Why It Sucks to be a Government Employee

Peter Orszag quit his government job. For three and a half years, he ran two federal budget agencies, and in 2010, he defected to Wall Street. Even though he thinks the government desperately needs more smart people, he has deep empathy for those who flee to the private sector.

“In a hyperpolarized environment in which we effectively have a bipolar Congress with no middle, there are just much smaller returns to being in government,” he said during an interview with The Atlantic’s Steve Clemons on Wednesday. Because of this, smart people working in business see less appeal in taking a pay cut and moving to Washington. “What would excite many of the people I know about being in government would be the opportunity to actually do things, rather than just lob grenades at each other,” he said.

Read more. [Image: Wikimedia Commons]

Can greed actually help the economy?

New York Magazine recently had a cover feature entitled "The Post-Crash: Wall Street Won" that perfectly captured the current mood on Wall Street.

One article of note detailed former budget director for the Obama administration Peter Orszag's move to Vice Chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup. Notable economists criticized Orszag of cashing out and using his Washington connections for the money green pastures of investment banking—rather than trying to save the economy from the inside, he instead wanted to play the game and make the money. To those criticisms, Orszag refutes that helping to stabilize the economy requires support from politicians, academics, and bankers and can he do so with his knowledge of all three and his position with Citigroup.

After reading the article, it becomes difficult not to agree with Orszag. Of course, his reported $2 to $3 million paycheck does not hurt and likely led him to this job over, say, a position with an economic think tank. Yet, this form of greed—the desire for a large payday—may actually the economy. His extensive experience, including a doctorate in economics from the London School of Economics and a notable New York Times op-ed calling for a long-term awareness of lowering the deficit, reveals that Orszag wants to help the economy as effectively as possible. The same applies to his position with Citigroup. He may even have a greater hand in reshaping the risk-loving culture of banks as a part of the “banking elite.”

His move into investment banking reflects his opinion on incentives: that in order to achieve the best outcome for all parties, some incentives need to be offered. In his case, he found an incentive in a hefty paycheck but that same incentive may very well push him to the bolster our lagging economy.

For more information on Orszag’s opinion on a variety of economic issues, watch the video below.

Photo courtesy of The White House

Winds of Economic Change Blow Away College Degree: Peter Orszag

By Peter Orszag

Many parents in the U.S. are legitimately concerned about the prospects for their college-age children. After all, today’s students face three overlapping challenges: a long-term structural shift as the world’s effective labor supply expands; rising tuition and growing concerns about the quality of public higher education; and the misfortune of graduating into a weak labor market.

The first challenge arises from rapid shifting of the tectonic plates that underlie the world labor market. Over the past 25 years, the effective global labor supply has at least doubled and by some estimates has quadrupled. This has suppressed wage growth in the developed economies and reduced the share of national income accruing to labor. So far, people without a college degree have primarily borne the consequences. As a result, globalization has widened the inequality between workers at the 90th percentile of wages and those at the 50th percentile.

The effects of globalization are already moving up the wage scale, though, and that trend will likely continue. As Alan Blinder of Princeton University trenchantly noted in 2006, “Many people blithely assume that the critical labor-market distinction is, and will remain, between highly educated (or highly skilled) people and less-educated (or less-skilled) people — doctors versus call-center operators, for example.” Instead, the crucial distinction is between those tasks that are easily digitized (and thus subject to substantial competition from workers abroad) and those that are not.

Widening Wage Gap

As a result, in the future, a college degree by itself will be less likely to guarantee a high wage. Ongoing economic globalization may even reduce the gap between the 90th percentile and 50th percentile, but continue to widen it between the 99.9th percentile and the 90th percentile. As Blinder argues, “Since the distinction between personal services (likely to remain in rich countries) and impersonal services (likely to go) does not correspond to the traditional distinction between high-skilled and low-skilled work, simply providing more education cannot be the whole answer.”

The second challenge for college-age Americans involves falling state government support for public higher education. Almost three-quarters of all college students attend public schools, and state governments have provided primary support for these institutions. But revenue constraints, combined with rising Medicaid expenditures, push states to reduce spending on colleges and universities.

The experience of the past few years has been consistent with what the economist Tom Kane of Harvard University and I showed in a series of papers several years ago: Pressure from rising health costs causes states to cut back their relative support for higher education, especially during economic declines. And the education funding never returns to its pre- belt-tightening level.

