Roland DürreSaturday November 3rd, 2012
Since so much I do not understand is happening all the time, I will now write down a few utopian ideas I like very much, indeed. And I am determined to develop a few ideas on each of those utopian concepts that justify and explain why I, personally, do not consider them all that unrealistic.
- Penalty-Free Society
It would be nice if there were (almost) no jails. If we could organize living together without having to punish. If we refrained from revenge and instead were to try and prudently minimize the social damage.
- Violence-Free Society
What about a society free of physical violence against each other, where regions and peoples can live side by side without wars? It would be nice to treat animals and nature in a reasonable way. It would be nice to have a community where opposing ideas could be dealt with at eye-level in a “domination-free and fair discourse”.
- Democratic, Tolerant and Transparent Society without Fundamentalism, Dogmas and Taboos
Education and enlightenment will counter fundamentalism, dogmas and taboos. It is the only way to find and further develop a shared, humane concept of society. Transparency is the requirement for a common way of thinking and deciding, for achieving new insights through consensus. And tolerance is the Ultima Ratio. Intolerance should only be permitted against intolerance, and even there it should be used with extreme caution.
- A Society of Sharing and Belonging
I would wish to have a free society. I society where ownership is reasonably distributed and private property is regulated in a responsible and differentiated way. Which includes a particularly sensitive view of “intellectual property”. As far as possible, it should be shared as general knowledge.
- Humane Economy
I would wish to have an economy that is not powered by the great financial mechanisms and where all activities and behavior is not determined by profit. An economy that is free from lobbyism and the main purpose of which is to provide humans with products and services that make sense (like, for example, it says in the Bavarian Constitution). I would wish to see an economy where enterprises the goal of which is less profit optimization and more an increase of the common good are appreciated.
- Media Free of Marketing
Why are the media always dominated by marketing? Why do I get two units of brainwashing along with one unit of information? Why do some elements think I am so incapable and take me for someone who cannot make up his own mind about his needs? Why does all the world want to manipulate me for their own advantage and my own disadvantage?
- Soft and Rational Mobility
How nice would it be to have a mobility without constantly being in a rush and having to fight? Without evil smells and noise? A mobility that serves a purpose, instead of providing us with an emotional arena for ego-boost and self-portrayal? Without burning fossil raw materials? Slower and yet more efficient.
You will say I am a dreamer – but I counter with citing John Lennon in the last paragraph of his “Imagine”:
You may say I am a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
I hope someday you’ll join us
And the world will be as one
And let me remind you of all those utopian ideas that used to be considered totally unrealistic, yet today are a matter of course: women’s vote, violence-free education of children and much more.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreSunday August 26th, 2012
During the vacation I spend in the wild South of Greece (Peloponnes, Mani), I sometimes read a few of the internet “information pages”: ARD, SZ, Spiegel and such.
And I notice that remarkably often the news sound helpless. Take, for instance, mobility. Here is what I read:
Even the vehicle that won the VCD price for being equipped with the most economical combustion motor still produces far too much carbon dioxide. Electronic cars are nowhere near coming onto the market. Fuel prices skyrocket…
And then there comes the fear:
What will happen to the backbone of the German industry – automobile industry?
To be sure, the fear seems justified. But here, too, there are solutions. And we definitely should concentrate more on the solutions. Also in the “news“. Wouldn’t it be nice if the media were to spread less helplessness and fear, and instead work at a concept for the future?
Our future will be characterized by change. Because the change we need will happen. In fact, it is already under way. This change will and must happen with our collective and individual awareness. We have to change our mental concepts. And that is what we will do, simply because we will have to do it. The process will be a part of the evolution, supported by our world-wide network through the internet.
And here it begins. Even as I write this, more and more people try to coordinate work and life better. Many use public transportation or their bikes more often than they used to. And they will probably soon use the electro scooter. We will have to and will manage to make our mobility, along with our entire lives, a little more “decroissant”.
In many areas, the hierarchic structures dissolve, being replaced by networks. Entrepreneurial initiatives substitute systemic realizations. Strict interconnection is replaced by lose interconnection, central control makes way for self-control. This will be particularly necessary in complex social systems, and that is where it will happen. Maybe this could also indicate how we might solve our “current problems”, such as EU and EURO.
