On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Eva S. Balogh wrote:

> >Ikarusz makes good trucks/busses, they need more efficient systems and
> >more marketing. I understand that they now have an assembly plant in the
> >South for the chassis come form HU, engines from the US.
>
>         As far as I know Ikarusz is in big-time trouble. It is very possible
> that it will simply close doors within a few years. A year ago they
> appointed a "wizard" manager from the Kadar era, Adam Angyal, who was
> supposed to perform miracles. Today he is is gone: fired. Angyal apparently
> realized that Ikarusz cannot be sold as is. There are some units which are
> totally unproductive and unsaleable and suggested to close certain units and
> sell the one unit in which there was some foreign interest. Well, some
> politicians in the ministry didn't like his solution and as a result of a
> fairly small order which looked to some people as the "great revival" they
> decided to sack Angyal and keep going. We will see how long it will take to
> these people to wake up.
>

In late 1990 or early 1991 (I am writing this off the cuff and from old
memories) IKARUS was up for privatization, and several tenders were
made.  One, which got a good deal of publicity at the time, was by an
American entrepreneuir.  He acknowledged (as we all must) that the Ikarus
busses were really quite good in spite of their limitations, but that
their technology was not up-to-date by Western (US, Japan, Western
Europe) standards.  They spewed out too uch pollution; the brake systems
were seriously out-of-date; the electronics were far less than state
-of-the-art...etc.  Also the factories which made the busses were (as we
could all expect) inefficient.  This investor proposed bringing the
IKARUS product up to international standards.

His bid, which apparently was on the up-and-up, and had good financial
backing, was high.  But the Antall government turned it down, and
accepted instead a bid from a consortium that included the (then still
operating) Soviet Union.  The argument given in the press was that since
the USSR was IKARUS's major customer, the company could not afford to
lose the good will of the USSR.

Well, the rest is history, as they say.

There are many other such stories, variations on a theme.  The theme is
the manipulation (under the Antall government) of the privatization
process so as to enrich the former managers of the state concerns.
Another theme that applies here is the utter unwillingness to accept that
the industries to be privatized needed modernization desperately, and
that the infrastructure surrounding those factories also desperately
needed modernizing.


Richard. W. Alexander

When the rest of Europe is decentralizing and
making peace Horn the traitor with the support of an astonishing
60% scum majority is selling the blood of the nation.
I believe what is coming will be major surgery.

God help

Can somebody out there give me a really good recipe for langos? For those who
don't know langos... find out about it! It's way yummy!

                                The Gardener

At 11:37 05/09/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>Could you guys please cease using the HUNGARY list for this tussle.
>
>Thanks,
>George Antony

Yes, the Hungarians have enough to tussle about on their own!

Yours,

Johanne
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Charlie Vamossy said:
....  Given the self serving laws passed by
Parliament and upheld by that court, what chance would a foreign businessman
have in the lower commercial Courts?  ......

Just so everyone outside Hungary is clear on the subject: In Hungary it
is permissible and often done that members of Parliament and Government
agnecies have conflicting desires. For example, it does not make sense for
Hungary to permit the Minister of Telecom (etc. ) who proposes and
executes the laws to be also a member of Parliament that passes the laws.
That is clearly equivalent to having a Seantor or Congressman be also
part of the Administration. Moreover, many Adminsitration types (officials)
also have private and completely contradictory ownerships and interests in
companies and projects that benefit them directly (or indirectly for
those more discreet).

How then can a businessman get a fair shake?? Talk about a level playing
field!  Then they wonder why investment continues to slip???

This ough to be rectified...by forcing clear conflict of interests in gov't
against the law and putting these guys in jail where they belong! Maybe
then some of the stealing of the wealth of Hungary will be reduced and
getHungary to start moving forward again.

Peter Soltesz

Haliho, Listmembers!

At 08:52 07/09/96 -0400, Peter Soltesz wrote:
<snip Charlie's stuff>
>Just so everyone outside Hungary is clear on the subject: In Hungary it
>is permissible and often done that members of Parliament and Government
>agnecies have conflicting desires. For example, it does not make sense for
>Hungary to permit the Minister of Telecom (etc. ) who proposes and
>executes the laws to be also a member of Parliament that passes the laws.
>That is clearly equivalent to having a Seantor or Congressman be also
>part of the Administration. Moreover, many Adminsitration types (officials)
>also have private and completely contradictory ownerships and interests in
>companies and projects that benefit them directly (or indirectly for
>those more discreet).

