The Hungarian Reform Alliance: ideas of capitalists and economists

It was at the end of November, 2008, that a new organization came into being: the Reform Alliance. It consisted of nine representatives of business associations, the president of the Hungarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the present and past presidents of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the former presidents of the Hungarian National Bank, and ministers of finance and economic development prior to 2002.

Considering that the Reform Alliance's suggestions had to have solid economic grounding, a slew of economists were invited to work on the project. Publicly only four names are known: László Békesi, briefly minister of finance in Gyula Horn's government and now a professor of economics; Attila Chikán, minister of economics in the first half of Viktor Orbán's tenure as prime minister, now also a professor of economics; Péter Oszkó, CEO of Deloitte in Hungary; and Éva Palócz, CEO of the Kopint-Tárki Economic Research Institute. Three of these (Békesi, Chikán, and Oszkó) headed workshops, each dealing with different aspects of the economy.

The long awaited report became available today, and in the building of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences the leading members of the Reform Alliance along with the above-mentioned four economists gave a press conference. And the reactions? Perhaps Ferenc Gyurcsány said it most succinctly: "It is impressive but in its effects on society is at times chilling." However, he added, the government will analyze the document line by line. He somewhat optimistically added that the government's and the Alliance's numbers for 2009 are closer than might appear at first blush. It is true, he said, that the government officially talked about a savings of 220 billion forints for the year, but they believe that the final number will be closer to 260-270 billion forints. That is not so far from the goal of the Reform Alliance, 330 billion for 2009. János Veres, minister of finance, mentioned two problem areas. First, he can't see how they could introduce property taxes in Hungary this year as the Alliance suggests. Second, he doesn't see where the funds will come from to cover the reduction in payroll taxes after 2009--by 3% in 2010 and an additional 2% in 2011. Gordon Bajnai, minister in charge of economics and development, cheerfully added that some of the Alliance's suggestions have already been adopted while others will be introduced shortly.

Fidesz wasn't that charitable. Péter Szijjárto, who by now is not just an ordinary spokesman but the director of communications, held a press conference this afternoon where originally he didn't want to deal with the issue. The press conference was held to announce Viktor Orbán's "international negotiations" and their results. Szijjártó stated that Orbán is planning to launch a common regional front (the so-called Visegrád Four, i.e. Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary) in order to receive greater financial assistance from the European Union. There are a couple of problems here. First and foremost, Orbán is not yet the prime minister of Hungary. Second, Ferenc Gyurcsány already made the same suggestion, and next week he has scheduled meetings with European politicians to hammer out an agreement. And there is a third problem: Orbán most likely wouldn't be a welcome guest in Slovakia. He did visit Poland and the Czech Republic, but according to a sarcastic remark by the prime minister, he went there to lobby for their support in his quest to hold onto his post as one of the vice-chairmen of the Christian Democratic International, an umbrella organization of 74 European conservative parties. Szijjártó also announced a new Orbán junket. This time to Berlin where Orbán will negotiate with important politicians of the German Christian Democratic Union and will also have a conversation with Chancellor Angela Merkel. Well, we will see about that. The last meeting with Merkel didn't quite work out the way Orbán planned.

Most likely to Szijjártó's annoyance there was a question from a reporter about the suggestions of the Reform Alliance. Szijjártó was adamant that no austerity package is acceptable. Nothing can be taken away from the people who are not responsible for the crisis. After all, laws provide for these social assistance programs and in a democracy one must obey the law. Moreover, the current economic crisis has nothing to do with thirteenth-month bonuses. The cause of the crisis is the government's ill-conceived economic policies. The real problems started with the austerity package of 2006. Well, that sentence took my breath away because everybody knows that the austerity program was critical in reducing the bloated budget deficit. I would hate think what the situation would be today if Hungary's budget deficit were still over 10%. As usual, the reporter was satisfied with Szijjártó's answer.

