country!! Staggering. The background: Janos Kadar and the MSZMP decided that
the only way to keep the party and the socialist paradise going was to "buy"
the population, literally! Raise living standards although from the 1970s on
there was no economic growth. All this was financed from foreign loans. And
of course it worked--I am not going to go into the details because a couple
of months ago Andras Kornai and I talked about this fairly extensively and I
quoted a new university textbook in which there was a perfect description of
the government's policy. Today's Hungarians hate paying these loans and
claim that *they* never benefited from them--only the cadres did! This is
bull, of course.
>But do
>you really favour doing away with them [meaning social services] because
they are abused?
Not just because of that but because it is unworkable. A worker at
the Mercedes-Benz factory has more than two-months of paid vacation and gets
an hourly wage of over $60.00 (with benefits). In France, extensive social
services are given: not too poor people but to well-off middle-class people.
Benefits after each child, even if the parents are not married. I read in
the New York Times about a case where the husband (they were not married
actually) was a journalist who got wounded in Chechnia. After he got out of
the hospital, he still needed homecare. His partner, and the mother of his
two children, felt that looking after him and the two children was too much.
She managed to get help for household chores for $3.00/hour, $10.00/hour was
paid by the government. And one could go on and on. My contention is that
there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.
And about abusers in general. It is not just this or that
abuser--human nature is such that we are all abusers. A very good friend of
mine's mother--a lifetime Republican who has been preaching self-reliance
all her life--is in her eighties now. Suddenly, she has no punctions about
getting every possible social service the state provides, including free
taxis to the airport when she travels. She is quite well off but, like all
other elderly people, including those who are millionaires, wouldn't give up
a cent of their entitlement.
In brief, as long as it is there--people will take advantage of it.
They would be stupid not to. Meanwhile, the black/grey economy is growing
and is growing because the taxes and social security dues are so high that
it is impossible to endure them. Without cheating all the entrepreneurs
would go bankrupt and the population would be even poorer than today.
But it can't go on like this even in the West--we can't have two or
three months of vacations and a whole month of sick leave (which, of course,
whether you need it or not, you take). There is a limit to our leisure time
and there is a limit to our general wealth. This is especially so in a
global economy where our Chinese friends are very happy with a great deal
less than we are.
Eva Balogh
SorG Farkas
> Unfortunately, many who are rabidly anti-socialist can not distinguish
between social programmes and authoritarianism.
The reason for it (being rabidly anti-socialist) is that many of us
experienced it (socialism) on our own skins and we just want to spare any
naive soul from re-living it.
Farkas D. Gabor
Joe Szalai
>> It's hard to point to something that dosen't/didn't exist.
>Given that all participants in this debate live in such countries (you in
>Canada, E1va in England, me in the US) their existence can hardly be
>called into question.
Andras, your eagerness to prove that you're right is showing. I was trying
to say that it is difficult for Eva Durant to show examples of 'democratic
socialism' because they never existed. Mind you, her constant reference to
good social programmes in the so called 'socialist' countries is confusing
because, on the one hand, she likes the programmes, but on the other hand,
she says that 'true democratic socialism' never existed. Her stance leads
some people on this list to think that she is defending the former,
bankrupt, political system, whereas I see her defending the social
programmes only. Unfortunately, many who are rabidly anti-socialist can not
distinguish between social programmes and authoritarianism.
>>Math is a science. Economics is not.
>Well at least you could give it a try, otherwise your Hayek-bashing doesn't
>amount to too much.
I'm not interested in bashing Hayek. Hopefully, history will relegate his
'work' to something less than a footnote. If he were a dog trainer his
specialty would be pit bull terriers.
>-- for every dollar you put in in taxes society receives perhaps 25 cents
>of actual value, the rest going towards feeding an inefficient bureaucracy.
>The most painful example of this is the military budget, where the US
>spends hundreds of billions for defense that could be procured at one tenth
>of the cost. Next come social programs, parts of which have good payback
>(e.g. Social Security, Medicare) but other parts do not (for example, HUD
>is a cesspool.
Leave the military budget alone! It's an excellent way for capitalist
societies to waste resources. Can you imagine the 'utopia' that could be
created with hundreds of billions of dollars? Geez, it could even create
unemployment if all the soup kitchens were closed and their staff were let
go. Or maybe not, if the staff were working for 'profit', a la James Doepp.