Peter, with all due respect, it appears to me that you have confused a
Parliamentary system of government with the system of divisions of powers
and checks and balances which is in place in the U.S. Hungary, like Britain
and Canada, is now a parliamentary democracy. In such a system, the members
of Parliament form the government, or rather selected members of the
governing party or coalition form the government. The Prime Minister is the
leader of the governing party, and he selects the ministers who act as
cabinet heads from other members his party or other parties in the governing
coalition. This is not, despite your language, a conflict of interest, it
just means that the legislative and executive powers overlap - because the
government also controls the legislature. In such a system, the government
is pretty well guaranteed to be able to pass its legislative agenda - unless
it loses a vote of confidence or it is voted out of power in an election. It
is thus often said that in a parliamentary system "things can actually get
***done***" unlike the system in the U.S. which often seems to consist of
gridlock as the executive vetoes the laws passed by the legislature, etc.
>
>How then can a businessman get a fair shake?? Talk about a level playing
>field!  Then they wonder why investment continues to slip???

As I said, the system is consistent in theory, at least, and if the citizens
are not happy with it the way it is, it can always be changed, as sovereign
power ultimately resides in the people. The problem that you have noted,
though, is really a question of whether Horn et al are really acting more
demagogically in order to garner support from simplistic voters who don't
understand the real issues, or whether the proposals of the businessmen
would actually be in Hungary's best interests. I am not always convinced
that the latter is necessarily the case. On the other hand, it is possible
that Horn et al, because of their spotted past, may not be able to tell what
proposals really *are* in Hungary's best interests.
>
>This ough to be rectified...by forcing clear conflict of interests in gov't
>against the law and putting these guys in jail where they belong! Maybe
>then some of the stealing of the wealth of Hungary will be reduced and
>getHungary to start moving forward again.
>
>Peter Soltesz

When I read the above again, it almost sounds like you are against the
activities of those businessmen which I thought you were defending in the
above paragraphs. Were you talking about throwing the ministers with the
supposed conflicts in jail, or the businessmen?

U:dvo:zlettel,

Johanne/Janka
>
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
> of Parliament form the government, or rather selected members of the
> governing party or coalition form the government. The Prime Minister is the
> leader of the governing party, and he selects the ministers who act as
> cabinet heads from other members his party or other parties in the governing
> coalition. This is not, despite your language, a conflict of interest, it
> just means that the legislative and executive powers overlap - because the
> government also controls the legislature.
 I would say it's more like the other way around - the legislature
controls the government (and both are under heavy influence of the party
or coalition that won the election of course). Incidentally, non-members
of the parliament (or even persons outside of the governing party/ies) can
be ministers too, but that happening is an exception rather than a rule in
the democracies outside the USA.

> In such a system, the government
> is pretty well guaranteed to be able to pass its legislative agenda - unless
> it loses a vote of confidence
 Which means that the legislature has the control after all, doesn't it :-).

 Johanne's main point that Peter's main bone of contention seems to be not
with some "conflict of interest", but rather with the 'deviation' of
having a parliamentary system rather than the rather idiosyncratic (and
arguably very poorly if at all working) USA presidential system is
entirely valid, of course.

 --
 Zoli , keeper of <http://www.hix.com/hungarian-faq/>;
*SELLERS BEWARE: I will never buy anything from companies associated
*with inappropriate online advertising (unsolicited commercial email,
*excessive multiposting etc), and discourage others from doing so too!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQBVAwUBMjGY+MQ/4s87M5ohAQHyQQH9GxFp49yWPBgr105bkpZ/vv1cqppMbRrt
L/OTjrSGcU7VjJS2AJhi7oV9JEqFBKWNAStu26OFnUuUFpmfdO64lg==
=oTNF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Zsargo Janos wrote:
>
> Dear A.Albu,
>
> I have been watching your constant efforts to provoke. As I do not want you
have
> a stroke after so much frustration, I decided to give you some advices. It
would
> be slightly better to try other ways here in the HUNGARY list. I think some
>  hard-
> liner homphobic stuff would be sufficient to have some pleasant name-
> calling with Joe Szalai, or some anti-american post would focus the attantion
of
> our 'internet gral knight' (S.Stowe) on you. However if you want to keep your
> provocation stuff exclusively hungarian-bashing then there is no other
solution,
> you have to learn some Hungarian and move to the FORUM list.
>
> J.Zs


xxxxxxxxxxx



You have accused me of provocation and Hungarian bashing, but you kept
quiet about what Horn with a 70% majority of the country is bashing.
You couldn't care less about your nation's problem. Did you take a
stance in these troubled times. I sure did not notice.