In 1977, state appropriations for higher education averaged $8.50 per $1,000 in personal income. By 2002, after cutbacks during recessions, it had fallen to $7 for every $1,000 of personal income. And last year, after further reductions during the latest recession, it had declined to $6.

The most recent spending cuts have tended to be largest in those states with the sharpest increases in Medicaid spending, as Kane and I had found for previous business cycles. For example, from 2008 to 2010, for every percentage-point increase in the share of a state’s general-fund budget devoted to Medicaid, funding for higher education was reduced, on average, by 3 percent.

Rising Tuition

With less money from state coffers, public colleges and universities are under pressure to both raise tuition and reduce the quality of the education they provide. In general, despite significant tuition and student-debt increases, spending per student at public universities hasn’t kept pace with that at private universities. And this, in turn, manifests itself in various quality indicators.

Kane and I had documented, for example, a decline in assistant-professor salaries relative to those at private universities from 1980 to the early 2000s, driven by the cutbacks in state support. Data from the American Association of University Professors indicate this trend is continuing.

In 2000, an assistant professor at Stanford University earned an average of 9 percent more than an assistant professor at the University of California at Berkeley. By this year, that gap had widened to 17 percent. Eventually, these differentials will affect where top professors choose to teach.

Some admittedly imperfect indicators suggest the quality of public higher education is already fading. For example, in 1987, both UC Berkeley and the University of Michigan were included in U.S. News & World Report’s ranking of the top 10 universities. By this year, there were no public universities in the top 10 — and UC Berkeley, the top-ranked public school, had fallen from fifth to 21st. For students who can’t get into or afford private universities, this is a problem.

The final challenge for college graduates is to enter a labor market with a higher-than-usual unemployment rate. A recent study estimated that every percentage-point increase in the jobless rate depresses wages for new graduates by about 6 percent. Even 15 years post-graduation, this effect fades only a bit, to about 3 percent. Since the unemployment rate is currently roughly three percentage points higher than its long- run level, after 15 years today’s graduates can be expected to earn about 10 percent less than if they graduated into a normal employment situation. Weak labor markets knock young people off course for years.

Responding to Globalization

Our ability to address these three problems is inversely related to the order in which I have presented them: With very aggressive action to boost the economy today (including through ambitious policies on housing and by coupling additional stimulus with long-term deficit reduction), we could significantly strengthen the labor market today. By moving toward an emphasis on quality rather than quantity in health care, we could help slow the upward trajectory of health costs, which are crowding out state support for higher education.

The hardest problem of all, though, is the first one. Even assuming away the dysfunction of our political system, for most new college graduates, we have precious few serious strategies to offset the increasing digitization and globalization of the labor market.

One place to start would be to focus on raising productivity in public higher education, so that we could do a better job of delivering quality with constrained budgets. Would we be better off if research dollars were even more concentrated in fewer institutions, and a larger share of faculty specialized in teaching (which is often given short shrift at research universities)? Can more businesses partner with public colleges to create curriculums to teach specific job skills? Can remote learning and online coursework, especially for remedial subjects, finally realize their potential?

The present situation for college kids is so uninspiring, we should experiment aggressively to find the best ways to improve it.

(Peter Orszag is vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup Inc. and a former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Peter Orszag at orszagbloomberg@gmail.com

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net

Article source: Peter Orszag and Bloomberg View


Nem tudtam, hogy Gyorben ennyire Trianon az after party.
A varoshaza melletti parkban Bognar Lajos ezustkoszorus lakatosmester hegesztett-festett vasobjektje ket labon allva jeleniti meg az orszag reszekre szakadasanak szakralis-plasztikai dramajat. Ha ez nem lenne eleg, akkor kicsit tavolabb egy harom meter atmeroju uvegezett tablo illusztralja a trianoni darabolos hentesmunka eredmenyet. Kulon szep es meghato, ahogy az uvegen visszatukrozodnek az egykori szocialista Magyarorszag posztfunkcionalista haztombjei a darabokra szakado Nagymagyarorszag testreszein.

U.S. Can Rent Its Way Toward a Housing Recovery: Peter Orszag

By Peter Orszag

After any financial collapse, housing plays a key role in the hard slog that typically follows: a weak housing market feeds into a weak economy, which then feeds back onto a weak housing market. So even if the European banking system somehow avoids a meltdown, economic recovery in the U.S. will continue to languish unless we act more aggressively on housing.