Capitalism has a symbiotic need for waste, whether that be the automobile,
the military, a war now and again, or just sending multi billion dollar
missiles into space. Without this waste, capitalism would collapse. It's
as simple as that. But I don't expect you to see that or to believe me.
>Finally, there is legislation. What with all these high-paid legislators
>you'd expect the laws that are passed to be clear, morally powerful, and
>guiding society towards a better future, the work of enlightened, devoted
>servants of the public. Now look at the stuff coming from Washington, and
>ask yourself if the public has any reason to believe its money was wisely
>spent?
What do you expect? Miracles? But don't complain. At least you're living
in one of the golden capitalist societies that you like to trumpet so much.
If your release turns out to be just a wet dream, tough!
>>>make the individuals richer and things will work out for society as a
>>>whole.
>>Your last comment makes you sound like a closet Marxist.
>Does it really? Chapter and verse please,
Did you get this need for 'chapter and verse' from your bible study class?
Sorry, but Microsoft hasn't released the Marxist concordance CD-ROM yet.
When they do, I'll look up the chapter and verse. And that will be the end
of it. Nervous?
Joe Szalai
J.A. Szalai
Recently, Mr. Czifra accused Darren of "mellowing out", and then
"changing his views" as Czifra therein exemplified. My question to you,
Eva, is whether you have some inherent fear of being identified with Joe
Szalai. Are you guilty of "changing YOUR views?"
Now, we're all aware that we should stay as far away from Joe Szalai as
possible. His archaic views are preceded only by his lack of insight.
Keeping that in mind, I sympathize with your plight to dissociate with
him. However, it appears that more and more of your postings are
including the following words: "Well, you know I don't agree with Joe on
politics, but he is right" or "You know I don't get along with Joe on
any issue, but I get agree with everything else he says."
Don't you realize that this discussion group is well aware of your full
fledged support for "The man formerly known as Joszi." Why can't you
just admit it - You're one of them!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jason Szalai
Joe Szalai
>I doubt whether you have any idea about the indebtedness of the
>country!! Staggering.
Many countries have staggering debts. You say, and I have no reason not to
believe you, that Hungary went into debt because Kadar's MSZMP "bought" the
population with foreign loans. I'm told that Canada is in debt because of
Keynesian economic policy. In Canada the Liberal and Conservative parties
"bought" political power by borrowing from "future generations".
You say that Hungarians hate paying these loans and erroneously claim that
they never benefited from them. Well, many (probably most) Canadians hate
paying back the loans but at least they don't claim that they didn't benefit
from them.
How could it be that two very diverse countries have similar economic
problems? And how many other countries are in the same boat? To whom is
all the money owed? Why is it not taxed back?
>My contention is that
>there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
>on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
>service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
>Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.
Agreed. I agree with all your points but I'm not as willing, as you are, to
be uncritical of the largest money grab by the well-to-do that I've every
seen. I don't think it makes economic sense to allow wealth to be
concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. I believe that the right wing,
Hayekist economic policies, both east and west, are enabling that to happen.
The rich get richer and the rest of us point fingers at each other. I don't
agree with it, but it's an effective startegy.
>There is a limit to our leisure time and there is a limit to our general
>wealth.
Yes. So lets tax it back from those who are benefiting the most from our
welfare programmes, namely, tax shelters, and lets share the wealth. That
would get the economy going.
Joe Szalai
Eva Durant
> 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.
>
I think one of the best demonstration of the system's failure
is the decrease in investment of science/technology, when the
financial gains are not apperent and the economy hasn't got
surplus to rely on. I see reports after reports on cutbacks
in research fundings. I don't think space research is waste,
if it is done cooperarively for the right reasons, and when
it is not an alternative expenditure to social welfare.
Eva Durant
Eva Durant
It was claimed, that most people on disability
benefit were cheating in Hungary. I said, that
a vast majority of them were indeed in too bad
health to work fulltime.
The reasons for this can be argued, overwork and
cuts in the health budget since the 80s, can be
blamed, why thank you for mentioning it.