Accordingly you have two choices

1. You may want to request a change in the name of this News Group and
then I will leave it alone or,

2 Since you are part of the above quoted 70% majority, debating most of
the time non Hungarian issues you could take your discussion elsewhere.


Just take a peak to the Romanian News Group to understand what a nation
is like and what a news groups addressing national questions fell and look
like.

All my postings have reason of being.

A. Albu

Mark Humphreys wrote:

>This dog discussion is really informative. I agree with
>the above praise of Shitzus. A neighbor of mine is going
>to start raising them. They seem to need a lot
>of grooming, though.

Mark,

With all due respect, and a large nudge-nudge, wink-wink, what kind of a
#!*+$##@! god could have created a Shitzu?  Istenem!

Joe Szalai

Sziastok,

At 11:47 07/09/96 -0400, Zoli Fekete wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Johanne L. Tournier wrote:
>> of Parliament form the government, or rather selected members of the
>> governing party or coalition form the government. The Prime Minister is the
>> leader of the governing party, and he selects the ministers who act as
>> cabinet heads from other members his party or other parties in the governing
>> coalition. This is not, despite your language, a conflict of interest, it
>> just means that the legislative and executive powers overlap - because the
>> government also controls the legislature.

> I would say it's more like the other way around - the legislature
>controls the government (and both are under heavy influence of the party
>or coalition that won the election of course).

Zoli's comments are well taken. There is a basic concept which is called
*Parliamentary supremacy* - however, I think effectively control ends up
being in the hands of the governing majority party or coalition, since they
do have control of the agenda in Parliament, they name the Speaker, and the
time the members of the Opposition have to even ask questions of the members
on the Government side - usually the Prime Minister and Members of Cabinet -
is limited by the rules of the body.

Furthermore, there is also a policy that the members of the governing
party(ies) vote as a unit. It is very rare for a member to break with his
party, unless they hold what is called a *free vote* which allows him to
vote his conscience. This further ensures that in most cases the government
can get its agenda passed. The result is that real power is perceived more
and more to reside in the Cabinet positions and less and less in the
Parliament as a whole.

 Incidentally, non-members
>of the parliament (or even persons outside of the governing party/ies) can
>be ministers too, but that happening is an exception rather than a rule in
>the democracies outside the USA.

That is true. In Canada, the non-elected members of Cabinet generally run
for a political office as soon as possible after they are elected.
>
>> In such a system, the government
>> is pretty well guaranteed to be able to pass its legislative agenda - unless
>> it loses a vote of confidence
> Which means that the legislature has the control after all, doesn't it :-).

Well, in the end, yes, that is true, it is just that in most cases this may
not be exercised effectively.
>
> Johanne's main point that Peter's main bone of contention seems to be not
>with some "conflict of interest", but rather with the 'deviation' of
>having a parliamentary system rather than the rather idiosyncratic (and
>arguably very poorly if at all working) USA presidential system is
>entirely valid, of course.

I think Peter misconstrued the differing roles of the Members of
Parliament/Ministers of Departments (Members of the Cabinet) which is an
unavoidable result of the Parliamentary system, with a criminal conflict of
interest.

Query: I wonder if it has ever happened that a member of the President's
Cabinet in the U.S. was simultaneously a member of Congress or the Senate? I
don't off-hand know any rule against it. If that happened, then such persons
would ipso-facto also be guilty of the same conflict of interest.

Which raises another question. I would be interested to know how the present
system of parliamentary democracy got instituted. In 1989, you have what I
presume is a Communist, semi-authoritarian system, probably with some sort
of rubber-stamp Parliament all of whose members consist of members of The
Party. Then, suddenly, the Commies are out, you've got a proliferation of
parties and many are represented in the Parliament. How did this come about?
And, just out of curiosity, which Parliamentary system served as the model
for the Hungarian one? Britain or France perhaps?

And I just got done saying I was tired of all the political discussions
lately! And here I go starting another political thread!

