Hungarian Politics

[Admiral Yi]

What's do you mean by judgement calls?

Having said that I don't mind the IMF.  I'm attacking the EU and its elements in the Troika, the IMF is, I think the best of the three.

I mean things like the choice between fewer public services or lower taxes.  That's a question of taste.  Running gigantic deficits forever and ever is not a question of taste, it's a metaphysical impossibility.  Populists who think you can are just wrong.

[Tamas]

But if the state would lack the rights to spend at their heart's content (laisez faire economy, you don't need to deify Ann Ryan or create anarchy to have such an economy), populism couldn't ruin a country.

[Sheilbh]

I mean things like the choice between fewer public services or lower taxes.  That's a question of taste.  Running gigantic deficits forever and ever is not a question of taste, it's a metaphysical impossibility.  Populists who think you can are just wrong.

I thought the IMF did provide advice on specific policy choices.

But even so I think that's an extreme interpretation of populism.  My point is that Orban and his like are the product of too little not too much populism.

But if the state would lack the rights to spend at their heart's content (laisez faire economy, you don't need to deify Ann Ryan or create anarchy to have such an economy), populism couldn't ruin a country.

Of course it could.  It would either require you to create a state structure as lacking in democracy as what Orban's building now, but for your ideological choice, or it would just require one election victory.

[Tamas]

I mean things like the choice between fewer public services or lower taxes.  That's a question of taste.  Running gigantic deficits forever and ever is not a question of taste, it's a metaphysical impossibility.  Populists who think you can are just wrong.

I thought the IMF did provide advice on specific policy choices.

But even so I think that's an extreme interpretation of populism.  My point is that Orban and his like are the product of too little not too much populism.

But if the state would lack the rights to spend at their heart's content (laisez faire economy, you don't need to deify Ann Ryan or create anarchy to have such an economy), populism couldn't ruin a country.

Of course it could.  It would either require you to create a state structure as lacking in democracy as what Orban's building now, but for your ideological choice, or it would just require one election victory.

Weren't the (at least late) 19th century British state much-much less involved in the economy than modern states? Didn't you have political parties regardless?

[Sheilbh]

Weren't the (at least late) 19th century British state much-much less involved in the economy than modern states? Didn't you have political parties regardless?

Yeah.  But that wasn't really a democracy, the franchise was very limited.  Late 19th century about 50% of men over 21 could vote.  Also the state I think has needed to grow in the 20th century precisely because of the way the economy's grown. 

And regardless you had the start of social and political reforms precisely because both Liberals and Tories thought it was a choice between that evolution or socialist revolution.  As the Tory PM Lord Salisbury put it 'laissez faire is a fine doctrine, but it must be applied to both sides' and poverty and slums and the like enervated the poor.  They made laissez faire impossible.

Edit:  So you coul probably get a bourgeois liberal state if you limited the franchise by wealth again, but I  don't know how long it would last and it wouldn't deserve to last at all.

[Admiral Yi]

My point is that Orban and his like are the product of too little not too much populism.

Color me baffled.

[Tamas]

My point is that Orban and his like are the product of too little not too much populism.

Color me baffled.

Come on Sheilbh 

They promised EVERYTHING. They promised light to ne crowd, and darkness to the other. They promised laissez faire to businessman, and insane welfare spending to everyone else.
Etc.

They are as populist as you can be. Seriously.

[Valmy]

Edit:  So you coul probably get a bourgeois liberal state if you limited the franchise by wealth again, but I  don't know how long it would last and it wouldn't deserve to last at all.

Is this a joke?  You really think the upper classes are united in their desire to restore the political order of the 19th century?  I mean these people are among the biggest beneficiaries of the current system.

[Tamas]

In fact, they are the product of populism on both sides - the socialist party didnt dare do meaningful reform to avoid losing votes (so they fucked up and lost anyway, same happening to Orban as well).

Hungary today is the product of rampant populism and refusal of making the populace face the fact: the socialist state ended in 89, and it was dead long before that.

[Tamas]

Edit:  So you coul probably get a bourgeois liberal state if you limited the franchise by wealth again, but I  don't know how long it would last and it wouldn't deserve to last at all.