Eva Durant
>
> Eva Durant wrote:
>
> > Wrong and wrong. Please look at the health statistics and
> > deathrates of middle-aged people in Hungary, probably the
> > worst ina fairly well developed country.
>
> Wrong. Hungary is NOT a 'fairly well developed' country.
> Hungary, while culturally a European nation, is an
> economic cripple, not even up to the level of Malaysia
> in terms of per-capita GDP.
>
> Among similar developing countries, the Hungarian health
> statistics would look less poor - not that it is any
> confort, but a more realistic comparison.
>
> Even your favourite classic, Marx, said something to the
> effect that the economic fundamentals determine the social
> superstructure.
>
> George Antony
Eva Durant
to cheat, but if you are an employee, you are taking
advantage of the system.
If you an employer, you should have tax-inducements, if
you are an employee, you should tighten your belt for evermore.
How familiar... and it works. The rich is getting richer,
the poor poorer, and the economy stagnates just the same...
Eva Durant
> paid by the government. And one could go on and on. My contention is that
> there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
> on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
> service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
> Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.
Eva Durant
> the Mercedes-Benz factory has more than two-months of paid vacation and gets
> an hourly wage of over $60.00 (with benefits).
I'd like to see some proof of this. Usually it is tabloid-
manufactured urban legend.
> But it can't go on like this even in the West--we can't have two or
> three months of vacations and a whole month of sick leave (which, of course,
> whether you need it or not, you take). There is a limit to our leisure time
> and there is a limit to our general wealth. This is especially so in a
> global economy where our Chinese friends are very happy with a great deal
> less than we are.
> Eva Balogh
There is enough wealth produced to support all these extravagance -
for everyone. In a "developed" country less than 10% of people is
involved in producing - and overproducing the agricultural goods,
and less than 20% is involved in manufacturing industry.
Most people are in sevices. With all the extra huma capacity
available, why only a few should have a chance to all the benefits?
Eva Durant
Eva Durant
> > Unfortunately, many who are rabidly anti-socialist can not distinguish
> between social programmes and authoritarianism.
>
> experienced it (socialism) on our own skins and we just want to spare any
> naive soul from re-living it.
>
> Farkas D. Gabor
Joe's case amply demonstrated. So why'd you think people
would recreate the same un-democratic structure if they
had a democratic choice for an alternative non-capitalist
system?
Eva Durant
Eva S. Balogh
>>My contention is that
>>there is only a limited amount of money and a limited amount of willingness
>>on the part of the taxpayers to pay for this kind of so-called "social
>>service." Not only that, but it doesn't make any sense in economic terms.
>>Too high taxation is not good for economic growth.
And then continuing:
>Agreed. I agree with all your points but I'm not as willing, as you are, to
>be uncritical of the largest money grab by the well-to-do that I've every
>seen.
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.
>Yes. So lets tax it back from those who are benefiting the most from our
>welfare programmes, namely, tax shelters, and lets share the wealth. That
>would get the economy going.
From the above it is quite clear that taxing the enterpreneurs to death and
give it to the poor will actually do our economic life in.
Eva Balogh
Eva S. Balogh
>> Not just because of that but because it is unworkable. A worker at
>> the Mercedes-Benz factory has more than two-months of paid vacation and gets
>> an hourly wage of over $60.00 (with benefits).
Eva Durant answered:
>I'd like to see some proof of this. Usually it is tabloid-
>manufactured urban legend.
I just want you to know that I never, but never read tabloids! You may want
to call me an intellectual snob but not only I don't read tabloids, I don't
listen to rock music either. Kind of egghead type.
As for proof. I read it in the Business Section of the New York Times--big
lead article on Mercedes-Benz's troubles. It was a few months ago but not
sure of that--time flies! I certainly can phone a library and ask them to
look it up in the New York Times Index.
Eva Balogh
Eva S. Balogh
>I lead you back to the point that was argued about.
>It was claimed, that most people on disability
>benefit were cheating in Hungary. I said, that
>a vast majority of them were indeed in too bad
>health to work fulltime.
You know Eva sometime I think that alongside with Alice I ended up, by some
strange quirk of fate, in Wonderland when I am listening to you!! I read in
the Hungarian papers about cases which are truly incredible. One guy in his
twenties lost sight in one eye--finis, kaput, he no longer has to work.