No matter what the government might try to do to break the housing-economy cycle, the deleveraging process will still be painful and take some time. But that’s not an argument against action; just because a headache can still hurt some even if you take aspirin doesn’t mean you should skip the aspirin. One thing the Obama administration could do now — probably with Republican support — would be to attack the oversupply of housing stock by allowing a tax write-off for investors who buy empty properties and rent them out.

To understand why this would help, consider that the problems in the residential real-estate sector have two dimensions. First, we have an excess supply of owner- occupied housing, which puts downward pressure on prices. Second, millions of American households now have negative equity in their homes. Dealing with excess inventory by shifting vacant properties into the rental market would help to stabilize prices and thereby mitigate, to some degree, the negative-equity issue — although additional action would also be warranted to attack such “underwater” situations. (A future column will discuss possible responses.)

It’s normal to have some vacant homes for sale as part of the market process that matches buyers with sellers. On average during the 1990s, for example, the home vacancy rate was about 1.5 percent, according to the Census Bureau. By 2008, the figure had risen to 2.9 percent. And by the second quarter of this year, the vacancy rate had come down only slightly, to about 2.5 percent. With this much supply still available, it’s no wonder that prices are still depressed.

Excess Empty Homes

The percentage-point difference between the latest vacancy rate (2.5 percent) and a more normal historical rate (1.5 percent) amounts to an excess inventory of almost 1 million vacant homes. (Estimates based on other methodologies are roughly in that range.) If the government does nothing, that extra inventory will be slowly worked off, as the economy gradually recovers and more households are formed. The question is whether the government can do anything to accelerate that process, to support home prices and, ultimately, to promote a stronger economic recovery.

One way to bolster demand would be to change our immigration laws to make it easier for foreigners to move here and buy homes. That might be a good idea, but it has no chance of being enacted soon. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan once highlighted a different idea, focused on supply instead of demand: Get the government to buy the excess vacant houses and destroy them. He argued that could be the lowest-cost approach to mitigating a housing-driven decline — but also noted that it would be politically inconceivable.

A more realistic approach would be to try to get the vacant houses rented out, rather than sold to owner- occupants. And one way to do that — proposed by real- estate practitioners (such as Kyle Jividen of Alamo Appraisal Group in San Antonio) and economists (such as William Wheaton of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Gleb Nechayev of the research firm CBRE Econometric Advisors) — is to provide an immediate tax write-off to investors who buy vacant houses and rent them out.

Currently, people who purchase residential real estate depreciate the value of the property for tax purposes over 27.5 years. To encourage other forms of investment, policy makers have allowed businesses to immediately depreciate the full cost of most of their investments. But real estate hasn’t been eligible. So Congress could give investors the incentive to buy vacant houses now by allowing them to write off the value immediately, as long as they hold on to the properties for some number of years and rent them out.

Lower Investment Costs

My colleague Richard Wagreich of Citigroup’s Financial Strategy Group has estimated the effect of such a tax break. He calculates that annual costs on real-estate investments would be reduced by about a third, given reasonable assumptions about tax rates for investors and the interest they must pay to borrow. The policy would also make more rental units available and lower their price, thereby encouraging more people to move out of existing households and into their own rental units.

To avoid abuses, the allowance would have to apply only to houses that have been vacant for, say, six months. And there would need to be provisions to take back the benefit in cases where homes were quickly resold rather than kept on the rental market.

What about the cost to taxpayers? By giving the deduction in full now, rather than gradually, the government loses the time value of money over that period. But when government bond yields are exceptionally low, as they are now, that cost is relatively modest.

One might think that since the government’s cost is relatively low, the benefit to investors must be low, too. Real-estate buyers, however, say the shift would lead to a substantial number of new investments.

To get some sense of the numbers, assume the policy induces an extra 250,000 housing units to be purchased each year and rented out, in addition to 500,000 other ones that would be bought and rented even in the absence of the immediate tax expensing. If the average price of those houses is $250,000 (roughly the national average), the 10- year cost to the government for each year the policy is in place would be less than $50 billion. Most of that amount, though, would be recaptured in future years, because the full deductions would already have been claimed. The cost to the government in present value would thus be about $10 billion for each year the policy was in place.

Selling Inventory

Maintaining this policy for two years would, under these assumptions, work off half or more of the excess inventory at a present-value cost to the government of $20 billion. That seems like a pretty good deal — and at least worth trying.