More and more people start changing their habits. They refuse to be made part of the marketing mechanism. They reduce their consumption. They no longer want status symbols. They are more nutrition-conscious. They get joy in their lives from what is really important to them. They prefer being something to seeming something. They get more critical and autonomous and will no longer accept being told what to think by religions and associations.
If we want change, we need no federal programs. They would be no help, because what must happen has to come from deep inside ourselves. It might be a good idea to do without subsidies and regulations, because they will certainly not help us. The development of our awareness and our values must happen in a fair discourse, free from suppression. And it has already started.
Parallel with this, all we have to do is act. Decentralization is the motto. We all together, as well as every individual person, must do what is right and refrain from doing what is wrong. It is quite simple, isn’t it?
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreSunday July 29th, 2012
It is blue, a beautiful blue. Somehow or other, it is already quite an achievement to select a nice colour each month. A colour that is actually suitable for the theme and content. I am quite serious!
The magazine is titled
I rather like this. After all, I dream of the “Lazy Manager“ and “Relaxed Entrepreneur”. Well, I certainly know that many problems will solve themselves. For instance the very important email I never got around to answering late last night. On the next morning, after I woke up, it turned out said email was no longer necessary.
Mind you, you must not confuse doing nothing with “sitting something out“.
Politicians like to do this – and I would prefer them “doing nothing” instead of “sitting things out”. There certainly is a significant difference.
Then you find the sub-title:
And how it can be put to good use.
I do not (yet) understand. Who said I wanted to put doing nothing to good use? So now I open the magazine and start reading the editorial by Frau Fischer. Her heading is “heaven and hell”. And I immediately understand what she means. For some people “doing nothing” is heaven, for others it is “hell”.
Mind you, I am sure you should not see it in terms of black-and-white. Personally, I would think my preference is “doing nothing is heaven”. And I believe “doing nothing is hell” tends a little towards “psychic disorder”. There they go again, my prejudices…
Regardless of the invitation to do nothing, I already read some of the articles. It strikes me that this brand eins edition is mostly about humans and their fate. I find that nice. If you see it under this light, the April brand eins is quite suitable for reading and relaxing during your vacation.
À propos: at the end of Frau Fischer’s editorial, you can also read the words “vacation” and “stress” in a single sentence. Well, if that is how things work, I think I might do without vacation and instead prefer “doing nothing”.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreMonday July 23rd, 2012
Teach Me and I will forget, involve Me and I will learn!
This message was a tweet written by Dr. Hartmut Feucht (
@DrHartmutFeucht) as a comment on the article by Stefan Hagen in his pm-blog.com on Emergence and Project Management (Emergenz und Projektmanagement).
What can I say? The sentence says exactly what I feel. And what I have been feeling all my life.
At school, when I had to listen to teachers trying to teach us, my eyes wandered towards the windows where I saw the great outdoors. A little of what the teachers said remained in my memory – if it was interesting. Much of it got lost. Learning for an exam meant preparing in such a way that there was a chance to pass with a halfway acceptable grade.
It was a little better whenever I was permitted to solve a halfway interesting problem. This was often the case in mathematics. But I really only enjoyed it when I was a part of it. Those were the times when I really learned a lot, understood it and, in the truest sense of the word “got a grip on it”.
Here is what Stefan wrote in his article:
Basically, teaching at school, graduate school and university should leave far more room for students to come up with their own designs. The classical concept of a “reading” is, basically, antiquated.
I could not agree more. Except that I would leave the word “basically” out in both sentences.
The current problem, both at school and university – along with what I see as often rather devastating consequences for education and society – is probably that this is not (I hope: yet) understood.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreSaturday July 21st, 2012
During weekends, I enjoy reading the blogs my friends write. For example, Dr. Stefan Hagen (Stefan) informs you about the Nürnberg PM Forum 2012 by GPM in his PM-Blog. He also wants to attend it, because he thinks it is time for him to remember what a traditional conference feels like.
I already look forward to hearing what Stefan is going to tell me about the GPM PM Forum, both from reading it in his blog and meeting him in person. And I can already predict to some extent what he will probably tell me.
Personally, I no longer like traditional conferences. Still, once in a while, I attend them. Depending on the actual event, I usually end up more or less disappointed (or rather, my prejudices turn out to be correct). Once in a while, you will see some brilliant speakers. You also meet people you would like to see again, but that is usually about it.
