Hungary made poor Krugman mad

Remove all ads!

Since it has been a while I posted the regular Hungary dose, here you are. Any comments are welcome, including: "yaawn", "why do you post? Noone cares of it." (my answer: You posted. Why did YOU do so if you don't care?)

A few months ago, someone mentioned that he believes Krugman (and not me and those who share my opinion) regarding Hungary (in economic, political, etc. matters), because Krugman is such a credible, Nobel-prized, famous etc. person. Well, then it's better that you know the poor Krugman went mad, and started to post/forward nonsense that he knows jack about.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/the-new-hungarian-secret-police/

Let's tear apart the lies and nonsense, slowly:

Krugman/Scheppele quote #1:

Lies, especially the bold part! The weapons were NOT disabled, they were only deactivated through a temporary safety device. Quoting this source:

That is, the weapons were NOT disabled according to the Hungarian LAW. (A law that wasn't introduced by the current government, by the way; it has been present for a long time.) If I try to bring some objects/weapons into USA that are not allowed to be brought (or not in that form), and I'm getting arrested for breaking US law, does it make US police a "laughing stock"? Scheppele is a complete idiot.

(On a side note, the story is funny regarding the counter-terrorists seizing Pitt's zombie weapons, but that is off-topic)

Now quote #2:

Funny, but establishing this new armed guard is actually a democratic act. The reasoning behind the law was the following: until now, the Parliament was protected by the Republican Guard Regiment, who also protect the president, prime minister, foreign politicans, diplomats, events, etc. The superior of the Republican Guard Regiment has always been the government (and not the Parliament!). The reasoning behind this new law is that the superior of an armed force which can act inside the Parliament building should not be the Government! The government and the parliament (legislation body) must be independent, so it's not OK that the government has control over an armed force that can act in the entire parliament (where MEPs of non-government, opposition parties are present as well). But let's see quote #3, because this is the most manipulative malicious statement from the article re-posted by Krugman:

Oh, what a terrible dictature is imminent in Hungary eh? Entering private homes, making recordings! This is a disgusting attempt of manipulation. Remember what I said about the Republic Guard either: they also protect the president, the prime minister, FOREIGN diplomats etc. So, without detailing this too much, just a question to you, American readers: are the guys who protect Obama allowed to enter private homes or video recordings if the President's life or USA national security interests are at stake? Are they?

To be brief, an armed force that protects the highest government and legislation bodies would be a miserable thing without these permissions. Otherwise how it can act if e.g. the life of the Prime Minister is at stake?!

Scheppele you complete idiot. Oh sure, Hungary becoming police state eh? Perhaps it's just taking its own law seriously (TEK vs. Brad Pitt weapons), and properly protecting its president and prime minister (Parliament Guard)?! Isn't this what Krugman's country, USA, does too? What would happen if US didn't take its own laws seriously, and didn't offer proper protection for Obama?

I used to respect Krugman and his expertise; but it seems he either got blind due to the lies of his liberal friends, or simply following the request of some groups who started the organized media-campaign against Hungary in the international press.


--------------------
I suppose not too many replies (if any) will accept that Krugman started to post nonsense on his blog. Instead, you will nicely avoid answering (like European communists) with evading answers such as "Baronius noone cares here about this", "Baronius stop defending your government, it will make us think even worse about it", etc. Funny that when it was about using Krugman as an argument to support those who disagreed with me (e.g. Ragusa), such answers were not written. Instead, Krugman's writings about Hungary were considered as a credible, reliable source. OK, it was fine, because you thought he was credible. But now, when I disproved his (or those forwarded) statements, probably noone will say: yes Baronius, you're right. Yes, he forwarded, but it is his responsibility too when a person who is as known as him, gicves his name and blog's name to a full forwarded article, implying that he fully agrees with it (otherwise he wouldn't have shared it). So, try to defend the undefendable, or stay silent, cowardly. It will prove that you were misled by your own media's propaganda about Hungary (and you are in the illusion your media is independent, while it follows the "orders" of the American, French and other financial institutions and companies who got crazy against the Hungarian government due to the high taxes and stronger regulation). I don't give too much chance that too many posts will just say, "yes, Baronius, Krugman posted a really nonsense post there".