Neighbors occasionally get fed up with some of these disabled and report
them to the authorities, saying, look they seem to be lifting heavy items,
work around the house just fine, there is nothing wrong with them. The
authorities' answer: well, their condition is such that they really
shouldn't be doing all this heavy work, but we can't help it if they do it
anyway! According to Hungarian observers the situation is bad and the
numbers involved are staggeringly high. I even have some statistics which I
am going to dig up just for you!
Source: HVG, January 13, pp. 102-104 and considering that you are a
subscriber it shouldn't be very difficult to find it.
According to a graph since 1988 the number of those who apply for
disability pension is growing--actually doubled by 1991. While in the
mid-eighties 80 thousand people asked for disability payments, by 1991 the
number was 160 thousand!!! In a country of 10 million! And half of these
people actually were approved for disability payments! For every ten
thousand workers there is around 100 new "disabled" people every year!
Moreover, the people on disability can officially work--as long as they
don't work full time. Let's say they work only 6 hours/day instead of
eight--that's fine. Let's assume that the person is only his forties and he
is not eligible for pension yet (nowadays the average age of retirees is
53). He can apply for disability and work only six hours a day officially,
or eight hours a day unofficially and he has an extra 10 thousand forint or
so. Why not, if you get away with it. In any case, between the disabled and
those people who can retire at the age of 55 one and a half people work for
one retired or disabled person.
As for the state of the health of Hungarian people--too much work is
not the chief culprit. The chief culprits are alcoholism, smoking, and
unhealthy diet. (According to one source on the internet, a doctor from
Hungary, 20% of the population is alcoholic!) And let's add another: I think
Hungarian doctors lose a lot of people who should be living happily for
years in a western European country or in North America. At least, my poor
relatives die under very suspicious circumstances. I have just lost an older
cousin who had a heart attack while in the hospital!! Well, I am not saying
that this is an impossibility, but everybody tells me that if you happen to
be lucky enough to be admitted to the hospital a few days before the actual
heart attack your chances of recovery are very good. Well, it seems that
this is not the case in a Hungarian hospital. A year ago another cousin died
of cancer--they couldn't even find the source of his trouble. He just died.
Eva Balogh
Stowewrite
<Eva.D...@MAILHOST.MCC.AC.UK> writes:
>Joe's case amply demonstrated. So why'd you think people
>would recreate the same un-democratic structure if they
>had a democratic choice for an alternative non-capitalist
>system?
>
>Eva Durant
>
>
Here she sits, folks, still on her high horse. Several weeks ago, I asked
Elvtars Durant to give us an accounting of Marxism-Leninism in action,
particularly for its insistence on ideological conformity by every member
of society and its moral corrosiveness. She proceeded to bulldoze on to
her favorite rhetorical trick like a Russian tank down the Ulloi ut. in
November, 1956 -- attack capitalism in order to draw attention away from
the failures of her own preferred brand of voodoo. Come, Elvtars Durant.
Enough of this whacking away at straw men. I've waited at least two or
three weeks. Have you no answer to my questions? Do I need to repost them
again in detail to jog your memory?
Sam Stowe
P.S. -- The title of this thread speaks of a burden being on you. Someone
must have heard you braying like an ass on here and realized you were
capable of carrying a big load.
SorG Farkas
"So why'd you think people would recreate the same un-democratic structure
if they had a democratic choice for an alternative non-capitalist
system?"
There are at least two reasons, the way I see it:
1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.
This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.
Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).
2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed
by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.
Farkas D. Gabor
Joe Szalai
>1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.
That's one way of doing it but there are others.
>This will never happen peacefully, thus a revolution is required for it.
Did I miss something? Revolutions can indeed be peaceful. Except for
Romania, and several smaller acts of violence, the revolutions in Eastern
Europe and the Soviet Union were peaceful.
>Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).
The French or the American revolutions wouldn't be good examples, would they?
>2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed
>by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.
Agreed. So is your problem with social programmes and services, such as
medicare, or is it with un-democratic political systems?
Joe Szalai
Joe Szalai
>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.
I don't think it's Eva Durant's comments that land you in Wonderland.