Back to the Alliance plan, described by many newspapers as "brutal cutbacks." The Alliance outlined a five-year plan. During this period the economists of the Reform Allliance suggest cutbacks in spending amounting to 1,350 billion forints. They would abolish entitlements as they now exist. Instead people would receive assistance, including child support, only on the basis of need. They would abolish the extra month of pension completely, not just incorporating it into the normal year as the government planned. They would raise the retirement age at a much faster pace than the government announced. In the next three years they would reduce payroll taxes by 10%. The lower personal income tax bracket, qualifying for an 18% tax rate (as opposed to the 38% rate for the more affluent), would include all those with incomes under 5 million forints, 2 million more than the government's suggested limit.  Currently there is a flat rate of 1,900 Ft per month paid by an employee as his or her healthcare contribution. The Alliance would demand 5,000 Ft a month instead. The economists added that in addition to the 1,350 billion in savings another 1,000 billion could be saved by freezing government expenses at their current level. Attila Czikán claimed that the Hungarian educational system is "awful" and that another 20 billion could be saved while improving standards. Éva Palócz concentrated on such state enterprises as the Hungarian Railroads (MÁV) and the Budapest Transit System (BKV). According to her another 85 billion could be saved there. According to Péter Oszkó (Deloitte) the current disbursement of GDP is 50.5% as opposed to the Polish and Czech 42-43% and the Slovak 38%. Therefore it is clear that in comparison to the other three Visegrád countries Hungary is not competitive. The Alliance would like to lower Hungary's disbursement to 42.1%. According to Békesi such a move would ensure a 1.5% percent growth in GDP per year and it could even reach 3-4%. Their calculations are based on a forint-euro ratio of 260-280 and a 2.5% inflation rate. They think that Hungary would be able to fulfill all its obligations for entering the eurozone by January 1, 2012.

As Menedzsment Fórum, an online economic newspaper, summarized the current situation, neither the government nor the opposition will stand by the suggestions of the Reform Alliance because "they are afraid of social upheaval." My feeling is that the government will adopt some of the less draconian suggestions of the Reform Alliance in order to appease its framers. In the short term the work of the Alliance may benefit the government. The people may just think that they are lucky to have the government's proposal that is not so "brutal" after all in comparison to the "chilling" suggestions of businessmen and economists.

Comments

[Mark]

When I commented in the SZDSZ thread yesterday it was these proposals that were uppermost in my mind.

In the current climate they are a complete non-starter. I would go far as to say that their implementation is not compatible with the survival of democratic institutions. No elected government could introduce these reforms in current circumstances and expect to sustain them. I doubt that they would be sustainable even in the unlikely event of agreement between the MSZP and FIDESZ. The anger they would generate would focus attention on why the population were being asking to bear the costs of austerity, when the wealthy - among them those in power - were seen to have caused the problem. That is not mention that such cutbacks in the midst of the recession would be completely counterproductive.

I do see benefits deriving from some of the proposals if they were re-cast as part of a long-term restructuring of the welfare state. The quality and efficiency of public transport will only be improved by making the ticket prices large sections of the population pay more realistic - and this means limiting the concessions to those of compulsory school age and pensioners, and making everyone else pay 100% of the price. Welfare states are mechanisms of collective social insurance, by which society decides to insure all its members against certain misfortunes - not a free gift from the state. There clearly needs to be a closer relationship between contributions and benefits. And I'm absolutely sure that with better management, the effectiveness of state spending could be raised. But, the public sector is a complex creature and cannot be overhauled overnight. Furthermore, if it is to be reformed so that it functions in the interests of the service users, citizens themselves have to feel empowered by the reform process. If they are being asked to pay more, something will need to be offered in return or reform will fail.

In terms of the promised economic benefits, I cannot help but feel that the Reform Alliance are promising the earth, when there is no real basis for believing them. Let me give some examples:

" According to Péter Oszkó (Deloitte) the current disbursement of GDP is 50.5% as opposed to the Polish and Czech 42-43% and the Slovak 38%. Therefore it is clear that in comparison to the other three Visegrád countries Hungary is not competitive."

Whatever you think about the right proportion of GDP that the public sector should take, international comparison suggests that there is no relationship between the size of a country's public sector and its competitiveness. If you look at the IMD's competitiveness rankings then four Scandinavian states - Denmark (no.6), Sweden (no.9), Norway (no.11), and Finland (no.5) - come in the top 20. All these states have have journeyed from Europe's economic periphery since the early twentieth century to become its richest countries by the beginning of the twenty-first. All have had public sectors and welfare expenditures more extensive than the European norm since the early 1930s, i.e. before they became rich countries (and tax rates that are higher). All are small, open economies that have relied on predominantly export-driven growth. I would agree that public expenditure needs to be effective, and the Hungarian state is not very effective, but I've never heard anyone explain sensibly why a smaller state per se will necessarily make a country more competitive.