And before my other favourite ("Baronius, why the big effort defending your government when noone cares?") arrives, let me answer it in advance:

1) Because I hate to see lies (and hearing them back from some of my Western European and American friends): the Western European (and US) media is serving the interests of investors and are not independent at all, yet many of my American friends believe they're independent and accurate

2) Noone cares eh? Then how come Krugman makes a clown of himself on his own blog? Some interests were violated for sure, otherwise an expert such as him wouldn't be posting bullshit on his known blog.

 

Who is Krugman?

 

Why would you assume Mr Bodnar used the weapons as they were? Is it not possible that, in order to save face, TEK modified the weapons to be usable? Certainly it is in their ability to do so. Ultimately, by simply seizing the weapons and not offering assistance in modifying the weapons to be suitable in Hungary, the government is making Hungary very unattractive to the film industry (and other businesses as well). It appears the leadership in Hungary is its own worst enemy when it come to economic issues.

 

What does the Republican Guard need to be able to enter into private homes and make recordings? Probable cause and a warrant or just their say-so alone? That, IMO, is the difference between a justice system and a police state. Also if "to enter and to act" in private homes is the literal language of the law that's pretty frighteningly vague as it doesn't give any limits to what they can do while in there.

 

BTA -- I believe Baronius does not feel his quoted article is entirely factual....

 

@BTA: it is pretty clear from my post that the quotes numbered with #1,#2 etc. are from one source, Krugman's blog. These are criticized (tore apart). The other quotes, links are factual and are put into contrast from quotes #1,#2 etc. in order to prove how Krugman is spreading lies. In the quote about "stringent British rules", the first part is used to support my arguing, the second paragraph was not told by Bodnar (yes, this is a bit ambigious, but if one checks the source of the article, it will be more clear). The person who said that comment about "more stringent" laws did not know the Hungarian law. The Hungarian law is different in this respect than e.g. US or British law.

The analysed quotes (#1,#2,...) are indeed not factual, they are full with manipulative statements and lies, from Krugman's blog. So if you don't take THESE quotes as factual, then you don't take Krugman's anti-Hungary blog post as factual. Which is my point too.



----

The most strange here that there are many lawyers here (OK, maybe not all posters in this thread are, but doesn't matter), and seem to ignore the most important fact: it does NOT matter whether there was modification needed to make them armed not. What MATTERS is that the Hungarian law considers SUCH weapons forbidden. The police, antiterrorist unit, etc. must FOLLOW the law in all and any circumstances.

The law is law. How funny that when it's about Hungary, the law and constitution doesn't matter anymore in discussions, just assumptions. But if it was USA, as I wrote, probably noone would mind that the police would DO their JOB when they seize weapons that were taken into the country ILLEGALLY.

About your film comment: it does not seem to be the case. Bruce Willis has been shooting Die Hard 5 in Budapest in the past few weeks... Before that, Angelina Jolie was shooting a movie (right after her husband, yes). And the government advisor of Hungary for film industry is Andy Vajna (producer of lots of Hollywood movies, including Terminator series, Air America, Rambo, Rambo II, Basic Instinct, Cliffhanger etc.). So, no, it seems the film industry does not avoid Hungary yet...

(About economic issues: your comment is false too; the budget deficit in 2012 and in 2013 -- the latter one is also confirmed by the EU itself -- will be one of the smallest in the entire European Union. The biggest problem of the country is the huge public debt, inherited from the previous socialist government, but this debt also decreased slightly in the past few months.)