The 'filthy rich capitalists' may indeed generate economic growth, have
business sense, vision, and drive. And the tax laws may show that they pay
a greater percentage of tax than the poor. But don't smoke any more from
that hookah, Eva, and you'll soon discover, that in reality, the rich don't
pay any tax. The middle class and the working class pay tax.
Perception is everything. You say that because we manage to live quite
well, we should just bear with the rich. You think that I can just sit in
my library and that I don't make money.
For your information, I have never made a posting to this or any other
newsgroup, from work. I just wouldn't have the time. But if you must
perpetuate the myth that public sector workers are lazy and 'sit', then go
ahead. I've been making a lot of postings to this newsgroup since early
December from home. What else should I do during the long Canadian winter?
And what do mean that you and I don't make money. Have you not heard of the
'value added' economic theory? We add value to that piece of paper that the
graduates walk away with.
Joe Szalai
Eva Durant
not what it used to be. As for doubling the
figures of applicants for disabiliry pensions -
it is probably something to do with the appearance
of unemployment by 1991, don't you think?
Hungarians work as hard as other nationalities
I worked with. They just swallow (so far) better
the propaganda, that if you work hard and your living standard
is going down or nowhere, that is only your fault, and
nothing to do with the layer tha is getting richer and richer.
I don't buy it anymore, and you have more and more difficulty
selling it.
Eva Durant
Eva Durant
> 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.
>
I think you have the burden to prove this now. I can only
see very few individuals amongst the beautiful people,
who are creative in a socially useful sense.
This argument, that the rich needs incentives to be creative,
while everybody else gets idle if they are adequatly
rewarded, is somewhat lacking.
>
> From the above it is quite clear that taxing the enterpreneurs to death and
> give it to the poor will actually do our economic life in.
>
Even if you could get away with that, it would do no good, if you
leave the structure of capitalism intact. We have to own the
wealth productive forces and capabilities together and
democratically.
Eva Durant
Eva Durant
> 1. Implementing a socialist system implies socializing private property.
If it is a democratic decision, than the undemocretic side
starts the fighting. If the majority in favour is overhelming,
local democratic militias are good enough to help to put
in practice that decision. If it happens most places,
there will be no help for the undemocratic element.
But if thet see, that nobody is taking their house and
their luxury items from them, only the things that are
socially useful/wealthproducing, than they propably
decide, that they could live with the new system.
And -if Eva Balogh says - they are bursting from creative
ideas, that I'm sure they will be proud to prove, that
that creativity is there without the pile of money
to substansciate it.
> Show me one revolution that ended in democracy (in the long run).
> 2. The un-democratic system is never created by the "people". It is imposed
> by those who in the name of socialism take the power from the people.
> Farkas D. Gabor
seems to me, that if a vast majority of people are taking
part actively, with the large majority also aware of what they want,
there is a chance for peaceful change. (Velvet revolutions, most
initial steps of revolutions.) The problem is to be also
conscious to keep up this activity until and after the
new structures are built. The difference is now, that everyone
will be able to get all the information necessary to make decisions,
the technology exists and it is easy to make everybody always
part of the decisionmaking.
In your old system, the less people know and the further
away from decisionmaking they are, the better - that is
the thinking of the establishment, well learned in the
ways of mass manipulation and publicity of anything but
real information.
Eva Durant
Eva Durant
> of society and its moral corrosiveness.
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.
> She proceeded to bulldoze on to
> her favorite rhetorical trick like a Russian tank down the Ulloi ut. in
> November, 1956 -- attack capitalism in order to draw attention away from
> the failures of her own preferred brand of voodoo. Come, Elvtars Durant.
> Enough of this whacking away at straw men. I've waited at least two or
> three weeks. Have you no answer to my questions? Do I need to repost them
> again in detail to jog your memory?
> Sam Stowe
>
> P.S. -- The title of this thread speaks of a burden being on you. Someone
> must have heard you braying like an ass on here and realized you were
> capable of carrying a big load.
neat piece of argument.
Eva Durant
>
> > > 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
Stowewrite
<Eva.D...@MAILHOST.MCC.AC.UK> 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
Doug Hormann
>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.
>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
hor...@hevanet.com
Joe Szalai
> 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