What I find remarkable about the PM forum is its title:
“Remaining on Course with Project Management – A Compass for Eventful Times”
Now that already causes the first disagreement in me:
I am actually fed up with hearing catch-words such as “Eventful Times” or “Crisis”. Today, we are all better off than ever before. If this is what you call crisis, then crisis must be a beautiful thing. In fact, it is a pretty nice life-style – if you ask me, I would say let us remain there!
As opposed to common sentiment, I think we live in a time of luxury. Unfortunately, however, this luxury made us collectively (and probably also individually) obese and inactive. We live beyond our means – and on borrowed money to boot.
The only movement I can discover is society trembling with fear of losing prosperity and our desperately clinging to what we own. Is that what you call “eventful times” or “crisis”?
And then here comes the association preaching: “Remaining on Course with Project Management – A Compass for Eventful Times”
To me, this sentence sounds strange, both linguistically and with respect to its content. Maybe people should think a little harder before creating and publishing these kinds of slogans.
So what exactly is the meaning of “remaining on course”?
Doesn’t a reasonable and courageous “remaining on course“ necessitate a lot more than project management? First and foremost, you would have to know where you want to go, wouldn’t you? You want to know which business model you aim at. We are talking culture and values, responsibility, knowledge, courage, pleasure, respect, tolerance, civil courage…
I could just as well come up with the motto: “Remaining on Course with Requirement“.
Or, even better: Let us install an association for course finding that certifies course finding. The motto might be: finding your course through dominance-free and upright discourse. (Adorno, Habermas).
Of course, this is not entirely meant seriously. But give me a break: “Remaining on course with project management“ might sound nice, but all it is is a complex and confusing shell of words. First and foremost, you have to find the path you want to tread on. Or at least you have to find your direction. And this is certainly a very difficult project. You cannot sell project management as the trivial solution for the problem.
Suggesting that “project management is the compass in eventful times“ sounds adventurous to me. Or at least very simple (or a technocratic concept?). Why don’t you go on to say:
“With PM, we will solve all our problems!”?
But so what. As I see it, the slogan is more like advertising a milky bar. And that is probably all it is – simple advertising nonsense as we will find it all over the place. Except I do not know if, maybe, the association is harming itself by this method, rather than promoting its interest. Even if, being the powerful system “association”, you already think (and perhaps that is what you have to think) you own the certified truth cut up into standards.
I would find it truly outrageous if, for example, the PM Camp, for which I feel partly responsible, would advertise itself with such a primitive slogan. Among my own friends, I would fight such a slogan.
If you want something that brings a smile to your face, here is the original introduction from the PM Forum program brochure 2012 Programmheft PM Forum 2012 (pdf):
Internationally spoken, the weather is still inclement and the general outlook will remain stormy. To be sure, in Germany, the economic outlook is positive enough, but here, too, the entrepreneurs will have to be prepared to fight rough seas. During this stormy up and down of the economy, we now need to remain on course. It is a good thing that the enterprises invested in project management, thereby improving their position among the competitors. Through project management, you can achieve convincing results, both in time and in budget. For German enterprises, professional project management becomes more and more the success guarantee. It turns into being the compass and provides orientation, it levels out minor disruptions and keeps the enterprise flexible and agile, even in volatile times.
Words, words, words! Why don’t you go and get me a philosopher? And, please, do not ever let an owner of a medium-sized enterprise read this. Are there any buzzwords you have not read in this paragraph? Who would ever write this kind of thing? Or, even better, who will ever believe this kind of thing? What nonsense! But at least, now we know how an enterprise can be saved from collapsing. Isn’t that some achievement?
Mind you, the event costs 1,150.00 Euros for non-members at GPM. Members pay 200 Euros less. Some of the things you get in return are that you can, for example, hear our eternal German-French journalist and author Prof. Dr. Peter Scholl-Latour talk about “International problem areas and the challenge they pose for German policy“, or the self-promoting extreme mountaineering expert Hans Kammerlander about “Hanging on the satin thread. From Southern Tyrolia to Jasemba (7,350 m): 40 years on course!”.
I know both speakers and wish you all a good time!