 

I think you missed his point entirely. According to the article you quoted (this one : http://www.pestiside.hu/20111011/yo...t-brad-pitt-budapest-zombie-gunrunning-story/ ), (a) the film crew had got a police permit to transport the weapons, and (b) that the safety devices had been unscrewed BY the Hungarian authorities, making them an active weapon. This seems to point, quite clearly, to the TEK barging in, confiscating the weapons, then thinking "Oh ****, we made a mistake" and tinkering to make it look like the weapons /were/ illegal.

 

No no, you missed the point: they were ILLEGAL even without ANY tinkering. According to the Hungarian law, they were not disarmed (because those safety devices do not count as disarm). This is the LAW.

There is never need to prove how someone understood or not understood the law when the reality (acts, events, statement) prove the opposite. Because BTA, let's take each other seriously, the LAW is *known*, exactly, completely. And the law states that the way they were deactivated is NOT considered a valid disarm according to the Hungarian law.

The point is, what Krugman's/Scheppele's words imply is that the *TEK* decided arbitrarily that the weapons were not legal, plus Rotku also adds the TEK tried to tinker with them to make them look illegal. In the reality, the truth is:
(1) It's not the TEK that decided anything on its own; they were enforcing valid Hungarian LAW
(2) TEK armed them to present that they *can* be armed easily (= with the hand of an expert: think of a terrorist, criminal etc.), and therefore were illegal according to the current Hungarian laws.

The fact that a person (whose task is to represent Pitt's and movie's interests!) states they had a police permission is irrelevant in this case. If he is right, then there was a mistake in the system (someone made a mistake, in Britain, in Hungary, or in both), BUT this doesn't mean the TEK was doing anything incorrect.

The TEK was enforcing the law, nothing else. This is the point Scheppele intentionally ignores.

In the USA, there are also issues between federal and local authorities, police, FBI etc. isn't it? If the local police makes a mistake somewhere (e.g. gives a permission it is not allowed to give out), and later the federal agencies act (enforcing the federal law), the subject of the enforcing process can't just say: "Oh, but I got permission from the police!". Sure, legal procedure can be started, it can sue the police, the state, etc. BUT this doesn't mean the federal agency/agencies made the wrong decision, provided they merely enforced the federal law of the United States.

 

Well, as you know, in a democratic country, you have right to make the necessary legal steps. Noone did that in this case, in fact noone (except Scheppele and some journalists) questioned that TEK was making the correct decision. To be brief, noone requested an investigation in this case. And don't tell me they were afraid; especially Brad Pitt's team

Well, the fact that they demonstrated that the weapons could be armed shows that they were not disarmed according to the Hungarian law (which doesn't allow "temporary deactivation" in these cases). So someone might have made a mistake, but it's unlikely they did. An investigation could clear that up -- but noone requested it. For an obvious reason: it is pretty clear they weren't brought to the country in conformance with the Hungarian law.

Please don't ignore my local-federal analogy: the police might have made a mistake, but this doesn't mean that the TEK (think of it like a federal agency) made a mistake. Let alone the fact that only Pitt's employee mentioned that they got permission from the Hungarian police -- there might have been a misunderstanding, or whatever. Only an investigation could clear it up.

The point is, Scheppele's text tries to abuse this event to misrepresent TEK, to imply that TEK acts in on his own as a powerful dictatoric force, as in Pitt's case. Moreover, the point is, Krugman (who was known as a credible, serious person) is publishing material in his blog which is full with lies and manipulations.

It would have been different if it was mentioning the events factually, i.e. what happened, and that TEK was merely enforcing the law, and not making arbitrary decisions and judgements on its own. I know a blog and an opinion do not need to restrict itself to facts (even though it's still crucial if they don't want to become liars), but Krugman is not a cheap journalist, he is a person with a Nobel-prize, who is now abusing his blog to spread lies about Hungary, to protect his liberal fellows whose interests were violated by the Hungarian government.

His credibility is lost forever.

 

Sorry, but Krugman's credibility is still intact. He can certainly offer his opinion and still be credible (just as Einstein did on nuclear proliferation). By the way, his Nobel prize is in economics -- I really don't see how pointing out that the policies in Hungary do not make good fiscal sense is in any way affecting his credibility.