To avoid letting the tax break outlive its purpose, it should be tied to the supply of vacant homes for sale. Once that number returns to a more normal level, the write-off should automatically end.

This kind of accelerated depreciation wouldn’t bring the housing market fully back to health. But since the economy is stuck in a rut and homes prices are a key reason, it is worth trying. Perhaps most importantly, in this era of political polarization, the idea of giving real-estate investors an immediate write-off for buying and then renting out vacant homes should appeal to Republicans. And that means if the administration proposes the idea, Congress could actually make it happen.

(Peter Orszag is vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup Inc. and a former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this article: Peter Orszag at orszagbloomberg@gmail.com.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net.

combino orszag az
ahol egy familia tiz eves gyermekevel es mekis fagyival szall fel a villamosra, majd a fiu hirtelen lerakja a fagyit a foldre, elokapja a flakon tejszinhabot es a csalad nagy tetszesere puposra tolti a muanyag poharat

az elkovetkezo 8 oraban skocia

politikai statusza olyan, mint schrodinger macskajanak letezese, tenyszeruen mar eldolt, hogy onallo orszag-e, vagy maradt a uk-ban (este 10kor zarult a szavazas), de ezt a tenyt holnap reggel hat elott (amikorra meglesz az osszeszamlalas) nincs mod ellenorizni.

Leaving DC - 8 September

Ma is a szokasos idopontban keltunk. Amugy rajtunk kivul meg ket kinai van a szobaban: egy kb velunk egy idos srac es egy idosebb faszi. Na az idosebb egy ritka gusztustalan oreg fasz: bofog, fingik, krakog es szurcsoli a levest es a taknyat, van hogy ezt a kettot egyszerre pluszba meg buta, ertelmetlen a nezese es magaban beszel neha. Na mind1, ok a szobatarsaink. Neha vicces szituk is voltak de tobb napot nem igazan birtunk volna ki meg veluk: koran fekszenek, az idosebb neha morog is de leszartuk. Szoval reggeli a mekiben es mivel a buszunk csak 13:00-kor indult meg volt idonk elmenni a Ford’s Theatre-be es a hazba ahol Lincoln meghalt. Persze ezek is ingyen voltak:) Fantasztikus egy kirandulas volt ez is Amerika tortenelmebe. Kepek, eszkozok, fegyverek, meg a Derringer is ki volt allitva amivel Lincolnt lelottek. Mivel o az egyik legkiemelkedobb elnok az orszag tortenelmeben, nagyon nagy elmeny volt latni a kiallitottakat. Bementunk az ulohelyekhez is plusz megneztuk az erkelyt is ahol a vegzetes esten ult a felesegevel mikozben Wilkes besetalt mogejuk az eloadas kozben. Teljesen lenyugozo elmeny, plane ha az ember leul a nezoteren es elkepzeli azt az estet majdnem 150 evvel ezelott.

Ezutan atmentunk a szembe hazba ahova a meglott elnokot vittek. Itt is sok erdekes dolog volt, ki volt allitva az eredeti agy, amin Lincoln haldoklott, masolata mivel az eredeti Chicagoban van. A tortenelem teljesen korbevett minket ezen a par napon Washingtonban. Imadom a varost, kicsi, konnyu navigalni es viszonylag gyorsan bejarhato.

A kep viszont nem teljes a negativumok nelkul is amit ugy erzem itt egy par szoban meg kell emlitenem: van egy jo par hajlektalan akik itt-ott elfekszenek es ami a legijesztobb, hogy emberek neha az utcan magukban beszelnek. Nem vicc!!! Ha ezt nem magam latom nem hiszem el es New Yorkban is van ilyen, meg rosszabb. Ha latjak a fekak hogy turista vagy egybol hajtanak a borravalora vagy a gyors penzre. Egyik modja ennek hogy kinyitjak az ajtot neked mikozben jossz ki a mekibol aztan elvarjak hogy szorj aprot. Tapasztalatbol beszelek, mondanom sem kell hogy egybol tovabb setaltunk. Amint korabban irtam egyszer betevedtunk egy kicsit “szines” utcaba ahol ott alltak a sarkon, csak igy lezengtek, ami ugye tilos (No loitering), plusz voltak vagy huszan. Ott egy kicsit megugrott az adrenalin de nem volt annyira huzos a helyzet mert az egyik epulet elott ott volt egy or na de akkor is.
Na de ennyit a negativumokrol.