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreMonday July 9th, 2012
It is a constant source of wonder for me how many associations and institutions of all kinds we have in this our country – and also all over Europe. As often as not, said associations hardly have any more anything in common with what was historically their purpose. The same is true for their members. They now have their own expanding, flourishing and expensive structure. Lots of employees and managers are paid in order to see to it that the association continues to live, even if, basically, it has been out of reach for quite some time.
Most of these associations only exist in order to increase their own power.
The usefulness has degenerated and become an end in itself. Some associations survive on the fees of their members. Those members pay, because they expect something in return (mostly some sort of lobbyism), or because they think you just have to be a member (after all, this is how it has always been and you never know what dire consequences a cancellation might have), or – and this is the worst case – because they have to be members (forced membership, like IHK). Some associations also manage to get money from public authorities regularly.
But how did the associations originate?
In my opinion, both humans and companies always had and still have a basic need to belong and associate. This caused the establishment of federations. They organized themselves as associations, constituting some sort of community of similar-minded people, either at work or in business. It was often their way of advertising their special interests – be they justified or not – publicly and demand a certain degree of support from the state.
Most associations, however, no longer offer a sense of belonging or home today. More often than not, they mutated from a federation to a lobbyist group. As a general rule, the only thing they aim at is their own survival and the strengthening of their own system.
Are associations still necessary?
Today, you could probably do without most of the associations. You can meet similar-minded people at eye-level. The opportunities abound. Besides virtual platforms on the internet, you will also find real and local meetings for almost everything. All kinds of organizations, as well as universities, offer all sorts of things – perhaps far too much. And wherever you really cannot find an opportunity for a special need, you will find it quite easy to create one yourself.
Here is what I recommend:
Cancel your membership with all the associations you subscribed for. Never let yourself be recruited as a member. And, above all: establish your own association!
(Translated by EG)
Detlev SixThursday July 5th, 2012
There is just one sort of politician.
The growth politician.
The only thing he ever learned is how to distribute growth. It is the easiest way of doing the job, because being a growth politician, you will not have to hurt anybody by taking something from them. Everybody gets something. Of the growth. One politician shows generosity towards his voters, so does the next. If there is no growth, you create growth: by debt.
The debt is distributed and becomes part of the total economical product. Its increase each year is about 1 to 2 per cent. If you have a 3% rate of new debt each year, you basically get the result that you have no growth, but since nobody comes and actually puts the two numbers next to each other, what you get is: growth.
In theory, there should also be such a thing as a politician of shortage. But there is no place where you can train to be one. Consequently, he does not exist. He would certainly not be very popular. Even in Germany. The only politician in this country who ever took something away from the people since WW-II was Gerhard Schröder.
He did not last long, did he? Angela Merkel, who orders other countries to be more thrifty, does nothing of the sort in this country. As before, our national debt increases all the time. But, as I said, you cannot hold that against a growth politician, because there is no place where the other sort of politician is trained. The only institution that trains politicians of shortage is life. Only a catastrophe will drastically change your curriculum.
Politicians of shortage learn to do their own thinking, instead of chasing their voter’s carrots. Even growth politicians do not always fall for what their voters say. (At the moment, they actually tell us it is good to be thrifty. But as soon as it is all about their own standards, they cannot bark loud enough while pointing their fingers towards the others.
Experienced growth politicians ignore these kinds of polls). Since old, satiated societies with high standards stand against young, hungry societies with low standards, waiting for the catastrophe will not get boring for us. Perhaps those who are a little older today will even see a new generation of politicians of shortage. To be sure, they will not bring us prosperity, but perhaps, with a little luck, the way down to the bottom can be slowed a little.
Politically correct, we might call this hyper growth brake (haven’t we seen a good example of the beneficial effect of phrases with debt brake? Because whenever we talk about it, what we mean is not at all minimizing old debts. All it means is that the new debt will not increase quite as fast as the old one did). Besides, all catastrophes also proved to bring something good in their wake: afterwards, the societies that were affected had a little more equality.
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreMonday June 18th, 2012
On Sunday evening, I watched “The News”. Incidentally, this is a stupid euphemism! How would you watch news?
I found it remarkable that they were talking about a “Fateful Hour for Europe”. Just because they had tiny general elections in a tiny European country. Incidentally, the same country will get a really serious beating next Friday in the soccer game. Because they misbehaved big time.