"The Alliance would like to lower Hungary's disbursement to 42.1%. According to Békesi such a move would ensure a 1.5% percent growth in GDP per year and it could even reach 3-4%."

First of all, given that the whole basis on which Central and Eastern Europe's growth model is based is falling apart before our very eyes, and no-one really knows how it will be reconstructed, any calculations like this should be taken with huge bucket fulls of salt. Even if we assume the return of the international environment that existed in August 2007, then Békesi's assumptions are pretty questionable. The reduction in payroll taxes may help at the margins, but I'm seriously wondering where this extra 1.5% growth per annum is going to come from.

[Eva S. Balogh]

Mark: "I would go far as to say that their [the Reform Alliance's suggestions] implementation is not compatible with the survival of democratic institutions."

You and I might think so, but SZDSZ and MDF consider them just ducky.

[PatRiot]

The so called "Reform Alliance" is either a bunch of guys pushing numbers around (where do they get real numbers would be a mystery) or its sole purpose is to make Gyurcsany look somewhat better.
No one can make him look good any more.
Both the Alliance's and the government's "programs" - for the lack of better word - miss key points.
What Hungary needs is a serious cut in the top, not the bottom.
Smaller Parliament, send all party-list "representatives" packing, put the rest on a budget.
Introduce "ill-gotten gains" tax. Put together an independent team of investigators and go after at least some of the billions that ended up in the wrong hands.
Let the APEH go after the good folks who drive expensive cars and wear heavy gold chains and don't pay any taxes.
Don't just cut basic social spending, make an effort to deal with bureaucracy, so some of the money will end up where it's needed.
You can only push people so far before they start pushing back, and it's going to be messy.
Hungary is already the bad example, see what the New York Times wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/19/business/19views.html

[Op]

Patriot,
I just read the NYT article you mentioned. They translated "böszme" as "boneheaded", and posted a picture of Gyurcsany for illustration purposes.
Hungary is largely invisible from the US, it's pretty depressing that they found it looking for scary examples of government insanity. It would be interesting to see the exact amount Gyurcsany has spent of the taxpayers' money on buying supporters. All those billions wasted on fake "consultants" and self-promotion, all the EU money that ended up in the wrong hands and so on.
One thing Gyurcsany seems to be good at is getting away with ruining the country and still hanging on to power. Amazing...

[Mark]

Ėva: "You and I might think so, but SZDSZ and MDF consider them just ducky."

Unfortunately. It is at moments like this that I'm forced to conclude that the worst enemies of Hungarian liberalism are in fact Hungarian liberals!

[Tünde]

Mark:

„The quality and efficiency of public transport will only be improved by making the ticket prices large sections of the population pay more realistic - and this means limiting the concessions to those of compulsory school age and pensioners, and making everyone else pay 100% of the price.'

You must be joking. Public transport has not improved with raised ticket rates, it has gotten worse. Raising the ticket price in public transportation, particularly for the railroad will just kill it. It is already general more expensive to use the train than a car. Cutting all group rates did not mean those groups (such as nature groups) started paying fullfare, it meant them taking cars instead, resulting in a net loss to the railroad. The massive losses of the transportation systems aren't due to low ticket prices, they are due to ongoing mismanagement, hiring people who effectively work against the transportation systems they are supposed to support, who sell off transport wagons as scrap metal, and the state refusing to pay its costs to MÁV and doing nothing to improve service (EU funding came only after Brussels objected to the Hungarian govt. not asking for any) while supporting automobile, lorry and air travel who are in no way paying for the environmental damage they cause (air, noise and damage, death due to car accidents, disposal of waste metal, general loss of time due to traffic). http://www.levego.hu/#showArchive1(KKiadvany,23) : Gazdaságtalan-e a vasút? Ever been in a Hungarian town or village with massive lorry traffic? Try it, sheer hell for the town dwellers, not to mention damage done to their houses.

" According to Péter Oszkó (Deloitte) the current disbursement of GDP is 50.5% as opposed to the Polish and Czech 42-43% and the Slovak 38%. Therefore it is clear that in comparison to the other three Visegrád countries Hungary is not competitive."

Whatever you think about the right proportion of GDP that the public sector should take, international comparison suggests that there is no relationship between the size of a country's public sector and its competitiveness.

Agreed. Oszkó's figures mean little on their own.