Osszegezve: nagyon jo varos, nagyon bejott es a szirenak hangja olyan mintha a ‘30-as evekben lenne az ember. Ez is csak hozzatett a tortenelmi vetulethez. Egyszoval fantasztikusan kis porgos, gyonyoru a Federal District.

Most eppen buszozunk New York fele, kb meg masfel ora ha jo a forgalom. Miutan megerkezunk Gabi meg elmegy hajat vagatni, majd irany a szallas este meg egy kis sorozes a Central Parknal. Nagyon varom mar.

Kis intermezzo: most erkeztunk meg, csak ezt a reszt most irom hozza. Minimalista szoba, nincs szef de lenn van vmi hasonlo. Egesz jo hely, itt ulok a lounge-ban, mellettunk 2 francia beszelget, egesz baratsagosak. Vettunk sort Gabival szal ma esti program meg is van. Majd jelentkezem:)

Private Air-Traffic System Can Soar

By Peter Orszag

Sept. 21 (Bloomberg) — Without a doubt, GPS, the satellite-based navigation system that has revolutionized travel by car and truck, even by foot, could do the same for commercial air traffic.

President Barack Obama has proposed stepping up government investment in NextGen, a GPS-based air-traffic-control technology that will allow planes to fly closer to one another than they can with human and radar help alone and to follow more direct flight paths. The system is expected to reduce delays by more than a third, saving billions of dollars for airline companies and for the traveling public. This would mean consuming less jet fuel, so carbon emissions would be lower, too. The change would even improve safety by making us less dependent on sleep-deprived controllers.

So it’s a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, though, the NextGen system is being rolled out in stages, and it isn’t expected to be fully operational in U.S. airports and aircraft until 2020. Even that slow timetable assumes that the Federal Aviation Administration, the agency overseeing the project, receives the necessary funding from Congress and can meet all its deadlines.

Nonprofit Solution

We shouldn’t have to wait so long. There is a way to move faster, one that would probably also help the NextGen system work more smoothly once it’s in place: Take responsibility for implementing the new GPS system, and for air-traffic control altogether, away from the FAA and assign it to a private, nonprofit organization. (Disclosure: Aerospace clients I work with at Citigroup Inc. would benefit from faster implementation of NextGen.)

Almost two dozen other countries have already assigned air- traffic control to either government-owned corporations, nonprofits or other organizations outside of government, and the results have generally been encouraging. As the U.S. Government Accountability Office concluded in a 2005 review, these operators have maintained or even improved air safety, while they have lowered costs and boosted efficiency by investing in new technology.

NAV Canada, for example, is a nonprofit corporation that provides air-traffic control, along with weather reports, flight information and other services. Its revenue comes from fees charged to airlines for this work. Its safety record is excellent. And, compared with the FAA, it tends to be more responsive to innovation and better able to make improvements in technology, investing in the needs of its user airlines.

For example, NAV Canada has developed a touch-screen flight data and display system, called NAVCANstrips, which automates controllers’ work flow and reduces their need to communicate with one another verbally. It integrates tower flight data with information about departures, arrivals and planes en route, as well as radar, weather and the status of runways. This system was developed by controllers themselves, and NAV Canada has sold it to the U.K., Denmark and other countries. (It’s also being used at Sheppard Air Force Base in Texas.)

The public air-traffic-control system we have in the U.S. began as part of the federal government’s role in air mail, starting in the early 20th century, through the U.S. Postal Service (an agency that should also be moved out of the government, but that’s a different topic). By the 1920s, the government was licensing pilots and issuing certificates of airworthiness for planes.

FAA History

In the late 1930s, Congress explicitly assigned the Civil Aeronautics Authority (the predecessor of the FAA) the job of managing air-traffic control. That was more than 70 years ago, even before the use of radar in civil aviation. Today, air traffic increasingly relies on rapidly evolving technology, and the FAA has, for decades, struggled to keep up.

As late as the 1970s, U.S. air-traffic control was still using light beacons to guide planes at night. As a 2006 review of the agency, by Clinton Oster of Indiana University, concluded, “Concerns about being able to upgrade and expand the air traffic control system to accommodate anticipated growth in air traffic have been almost continual since the early 1960s.”

In 2004, an expert panel convened by the National Academy of Sciences likewise concluded that the FAA lacks the technical expertise needed to build and manage complex air-traffic systems.