Is this a joke?  You really think the upper classes are united in their desire to restore the political order of the 19th century?  I mean these people are among the biggest beneficiaries of the current system.

Indeed. This is a classic mistake I think: the upper classes profit greatly from these modern left-leaning national economies. Buying off the poor, conserving them in their situation, from money largely taken from the middle class? What not to like if you are rich?

[Sheilbh]

Color me baffled.

They came about after a technocratic government implementing measures in support of an IMF program.  They cut government spendign by 5% and reformed various bits of the state.  They restored Hungarian credibility in markets but I don't think there was any sense of rebalancing the economy or growth - which people require as a trade for painful austerity.  It seems, much like what's happening in Greece now and possibly in Italy, that the government's so attuned to international investors that it leads to resentment.  The more resentment, the more extreme the reaction.  In this case, Orban.

[Sheilbh]

Is this a joke?  You really think the upper classes are united in their desire to restore the political order of the 19th century?  I mean these people are among the biggest beneficiaries of the current system.

Tamas referred to late 19th century Britain as a model.  I think with that electorate you would probably end up with a classical liberal government again.

Edit:  And I think it's the only route you'd probably be able to get a liberal majority.

[Admiral Yi]

They came about after a technocratic government implementing measures in support of an IMF program.  They cut government spendign by 5% and reformed various bits of the state.  They restored Hungarian credibility in markets but I don't think there was any sense of rebalancing the economy or growth - which people require as a trade for painful austerity.  It seems, much like what's happening in Greece now and possibly in Italy, that the government's so attuned to international investors that it leads to resentment.  The more resentment, the more extreme the reaction.  In this case, Orban.

People need to understand they're not in a position to require anything as a trade for painful austerity.  If they want to default and get locked out of the bond market, let 'er rip.  If they want to maintain access, then they have to cut spending and raise revenues.  The IMF is not just another interest group who's wishes need to be balanced with other interest groups.  They are the last resort.

And I still don't get how the Orban government is not populist enough.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.

[Valmy]

Tamas referred to late 19th century Britain as a model.  I think with that electorate you would probably end up with a classical liberal government again.

Edit:  And I think it's the only route you'd probably be able to get a liberal majority.

Well color me very skeptical.  The reason we had classic liberal governments back in those days was mostly because that was the fashionable economic model of the same people who we got our political model from and further the limitations of the technology and so forth of the 19th century.  It seems absurd to ignore the fact that things were different in alot more ways than just the sufferage limits in the 19th century.  I mean after the Jacksonian era we had no such property limits but classical liberalism was still the dominant ideology because, well, it was practically the only economic ideology for countries who were influenced by the Enlightenment.

You really think the most educated and privileged part of the population would not only knock over their own applecart but would be so stuck in the past?

[Sheilbh]

People need to understand they're not in a position to require anything as a trade for painful austerity.  If they want to default and get locked out of the bond market, let 'er rip.  If they want to maintain access, then they have to cut spending and raise revenues.  The IMF is not just another interest group who's wishes need to be balanced with other interest groups.  They are the last resort.

The IMF's goals in Hungary included growth and rebalancing.  They didn't happen and weren't emphasised by the government - the same is happening in Greece, Italy is different with Monti's emphasis on the 'grow Italy' plans.  If there's no upside then all these countries are waiting for is someone charismatic enough to pull off a rejection of international finance, as Orban has so far and as the Kirchners have.  That's all that's lacking in Greece.  It's a role I could have imagined Berlusconi playing that role in Italy.

And I still don't get how the Orban government is not populist enough.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.

Orban is the product of too little populism.  They are in this position of power and popular resentment towards the EU and IMF because of the failings of technocratic government, such as what Hungary had before the election that brought Orban to power.  Nowhere have I said he's not a populist or is too anti-populist.

You really think the most educated and privileged part of the population would not only knock over their own applecart but would be so stuck in the past?

I think they're the only sector of the poulation which has generally liberal views.  They'd be understood in modern terms.  I don't mean that we'd return to a point which ignores the achievements of the 19th century (such as abolishing child labour), far less the 20th (the security of the welfare state).  But with that electorate I think you'd be more likely to have a majority in favour of a laissez faire attitude to social issues and a generally laissez faire attitude to the economy, low taxes and all the rest.  Basically the Languish vote