Tisztelettel,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

>> >=============================================================
>> >      Andrew J. Rszsa - Birmingham, Alabama, USA
>> >                 <mailto:>
>> >-------------------------------------------------------------
>> >          Pain is inevitable. Suffering is optional.
>> >=============================================================
>> >
>> Just a friendly suggestion:my Son who lives in Florida has a chocolate brown
>> retriever.
>> He does not hunt or fish.The dog is a marvel.
>> On the other hand if you looking at a smaler dog I would hignhly recommend a
>> Shitzu.
>> Good watchdog and a sweetheart of a companion.We had one for 11
>> years,unfortunatly we had to put him down,since he had cancer,
>> Regards:Andy.>
>>
>
>This dog discussion is really informative. I agree with the above praise of
>Shitzus. A neighbor of mine is going to start raising them. They seem to need
>a lot of grooming, though. (More than I expect from the average dog.) They
don't
>seem to shed, (if you are worried about dog hairs), and don't have much of a
>'dog smell.' (Probably from all that grooming!)    - Mark
>
 Mark:I can tell you about Shitzus.First don't worry about grooming or hair
loss or smell.They require less grooming,a nice brushing will do the
trick.They do not shed,and do not smell.Rhey are they sweetest and most
adorable companions.They love the family,and are good watch dog as far as
they let you know and others they are arround.With there small teeth they
can do no damage,and they don't chew furniture.
They are also easy to train,but keep in mind,at least ours was a quite
independent companion.What I mean by that,he didn't like to be cudled or
sitting on my lap.He had his own place,wich was his house.He had his cage
where he webt to sleep and I would recommend to have one or two,and let him
or her get used to it at very early age.We did not hd to close the door,once
he got used to it,in the beginning you might close it.
I hope this helps you in your selection.
Regrads:Andy,from Toronto.>

At 14:27 07/09/96 -0300, I wrote:
>Sziastok,
>
><snippo>
>That is true. In Canada, the non-elected members of Cabinet generally run
>for a political office as soon as possible after they are elected.

<mostly snippoed>

Ah, I will explain in case it is not obvious: I meant "after they are
*selected*" not "after they are elected".

Sorry for any confusion.

U:dv.,

Johanne/Janka
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

At 09:44 AM 9/6/96 -0700, Eva Balogh, who once again is giving me
unsolicited free advice, wrote:

<sinp>
>        It is not too smart to comment on matters about which we don't know
>much. You have no idea what shock therapy is but you assume that it means
>making the population poverty-stricken. Please, take your blinders off. You
>are an intlligent man, but when it comes to socialism and welfare state you
>lose your common sense.

Au contraire!  My common sense, if I have any at all, comes from my profound
belief that economic problems are not to be solved on the backs of the most
disadvantaged members of society.  It doesn't take any skill, knowledge,
guts, or what have you, to extract even more from 'the poor'.  It just takes
greed, which is often disguised as love for the economic prosperity of a
nation.  Blinders, and an incessant faith in the free market capitalist
system can aid in the plundering.

Joe Szalai

"Advocates of capitalism are very apt to appeal to the sacred principles of
liberty, which are embodied in one maxim: The fortunate must not be
restrained in the exercise of tyranny over the unfortunate."
               Bertrand Russell

At 04:01 AM 9/6/96 GMT, you wrote:
>Can somebody out there give me a really good recipe for langos? For those who
>don't know langos... find out about it! It's way yummy!
>
>                                The Gardener
>
Langos (traditional)

50 dkg flour
25 dkg riced potatoes
2 teaspoons dry yeast
2 dl milk
1 tsp sugar
Salt
Mix yeast sugar and two tablespoons of the flour
Add to 1 dl (of above) warm milk - let stand

Take remaining flour and place into a prewarmed metal bowl.  Add riced
potates and salt  (preferrably while still warm)

Add yeast mixture and remaining milk.  Mix well.  Knead.  Let stand till
triple original size.

Take dough and knead for a few minutes.  Roll out to 1/4"thickness  - cut
out pieces resembling size of a large bagel.  Place on a floured board and
let rise for 15 minutes.

Take each piece and manipulate to a nice roundlike shape, place in very hot
oil and fry each side until golden brown.

Rub with fresh garlic cloves and sprinkle with salt to taste.

Langos with Cabbage

Follow above recipe but add 5 tbsp grated and browned cabbage to flour
mixture along with potatoes.

Enjoy.  This is but one of a thousand recipies.  My family likes these two
variations the best.