An important reason the FAA has had trouble keeping up with technology is that its funding has been unstable and uncertain. Its money comes from two sources, an annual appropriation from Congress, and revenue from the passenger tax. The amount that comes from Congress is always at risk of being reduced, especially when money is tight. And the passenger tax, for its part, is misaligned with the costs of air-traffic control.

The tax is assessed on airlines’ total receipts from ticket sales, but what determines the amount of funding needed is not the number of passengers or the price paid per passenger (which combined determine ticket revenue), but rather the number of flights coming in and out of airports. And that is not directly reflected in the passenger count because it varies depending on size of aircraft and how full the flights are.

User Pays

A better approach would be for users to pay the whole bill, and for the fees to be imposed based on the number of takeoffs and landings. This would ensure that those who use the air- traffic-control system pay for it, and it would keep funding outside the political process.

To be sure, there are downsides to a user-based revenue model. For example, NAV Canada experienced financial difficulties after the Sept. 11 attacks, when travel declined, diminishing its revenue base. In response, the agency raised user rates, froze employee wages and took other steps to improve its financial health. By 2005, NAV Canada’s finances had stabilized.

Perhaps the biggest objection to shifting air-traffic responsibilities to a nonprofit comes from the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. It asserts that private management would create tension between safety and profits — even though the Canadian agency has an outstanding safety record. Other union concerns could be at least partially mitigated by including protections for controllers in the legislation that would move air-traffic control out of the FAA. For example, in NAV Canada, the unions nominate two members of the board of directors. The Canadian agency also extended pre- existing job security provisions and reached a new collective- bargaining agreement with employees.

This isn’t to say all government functions would be best turned over to private operators. There are some jobs that, over the past two decades, the U.S. has unwisely moved out of government control. In the 1990s, for example, despite some strong objections within the Clinton administration, the government turned over to private operators the U.S. Enrichment Corp., which has the job of enriching nuclear fuel.

The regulation of airline safety and operation should remain the business of the government, as it would pose too many conflicts of interest to have the airlines regulate themselves. But as other countries have shown, air-traffic control can be split off into a nongovernmental entity even while the government retains regulatory oversight of air travel. NAV Canada, especially, provides a model the U.S. would be smart to follow.

(Peter Orszag is vice chairman of global banking at Citigroup Inc. and a former director of the Office of Management and Budget in the Obama administration. The opinions expressed are his own.)

—Editors: Mary Duenwald, David Henry

Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.

To contact the writer of this article: Peter Orszag at orszagbloomberg@gmail.com.

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net.

10 / 30 - May in the Summer / Cherien Dabis, 2013


Valaki azt irta rola, hogy olyan, mintha a Hallmark csatorna csinalta volna, es indie statusz ide vagy oda, ez bizony tenyleg egy remes Hallmark film, tele olyan mely bolcsessegekkel, mint ‘neha el kell veszitenunk valakit, hogy rajojjunk, milyen fontos is a szamunkra’. Jordaniaban jatszodik, ami, mondanom sem kell, igen izgalmas is lehetett volna: az orszag a vilag egyik legforrobb politikai tengelyen fekszik, az osszes szomszedja naponta a hirekben, mig Jordania viszonylag konszolidalt, folvilagosodott, gazdag. De szinte teljesen mindegy a kornyezet, akar egy michigani varosba is tehettek volna, semmi, de semmi couleur locale nem tunik fol, mintha ez a specialis geopolitikai helyzet nem is letezne. De nem csak a geopolitikai helyzetre gondolok, hanem azert valahol egy arab allamrol van szo; ott is egy olyan csaladrol, amelyik ugyan arabul beszel, de palesztin kereszteny, es ellenzi az egyik lany eskuvojet, mert a volegeny egy ateista muszlim. Szoval azert akadhatott volna sok erdekes tortenet a tortenetben, de… mi csak a Hallmark vonalat kaptuk, a mezedes, szenvelgo giccset. 

2 / 10

Aztan a Nato szepen betelepulne a Krimbe. Oroszorszag hagyja nyugodtan kiirtani az orosz kissebsegeket a nazi ukran kormany altal.Lassan ugy tunik a NATO egy sokkal agresszivabb szervezet mint a KGST volt pedig az sem volt semmi.
Egy 25 eve letezo mestersegesen kialakitott orszag mellett pofaznak.Erdekes az 1000 eves tortenelmi Magyarorszagot nem kivanjak visszaallitani.Mi a fenet keres Magyarorszag egy ilyen szevezetben?