[Mark]

"Public transport has not improved with raised ticket rates, it has gotten worse."

I'm not at all unsympathetic to what you say about the environmental costs of motorization, and the need for a balanced transport policy that avoids the mistakes made in North America and the more motorized societies of western Europe (and indeed a national system of road charging so that motorists pay the full environmental costs of driving is one reform I'd suggest to bring the budget into balance over the long-term). I also agree that the obsessions of sucessive Hungarian governments with high-speed highway construction has been fairly senseless (I've criticized this policy in my comments on this blog before). There are clearly problems of corruption and criminally incompetent management within the public transport system that stem from a weakness of state control over them and a lack of general public accountability.

However, you have to consider the problems sensibly. Urban public transport suffers - especially in Budapest - from considerable overcrowding that on some routes - the no.7 busline is a good example - compromises the safety of passengers. I think this could be said of certain rail routes. Given that capacity is always going to be scarce, fare policy is a way of managing demand to ensure civilized and safe travelling conditions on these routes.

I don't really object to public transport systems making a loss, provided that it is recognized that someone - the taxpayer - has to fund that loss. One ought, with this in mind consider the distributional issues. In the case of the BKV taxpayers nationwide fund the losses of a company that serves primarily the wealthiest parts of the country. There seems to me to be a basic issue of distributional unfairness here, when those who pay AFA on their shopping in Miskolc effectively subsidize cheap monthly tickets for the far wealthier residents of Budapest. Likewise one wonders about the justice of providing concessionary fares to university students en bloc - who generally come from either middle income or wealthy families - when there are those on low incomes who have to pay full fare. There is clearly a need on social justice grounds for a serious review of concessions to ensure that taxpayers' money is being spent effectively to ensure that the poorest have the same opportunity to be mobile as those on higher incomes. I suspect these would mean radical cuts in many of the concessionary fare categories.

Lastly, both national rail, bus, and local public transport is suffering from two decades of serious underinvestment. Motorization rates in Hungary are very low, so the consequences of this underinvestment are felt by far more of the population than in western Europe. Improving this situation - especially if the errors of excessive dependence on the car are to be avoided - is very important for long-term economic competitiveness. EU money, though helpful, does not come free - public transport companies and the government are required to match fund projects. Furthermore, we know that many public transport providers are already in financial trouble are no manner of efficiency gains are going to solve them. What is more - we know, even before the current crisis, that Hungary has a structural budget deficit. This means that it has to either increase rates of taxation, cut spending, or do both. Given the other demands on public spending, transport providers are going to have to cut operating costs and raise more revenue to survive. This means increasing fare income. The concessionary fares seem to me an obvious target - look at almost any western European country - do they have the range of concessionary fares that Hungary has? You may say that their disposable incomes are higher, but you'll note that per kilometer travelled their full fare rates are as much as two-and-a-half times those in Hungary, when the differences in their operating costs are lower.

[Andras]

I have just read a piece of Berend T Ivan, in which he states that in pre IWW Hungary, although density of railway lines were almost as high as in Western Europe, passenger traffic was half of it. So it seems, that overbuilding and under-utilisation is rather a phenomena of developing economies. Beyond what Mark suggested, what is needed to do is honestly review public transport system. It is well known fact that bus transportation is much cheaper, more flexible than railways. There is a need for reviewing railway lines and bus transportation systems and create a new system with better interconnections. That alone could save a lot of money on the long term.

[Tünde]

Mark: Yes thank you, I have considered the problem sensibly. It is sensible with a looming energy crisis, a number of major environmental problems caused by the auto, a collapsing auto industry, an aging population, for which train, and not bus, travel is ideal, and increasing state services centralisation forcing more travel, to subsidise public transport. It is a public service and should be subsidised.

And where are earth are student fares given based on economic background? And how do you propose on enforcing such a thing? The bureaucracy would cost more than any cost gained. Plus one could argue that the wealthier are paying more for public transportation in taxes, I am happy to see any of those who can afford cars take the train as it is.

I am aware of how EU funds work, having worked with them. So what is your point? The Hungarian government spends money it doesn't have on stupid things, so spending some on something worthwhile would be a welcome change. As I said, increasing fare revenue will kill it. And the less people who take the train, the less economic it is to run it. And once you terminate service, tracks and building, rebuilding them later (as many countries in Europe are finding out, is much more expensive). You have totally ignored the part about auto and air travel being subsidised, in addition to not being taxed according to their ecological burden. MÁV has serious problems, but they aren't the passengers' fault. A typical one is the continuing inability to put together a schedule where trains do not arrive minutes after each other, making connections impossible. Another is the government not reimbursing them, and creating policy which discourages using trains for freight transport.