I did notice that at no point is the actual law mentioned about the disabling of firearms....

 

Spreading lies is no opinion, but it seems value relativism is the standard for certain people, T2Bruno. Opinion is when you think something about something subjective. Lies are another matter.

His opinion on economic policies would be fine. That's his area. But spreading lies about how a "police state" is getting built is not an opinion, it's a lie -- when it's supported by lies (which I tore apart one by one in my initial post).

Credibility is lost in my eyes (and in many others eyes who respected him here in my country), because a person who is able to spread lies to support his leftliberal fellows should not be taken seriously anymore. Simply because objectivism (facts) are not the only input anymore that he apparently takes into account.

 

I don't know anything about Krugman or this specific case, but I agree that there is a distinct tendency for people who have been told how great they are in some specific regard to lose track of their egos and start thinking they are 'all that' in areas where they actually have little credibility. It's like popular newspaper sports writers who segue over to opinion columns and start telling everybody they're wrong about every social issue under the sun, or rock stars who presume to tell people how they should vote.

 

Well, if you're a credible person, it's natural that people take your word more seriously in other matters too (even those that are not related with your specialty field).

The problem is when this is abused. Telling that Hungary is becoming a police state where the antiterrorist unit is the personal secret service of the political leaders is absolutely nonsense. Especially when even the Hungarian opposition doesn't tell that Hungary has become any type of dictature or police state (they just mention "democratic deficit", which is also not true, but it's still far from what Scheppele/Krugman implies/states).

So it's simply suspicious when a liberal person from the USA accuses the Hungarian government of more severe things than the Hungarian opposition itself.

Or if Krugman is right, then Obama was giving a warm welcome to a bloody dictator a few days ago...

 

Some people throw around pejorative terms like "dictator" and "fascist" far too casually. Not to mention "racist". These are terms designed to end rational discussion, and are usually used in an ad hominem manner. And don't even get me started about "homophobe".

Many people called Jean Chretien a dictator during his time as Canada's PM, despite the fact that for the whole time he was in power there were free and democratic elections, an independant judiciary, and tons of other official oversight to ensure personal freedoms. And bear in mind, I hate Chretien!

The same has been said of leaders like Bush (both 1 AND 2), Canada's current PM Harper, and likely every centrist or right of centre leader in the world. Heck, some even call Obama a dictator! It's all idiocy, of course, and should be taken with a grain of salt, even if the person using such language is a famous genius.

The criticism I take seriously is rooted in fact and logic.

 

Orbán. Dictator? Hmm, probably not. Yet. Autoritarian? Certainly by tendency and inclination. Not a true democrat? He wouldn't stack the deck as he does if he was. He and his party being keen on perpetuating their hold on power? Rather obviously, and to an extent far beyond what goes on in Europe short of Belarus and Ukraine, and far beyond anything Bush ever did when he had Rove trying to achieve the permanent Republican majority.

With Hungary and Orbán, that's usually the part the criticism is about. Naturally and because quite obviously that's also the part of which 97% are all petty lies and rancorous slander by the rootless, liberal left, great capital, internationalist communist types. Indeed, fact and logic suggest nothing less.

---------- Added 0 hours, 52 minutes and 31 seconds later... ----------

Huh? Only if one is so inane (like some Neo-Wilsonians and Neo-Cons) as to believe in the preposterous idea that the President of the United States, when he is speaking with someobody and shaking his hand, is issuing an endorsement.

To get the general idea:

​

What is displayed in the picture doesn't mean that Reagan endorsed communism. He was simply meeting the head of state of the USSR. Likewise, Obama wasn't meeting Orban, much less giving him an endorsement, but he simply met the man who happens to be the current prime minister of Hungary.

Another example:

​

This was not endorsement either. It only shows that heads of state meet some real nuts from time tot time. In the case of Qadhafi, iirc Obama administration support actually helped get the man killed later.