Aniko Dunford
>

Joe Szalai At 01:01 PM 9/7/96 -0400, you wrote to Mark:

>With all due respect, and a large nudge-nudge, wink-wink, what kind of a
>#!*+$##@! god could have created a Shitzu?  Istenem!
>
One, who was in a good mood at the time.  Wish he could have utlized such
finess when creating humans - ;)?

As per Shitzus - they are lovely animals ....  but so are Cavallier King
Charles Spaniels.  I have a female; would highly recommend the breed to
anyone.  They are loving, fun and very clever - along with being fearless.
Which makes them a great watchdog also.  Infinitely loyal to the owners but
extremely sociable to newcomers.  Above all, they are extremely cute
looking.  The history states that they were originally bread to suit the
Lord and the Lady.  Can be trained to hunt but even if so their personality
remains that of a family pet when inside.  Required grooming is minimal.

Regards
Aniko


>Joe Szalai
>
>

#In article >,
 says...
#>
#>In article >,  says...#

#>You must know that freedom of association and freedom of speech without
#any
#>fear of harassment are basic human rights. So what are you talking
#about?
#>
#>Who are You Mr. Kanala?
#>
#>
#>Peter Kmet

        is that so difficult to guess?   an estebak on active duty,
        albeit one who has missed a page in the course of history:
        the one stating that the stb has been disbanded.  that's why
        magyar kanala keeps doing his job and in an insulting manner
        entertains the world.

I have been trying to find out what, if any, celebrations will take place
in Budapest on October 23, 1996.  I did do a rather extensive search on
the web and usenet without much success.  Does anyone know of a good source
of information?
Thank you in advance.

Kalman

>Mark Humphreys wrote:
>
>>This dog discussion is really informative. I agree with
>>the above praise of Shitzus. A neighbor of mine is going
>>to start raising them. They seem to need a lot
>>of grooming, though.
>
>Mark,
>
>With all due respect, and a large nudge-nudge, wink-wink, what kind of a
>#!*+$##@! god could have created a Shitzu?  Istenem!
>
>Joe Szalai
>
>

In response to Johanne's & Zoli's comments on my comments on
Parliamentary systems (in poart) I would like to amplify my bone of
contention. While I do understand that Parliamentary systems allow at times
that the law makers are also the executors of the law, I have a real
problem with those officials in the gov't who also own, directly or
indirectly, businesses (consulting or otherwise) that are in conflict of
interest. In fact, I do not believe that there is a requirement, such as
we have in the states,  about full disclosure and blind trusts. Thus,
there is
a lot of hanky p[anky going on which shgould not be permitted.

I beleivet hat Mr. Vamossy's comments, which I agreed with, imply perhaps
that there was (is) no level playing field for businessmen, such as, in
Hungarohotels (et al). I think it is a very serius issue that concerns me
and I am sure many other businessmen who deal with Hungary (or its
present and previous gov'ts).

I do have a suggestion..... If I have my facts correct, vcurrently no
Hungarian has to divulge the source of his/her income and can declare
whatever. Thus this permits many shady characters to "fib" on their
income taxes -- ergo conflicts of interests in gov't officials are
clearly "unnoticed" by the government. It seem perhaps that the
Parliamentary system as suggested by Johanne is a mechanism that allows
(or potentiallY allows) corruption to continue in the name of
Parliamentary Democracies.  The system therefore requires that all the
people be honest and forthright (which I am certain is not the case in
many countries -- some are better than others). Perhaps that it why our
forefathers in the USA created the system of checks and balances --- ah
yes, it may be slow, but at least we can be somewhat assured that there
is less hanky panky going on --- which is after all what peopel should
expect from government - LESS is MORE!

Peter Soltesz

On Sat, 7 Sep 1996, Joe Szalai wrote:

> Au contraire!  My common sense, if I have any at all, comes from my profound
> belief that economic problems are not to be solved on the backs of the most
> disadvantaged members of society.  It doesn't take any skill, knowledge,
> guts, or what have you, to extract even more from 'the poor'.  It just takes
> greed, which is often disguised as love for the economic prosperity of a
> nation.  Blinders, and an incessant faith in the free market capitalist
> system can aid in the plundering.
>
> Joe Szalai

I guess Joe brought up an interesting point....The examples of breaking
the backs of the poor are interesting, yet incorrect, in that actual free
capitalism is not necessarily the bad culprit.  He is correct that it is
greed that is the culprit.  In real free market economics, the worker can
earn in theory as much as he/she can convince the employer that he/she is
worth. If the employer needs that type of service, with few to provide
it, then the worker can ask for more. The basic issues I think is that
somehow there seems to be this inherent belief in Joe that those
"freeloafers" oguht to be paid for by those working for a living (via
taxation and distribution by people like Joe). I disagree with that
philosophy. This does not mean that I oppose assistacne those those in
need (determined by me and not Joe and the Govt')..in fact everyone
should help out all those who are in real need (You will know who they
are, one does not need a gov't to tell me!).