„The concessionary fares seem to me an obvious target - look at almost any western European country - do they have the range of concessionary fares that Hungary has? You may say that their disposable incomes are higher, but you'll note that per kilometer travelled their full fare rates are as much as two-and-a-half times those in Hungary, when the differences in their operating costs are lower.”

That is almost as bad as Oszkó's comparison, you are leaving out a number of factors but anyway, it is irrelevant to my argument. I am saying raising prices will kill the train, and you are implying that raising rates will provide income for MÁV and lower its operating costs, which is ridiculous.

Plus I don't get your point on concessionary fares. They are (were) an excellent policy. Hungary has few things the EU could use as a model, but this is one which should be. Anyway MÁV has already cut many of them. And what is the result? Nature groups used to get a group discount. Now they don't. Result? Groups of 25 people paying fullfare? No, 25 people taking cars. Net loss to MÁV and the environment. Also, with the cuts in teachers and civil servants, far less people will be taking trains anyway, because those people have no discount anymore. We took the train to Esztergom last year just due to my insistence to use the train (whose top managers do not, in fact take the train, even though it is free for them, they use company cars). The fee 1 full fare, 1 half was just equal to going by car, the trip was twice as long and we had to walk 40 minutes to and from the station to our destination. There is no way I would do that again if fares were raised.

Higher fares would make train travel a luxury, and in this country that would be a joke.

BKV is somewhat different matter, although same problem, waste and inefficiency and there also company costs and fares have risen and service has gotten worse. No the countryside should not have to pay for Budapest transportation, which is why Demszky shouldn't have started 4th metro line, as Brussels pointed out.

"However, you have to consider the problems sensibly. Urban public transport suffers - especially in Budapest - from considerable overcrowding that on some routes - the no.7 busline is a good example - compromises the safety of passengers. I think this could be said of certain rail routes. Given that capacity is always going to be scarce, fare policy is a way of managing demand to ensure civilized and safe travelling conditions on these routes."

Well that makes sense. Make it expensive so people won't use it. This is really too silly.

The city of Budapest has made a number of poor policy decisions which has resulted in increased traffic on that line: Hová tűnt a villamos a Rákóczi útról? http://veke.hu/index.php?fc=cikk&par=397, and continuing to give the auto preference over the bicycle. Not to mention making a city which is miserable to live in, and killing the city centre, which has increased commuting.

I take it you didn't even bother with the levegő link, preferring to go into a lengthy, but completely uninformed response.

If that levegő link was too long, try this one A vasútgyilkosok hibás számításairól, http://veke.hu/index.php?fc=cikk&par=457

[Tünde]

András: Berend T. Iván's figures were probably true for all of Europe, there was less mobility then and rail was used for transport of goods, which is a great source of income for the railway, and which Hungary discourages and something that some countries still do quite well, the USA for example, or Romania, which makes lorries cross the country by train, and pay for it.

[Mark]

Tünde: "You have totally ignored the part about auto and air travel being subsidised, in addition to not being taxed according to their ecological burden."

I hadn't ignored the point - in fact I am a strong supporter of national road charging schemes for road transport and said so in my last response. Given that most forms of transportation - save the bicycle and walking - involve the consumption of energy that has to be produced somehow, if you price all forms of transport according to their true ecological cost, then all mobility except those dependent on the direct expenditure of human energy would become more expensive - train and bus - included. I am sure you would see a shift in the relative prices of the car to public transport, but people would have to spend more on travelling per kilometre by any means than they do now. I suspect that ecological sustainability will actually involve a re-organization of the economy to reduce overall ammounts of travel. That isn't to say this isn't a desirable step - in fact the economics of oil production and climate change suggest this is an adjustment that all societies will have to make.

Equally there is a serious nned for lots of investment in the public transport network. You mention the problems of travelling the relatively short distance between Budapest and Esztergom by public transport. I know a bit about this having spent some of my time travelling on these routes daily. Yes, they have nice new trains on this route, but the railway journey takes about one hour forty minutes, and suffers at certain times from overcrowding. The bus too is often overcrowded, takes on hour fifteen minutes, the buses are often not the newest, and sometimes in the cold the heating doesn't work. And this is on a popular route where services are quite frequent.

