(economic, social, ethnical, and others) we are closest to Poland, and by semi-period of about ten years can be expected, that also our next Parliament will still be right-wing, but somewhere at the end of the century, maybe, we will turn to the left. At the same time, however, I think, that we must not aim at the level (period) of Czechs and Slovaks, so that one turn to the left of the Parliament, but remaining still

on the right of the center

, would have been in my view an expression of awaken popular masses in the given moment. This is, maybe, the best for what we can hope in the coming elections, because there were times (and there will again come such times) when to the right meant good, but in the moment more to the left means better, more reasonable and mature!

     As an additional touch in this review one must also pay attention to the fact, that in the political case (in contrast to the mechanical) the environment (the parties) are not independent from the system (from the population), because they are part of the people, so that it is possible also influence from the part of the political forces on the people and vice versa. In this sense, the better converging environment leads to faster economic development and to more united social consciousness of the people, what enables reaching of a shorter period of oscillation, what, in the end, gives even faster damping (i.e., some positive feedback).

     And one more detail: the faster the convergence in the Parliament (and, respectively, amidst the people) is, the bigger is the help on the part of the West, because it is natural, when one invests money in something, to require also some guaranties for peaceful and crisis-free evolvement. In other words,

the Western investments depend not on the direction

of our deviation from the center (to the left or the right),

but on the magnitude of this deviation

, i.e. on the convergence of political powers. This is the only reasonable position, because when the divergence is not big the direction is of no importance.

     Saying this in other way: if we do not help ourselves, even God will not help us!

     1995 ?

P.S.

As the Russians like to say for something well guessed, I

as if have looked in water

(as a kind of magic mirror). Everything I have said 20 years before is right in broad lines (not in details, maybe). About this incessant oscillation, about the economies, the political life, the quiet or on the contrary evolvement, about the slowing down (delaying) of the Russians, et cetera. But I will try to restrict myself from further remarks and retain only those from the time of Russian translation, because the goal is to allow the people to read what I have written and not boast how clever I was and (as a result of this, mainly) have not been appraised in time.

     2015

      — — —

HOW MUCH HAS TO WIN A COMPANY IN ORDER TO HAVE NO GAIN

     The question that we pose now is the following: how big must be the profit of a small company (like, say, one-, two-, or three- person, usually family, Limited Liability Company, Ltd), in order to have, after paying of all taxes, the same gain (or even less), as if the people have just invested the money used in the company during the year in form of personal deposits or government securities (GS) in the banks (which, above all, are also guarantied up to 100% in case of bankruptcy, according to our Law for Protection of Investments, where the companies lose exactly half of the money in case of bankrupt of the bank, where they keep them), taking in this way into account, via the increment of their savings, the inflation, and the persons who own the company, instead of working in it and earn in this way, work

somewhere else

, by the average for the moment working salary? This in my view means, that the company works without any gain (in idle, for "that one who blows" as we in Bulgaria say), that it has no financial interest in any way for its existing, and that, in fact, it is better if it has not functioned at all, because such production not only is not extended, but it can be even named "

compressed

"!

     So that, let us first introduce some names of variables, beginning with the letter

a

, with which we shall mark the common profit in levs (our currency, shorten as lv). With letter

b

we shall mark the

relative part of the expenses

to the profits or material consumption of the productivity (here in the expenses enter all expenses, not only those of materials), where for more convenient notation we will express

b

not in percents but as parts of the whole (say,

0.2*a

instead of 20%

a

). Via letter

c

we will denote the average annual gain from deposits in levs (in the moment most profitable is in GS) and again as part, not as percentage (i.e. 0.5, not 50%, for example). The

part

which the state takes in form of taxes we will mark with the letter

d

, and the average net annual salary, i.e. without the income tax (IT) — with the letter

e

. Then, equating the profit of the company after paying the taxes to the possible profit of an average working salary plus the bank interest for the

spent

in the company money (because they were available by the owners, in order for them to be able to invest them in the company and use for production of whatever it is), we get (everything for a whole year), as

characteristic of the work for nothing

, the following simple equation:

a*(1-b)*(1-d) = e + a*b*c

     (1)

because

a*(1-b)

is the profit before the taxes;

a*(1-b)*(1-d)

— the profit after paying the taxes; and in the same time

a*b*c

is the profit from expenses

a*b

,