Or maybe they will cause a sensation. Well, when we are talking soccer, nothing is impossible.
But they call it a “Fateful Hour” – and for all of Europe, at that! Another one of those euphemisms. Are we looking at the next “European War”, or what?
So what is this all about?
For me, the Munich decision about the Third Runway is more important. Perhaps this is really the beginning of an about-face – away from the concrete-chromium-jet-set society? I am not yet courageous enough to be hopeful.
But let us get back to all those billions. In German, one billion means 1,000 times 1,000 million. Unlike the British convention!
Then I heard in the news how fortunate it is for us Germans, too, that Greece will now remain in the EURO zone (?). Otherwise, we Germans would have had to pay additional costs to the tune of more than 100 billion Euros.
Now that, too, is bullshit. But even if it were so: what is an extra 100 billion in this game? In this game, the public corporations of the FRG are already indebted by more than 2,000 billion Euros. Not too long ago, it was a little less than 2,000 billion. In view of this, 100 billion are less than 5 %. This is ridiculous.
And currently the national debt is increasing faster than ever before, regardless of the “debt brake” (another one of those linguistic stupidities) and “an overwhelming tax flow”. Neither the “obligation to economize“, nor the “fiscal package“ (again twice linguistic stupidity) can change anything about that fact. The system is no longer linked to a person. It just runs as it runs.
Besides, it is quite irrelevant whether we reach the 3,000 billion for our national debt sooner or later. Basically, it is quite simple:
This kind of national debt, no matter if we are talking Germany, Greece, Europe or the USA, can only be overcome by one means: inflation (or even better: collapse of the currency).
Let us discuss the friendlier version: inflation (I consider collapse rather unlikely, which is why I am not discussing it).
If we want to achieve a nominal reduction from 2 billion in real debt to 1 billion in a certain time interval (let us say, for instance, five years), then the value of the money must be reduced to half its worth. If we want a reduction from nominally three to one billion, then the money value must be reduced by the factor three. In terms of inflation, there is not that much difference, is there?
Firstly, it is not such a bad idea if the very rich, for a change, have to let go of some of their wealth. The determining factor whether or not someone is going to lose or actually even profit is his or her mixture of investments. And this is one area where the rich cannot be sure about the best strategy. Gold and real estates will not necessarily be the best choice. Which is why mostly the losers are in the majority. In the past, quite a few millionaires ended up paupers.
Unfortunately, the truly poor people who have nothing but their retirement money are the real losers. For instance “Grandma with her savings account” or the “Hartz 4″ recipient. And many more. But it will happen anyway. All we can hope for is that the pain will be eased a little.
Maybe the solution is actually some sort of “un-conditional basic income” – along with supplementary occupations in the typical low-income sector. There is enough work in our society – even for the so-called “social fringe groups“ and “persons with few qualifications“ (another one of those unfortunate phrases).
When we are talking inflation, we often forget that many basic necessities, such as food, are still relatively cheap in Germany, regardless of all the inflation we have. With many products, inflation was softened in the past through an “increase in productivity“ and a “readiness to forego top quality”.
The latter of the two aspects is something I cannot understand. But it can be explained by a (slow) adaption to the lower living standards based on the consumer being massively influenced towards poorer but more attractively labeled products – which, in actual fact reveal a tendency towards an abnormal living quality – through marketing.
The former of the two aspects, increased productivity, might well be a dying swan. After all, “increased productivity“ is only partly due to “real creativity“ and “innovative solutions“. In fact, it is mostly more the result of us treating nature and resources extremely lavishly. Along with a systematic exploitation of humans, both here and in other regions of the world. Using humans and nature in a “non-sustainable“ way might be another one of those euphemisms.
Well, the wealthy people, in particular, are now changing their consumer habits. More and more often, quality beats quantity. It gets more attractive to have “less” instead of “more”.
We face many problems – and they get more and more obvious. However, the only way to solve them will be through creativity, innovation and a different mental concept. “Everything is functioning quite well” and “this is what we always did” will get us nowhere!
So here we go – start NOW
(Translated by EG)
Roland DürreSunday March 4th, 2012
When I asked him for a good speaker, one of my friends working at the „Bayerischer Rundfunk“ advised me to consider Herrn Wilfried Bommert of the WDR. After some initial emails to and fro, we had a nice chat on the telephone.