Peter Soltesz

Eva S. Balogh wrote:

ESB:
>>         And finally, inflation is still high (nowhere close to 20%),
>> economic growth slowed, GDP is lower than last year, and so on and so forth.
>> Should I continue?

GA:
>By all means, but this is a rather pointless litany of complaints without
>reference to, and comparison with, the likely effects of alternative policies.
>
>It is also very inconsistent that you claim to want economic reform but
>then fault the Socialists for the negative impact when they introduce it.
>So, economic reform is needed, as long as it is not coming from the
>'tainted old commies' ?



The dismantling happened much to fast and went in to wrong hands.
It is OK to have a capitalist elite but there is a huge diference
if it fells Hungarian or not.
The question is would they want the kids to speak, prey and feel Hungarian or
not.


A. Albu

Eva S. Balogh wrote:

ESB:
>>         And finally, inflation is still high (nowhere close to 20%),
>> economic growth slowed, GDP is lower than last year, and so on and so forth.
>> Should I continue?

GA:
>By all means, but this is a rather pointless litany of complaints without
>reference to, and comparison with, the likely effects of alternative policies.
>
>It is also very inconsistent that you claim to want economic reform but
>then fault the Socialists for the negative impact when they introduce it.
>So, economic reform is needed, as long as it is not coming from the
>'tainted old commies' ?






>         First of all, I am at a disadvantage. You are an economist and I am
> not. But as far as I know with a restrictive economic policy at least the
> inflation was supposed to drop rather significantly. It didn't. Yes, I am
> all for economic reform but this government's economic reform is very
> half-hearted and as a result it doesn't really do what it is supposed to do.
> Right now we are on the slippery slope again: backing away from the reforms.
> As for your last sentence, I think you are unfair and I resent it. I am
> simply trying to be analytical and fair. I don't particularly care about
> these guys' background as long as they perform. I am complaining about their
> *performance* not their background. Their background is important only
> insofar as it didn't prepare them for the tasks ahead.
>
> ESB:
> >> I can't imagine that the MSZP if it had been voted into office in 1990
would
> >> have been the party to dismantle quickly the edifice of "existing
> >> socialism."


The dismantling happened much to fast and went in to wrong hands.
It is OK to have a capitalist elite but there is a huge divergence
if it fells Hungarian or not. The question is would they want the
kids to speak, prey and feel in Hungarian or not.


> GA:
> >No, but this is pointless idle speculation.  What is fact is that in 1994
> >they did start dismantling the remnants of existing socialism
>
>         OK. But in 1944 it looked to everybody that the MSZP government is
> going to stop even the slow dismantling of existing socialism. Further debts
> were accumulated and the economic situation further deteriorated.


The MSZP was elected to do just that. They have sold the country and now the
Nation.
They grabbed the opportunity to sell out and they sold out much to fast to
undisirebles and for nothing. The counry is in an inimaginable ruin. He was
electer
to do just what Iliescu did in Romania. But Iliescu is  a true Romainan. His
blood
is Romanian he would face the firing squad as others before him, before he
would sell out an
inch of Basarabia. Horn may speak Hungarian but he does not pray in Hungarian.
His God has nothing to do with the 1000 year old nation or the
past 500 years of western civilization.


>
> >Czechoslovakia managed with a much smaller blip in GDP than Hungary and
> >they started from further behind.  True, the jury is still out on the
> >Czech method of capitalist transformation, but they did manage to avoid
> >the extent of economic and social dislocation that befell Hungary.
>
>         Indeed, the jury is still out.

Assets  vs  Stock.  I had the impresion that the Checks sold stock oposed to
the
Hungarians wich sold mostly assets, big diference.



A. Albu

Hello,

I am interested in the various parts that make up the Coat or
Arms--the one from before World War I. Does anyone know if there are
internet or Web-based resources that might provide some background. We
have visited some of the Web-based museums and so far, have only found
a picture. Thanks for any suggestions.

LP