If you are going to seriously reduce the number of car journeys, then the quality of the alternatives has to be improved. If you want to shift goods off the road then you need new rail capacity. This is expensive. Who is going to pay for this investment?

You can reduce the operating costs of railways by eliminating waste, but you are not going to create much of the sums you need. And to make a difference you're not talking about waste and petty corruption in the management (though this needs dealing with)simply because the monetary gains are going to be small relative to overall operating costs, but things like reducing the numbers of railway station counter-staff and automating ticket sales. You can close branch lines and replace them with buses which are cheaper, and in some cases, faster. The state could decide to spend more of taxpayers' money on transport - but this is limited by the fact that the budget is in structural deficit, and this deficit will have to be eliminated (and most of that budget goes on pensions, health, education, and police - and you'd have to reduce those items of expenditure, or raise peoples' taxes to create the sums of the size needed). You are left with having to think about raising fares. OK, you might say that lots of people might not be able pay them, but keeping them at their current level is not free - the price is paid through increased state indebtedness, low quality and collapsing services.

[Mark]

"So it seems, that overbuilding and under-utilisation is rather a phenomena of developing economies"

I suspect it is due to the fact of the rather unusual dynamic of private and state involvement in nineteenth century rail construction. Prior to the mid-1870s private railway investment was stimulated by the huge increases in the prices of European grain, in anticipation of future profits that were never realised as a result of the USA's returning to the European grain market. From 1868 the Hungarian government started taking over these private investments as they went bust. With the puncturing of the grain bubble in 1873, these rescues became ever more frequent. Quite a lot of the Hungarian network was shaped by the process of progressively bailing out private companies whose operations were already uneconomic at the peak of the railway age. Peculiar relationships between state and private sectors later became institutionalized after the 1880s as private companies built lines, which MÁV then operated for them. It's probably no accident that the Hungarian railway network was very extensive, but significantly less profitable than that in equivalent states on the eve of the First World War.

[Andras]

Ah, so it is not a development issue, but the underlying nature of PPP has not changed despite the fact that everything has changed.

[Mark]

Nothing indeed has changed despite the fact that everything has changed. Railway development was driven forward by a parasitic relationship between investors building branch lines and the state rail company. And it was justified politically through the arguments that a modern national rail system was being built. Sounds familiar?

[Tünde]

Mark: I wrote "I am saying raising prices will kill the train, and you are implying that raising rates will provide income for MÁV and lower its operating costs, which is ridiculous."

and then you say, once again:

"keeping (prices) at their current level is not free - the price is paid through increased state indebtedness, low quality and collapsing services."

And if you can't bother with reading links on this by people I can't help but think know more about this than you do, and who have already countered your theses, then there is no point to this debate.

[Mark]

Tünde, with all due respect I think you're being a bit unfair. I'm very grateful for the information provided in the links, but there is very little I disagree with in most of them (though I have to say the calculations on the relative costs of rail and buses are bizarre)- and I don't think there is much in them which is incompatible with or contradicts anything I've said. What I've said is that all travellers must pay a more realistic price for travel to improve quality. I also think that motorists and hauliers should pay a realistic cost for using the road too, and that should reflect ecological costs. Unfortunately, we have to recognize that means all travellers paying more than they do now for journeys, as that is the only realistic way of providing the funds to modernize the transport infrastructure.

[Andras]

Tünde, I am not only supporting public transport, I am really using it. I dont even have driving licence!
Still, we are in a midst of a worldwide upheavel. We had a false development based on artificial easy money, distorted prices and unsustainable private and state budgets. The world is it now in price discovery: adjusting prices and through readjusted prices will slash unsustainable consumer activities, state expenditures, and economic activities to were built up to serve these. This will be an extremely painful, and long process.
I guess there will be substantial drop in private car use. There will be a substantial drop for travel, in general. There will be a substantial pressure on state budget to cut expenditure.
There is a need for thorough review in public transport also, which part of it sustainable, how to finance it and how to manage it. Especially, we need in this state to be able to have thorough reviews and calculations on costs and functioning of these companies.

[Supra Footwear UK]

Don't know what is wrong what is rite but i know that every one has there own point of view and same goes to this one