The result is that he will visit us and give a presentation at the IF Forum 2012 on the general idea of
“Sustainable Living (and Surviving)”.
His presentation will be titled „Feeding the World“.
In order to learn more about Herrn Bommert, I bought his book “Kein Brot für die Welt” (No Bread For The World). In it, he gives background information on the food crisis.
Incidentally, it is the first ebook I ever bought for the “normal“ price.
Now I read it on my Kindle. It tells you in a very informative and objective way how we humans treat our most important property. I was truly moved by what I read.
The current state of affairs is worse than I would have imagined. And it is hard for me to imagine that any upright person, after having read the book, can still be in favour of, for example, building a third runway for Munich Airport.
I very much recommend for you to read the book:
Roland DürreThursday March 1st, 2012
A short time ago, I supported the theory that state companies, and perhaps even monopolistic state companies, may not be a bad solution. If they meet certain requirements, they can even be more productive, efficient and customer-oriented than private enterprises. This article of mine instigated an exciting discussion.
Consequently, I will now discuss two items of news from the press on this same subject.
Firstly, I recently read that fewer and fewer interested parties can be found as bidders for regional railways. And that those who are in charge (state administration – it would be interesting to know who exactly that is and why) would be happy to hand the contract directly to an interested party without the bidding procedure. However, because of a Federal Court Decision, they are not allowed to do so.
I am not surprised. From personal experience, I know how much you have to invest if you want to bid in a public bidding process. As a general rule, the cost is nowhere near what you might eventually gain in turnover and result generation.
Especially since the final decision gets more and more uncertain and winning the bidding process gets less and less likely for decent companies. More and more bidders make an offer far below their actual cost, because they absolutely want or need the contract for some reason or other. At least that is the situation in the IT sector – for “strategic reasons” winning the bidding process is literally bought.
In the “Süddeutsche”, you could also read something interesting about the future bidding process for the “operator of the Munich S-Bahn”. If someone new wins the bidding, they will have to take over the rolling material of the old operator. Initially, this came as a surprise to me. After a little consideration, however, it sounds absolutely logical. Regardless of it basically being nonsense.
Let us assume a new bidder wins the operating rights to the Munich S-Bahn. If he has to take the old trains, he will have no chance of ingratiating himself with the users by using better and more modern vehicles. Maybe with structured first class. Or toilets in those trains that go longer distances (from Kreuzstrasse to Wolfratshausen, the train takes one hour and thirty minutes).
Nor can he shorten the intervals between trains. The same is true if he wants to change anything in the network (for instance more meeting points on one-track lanes or new two-track lanes). A future bidder also cannot come up with a new ticket price concept, since he will probably have to use the old ticket machines, cancelling machines and other logistics. Basically, he can offer the same as is offered now, with marginal changes or improvements. If he wants to make more profit, there is only one way to do it: charging the passengers less. And that is identical with less costly employees (or with fewer).
So what happens to all the employees who drove the trains for the old operator? Will they have to go to the new winner of the bidding? For less income? Presumably (and naturally) that will not be possible – due to labour legislation and job protection.
So where is the new operator supposed to recruit the people who are to drive the trains? We already saw what happened with regional coach lines. The new operator was less expensive because he managed to employ his coach drivers as sub-contractors and pay them less.
As I see it, there is a lot in this new concept of privatizing with operation and bidding that is less than thoroughly thought through. I would prefer a strong, integrated system. A shared venture that will not have to balance from bidding to bidding, but can instead make public transport more punctual and comfortable through a truly continuous improvement process, integrating the railroad network, transport and logistics. One that can also decide and realize the margin dimensions, such as reasonable prices and a simple paying system.
This, however, cannot be done with the current privatization model. What is worse: the bidding will not end with the best offer, but with the most cunning one. Which will not make public transport any more attractive. With negative consequences for our environment and our future.
And if they defend the concept, reasoning that the railway will be more efficient after privatization and consequently make a profit, instead of the loss the old “Deutsche Bundesbahn” made, then this, too, looks like thin ice to me. Today, the regional operators only start after they have been paid for by the communities. And I get the impression that what used to be called “loss” is now the active subsidies they get from the public administration.
But privatizing also caused something else: it seems to me that the new owners are even bolder with higher ticket prices than the former state companies were.
(Translated by EG)