ferguson does seem to be the harvard type---someone who is good to put on stage, who has done some scholarly work, but is a (right wing) public intellectual. (krugman being the left wing version. I allus liked Krugman's view that the 'battle of seattle' protestors didn't understnad their economics and had no viable critique of globalization (which actually contradicted a few of his own papers, which showed that globalization can have detrimental effects---eg the stolper-samuelson theorem (free trade is good) only holds for full employment, so if the world is not fully employed then maybe there will be a market failure. Krugman just felt knowing the parameters, this seemed highly unlikely to be the case (the employment rate is always natural, a universal constant like the speed of light). Paul Samuelson even had a paper in AER a few years ago contradiciting this use of stolper-samuleson essentially. ).
i did read a review of ferguson's financial history; while his views that british colonialization, on net, was a good thing (otherwise where would you find anything worth bombing in mumbai, and who could understand hindi-speakers at call centers for computer tech fixes?) i found possibly implausible, i did like his breakdown of capitalist development into a sort of war of interests between military spending, investor classes, and the 'people', if i recall. Ferguson's support for the current wars is always based on this argument---that if the 'people' get too much, their won't be enough for the military, and the imperial project will fail, so don't give them too much. I forget the nuances, like the role of the investor class---i guess likely you can't penalize or charge them for war, because they will get angry and possibly no longer provide campaign funds for the government (or funds for Harvard to employ PR types like Ferguson and 'keep hope alive' escape valves like the african study department or physicians for national health care (who presumably are not the same ones writing studies for big Pharma) . --- On Mon, 8/24/09, Louis Proyect <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Louis Proyect <[email protected]> > Subject: [Pen-l] Paul Krugman versus Niall Ferguson > To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition" > <[email protected]>, "PEN-L list" <[email protected]> > Date: Monday, August 24, 2009, 9:31 AM > http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/black-cats/ > August 17, 2009, 8:48 pm > Black cats > > I really had no intention of writing more about Niall > Ferguson. Regular readers may recall that he wrote an > article in the Financial Times that began, > > President Barack Obama reminds me of Felix > the Cat. One of the best-loved cartoon characters of the > 1920s, Felix was not only black. He was also very, very > lucky. And that pretty much sums up the 44th president of > the US … > > I asked, are there no editors? > > But Professor Ferguson demands that I (and James Fallows) > print his response: > > As you both took exception to my comparison > of the President with Felix the Cat, my favorite cartoon > character, implying it was racist and recommending I consult > Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr., I have now done so. He has > taken the trouble to consult others in the field of > African-American Studies, including our colleague Lawrence > D. Bobo, the W. E. B. Du Bois Professor of the Social > Sciences, and has written to me as follows: > > “None of us thought of Felix as black, > unlike some of the racially-questionable caricatures Disney > used. Felix’s blackness, like Mickey’s and Minnie’s, > was like a suit of clothes, not a skin color. … You are > safe on this one.” > > What can I say? While the Ferguson line was deeply > offensive — everyone I know asked, “Did he really write > that? Did the FT actually publish it?” — it never > occurred to me that it had anything to do with the question > of whether Felix the Cat was supposed to be > African-American. The mind reels. > > For the record, I don’t think that Professor Ferguson is > a racist. > > I think he’s a poseur. > > I’m told that some of his straight historical work is > very good. When it comes to economics, however, he hasn’t > bothered to understand the basics, relying on snide comments > and surface cleverness to convey the impression of wisdom. > It’s all style, no comprehension of substance. > > And this time he ended up choking on his own snark. > > --- > > http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article6806419.ece > August 23, 2009 > > Professor Paul Krugman at war with Niall Ferguson over > inflation > America’s top liberal pundit is at loggerheads with a > British don over how to save the world economy > > One of them is a “poseur”. The other is > “patronising”. One suffers from “verbal diarrhoea”. > The other is a “whiner”. > > A bust-up on the set of High School Musical 4 perhaps? A > scrap behind the catwalk at a Milan fashion show? No. Those > accusations were slung round in an increasingly bitter > public row between two of the world’s most distinguished > commentators on global finance and economics, professors > Paul Krugman and Niall Ferguson, of Princeton and Harvard, > respectively. > > It started as an argument about bond prices. But last week > it blew up into a row about racism, printing money, spending > our way out of recession, and the fate of the global > economy. > > Academic spats can, of course, be famously catty. Ludwig > Wittgenstein once tossed a poker at his fellow philosopher > Karl Popper at a meeting of the Cambridge Moral Science Club > as they argued about whether issues in philosophy were real > or just linguistic puzzles. At least Krugman and Ferguson > haven’t come to blows yet, although at their next meeting > it might be better to hide the blunt instruments. Still, it > is a long time since the academic world witnessed a dispute > as gladiatorial as this one. > > Henry Kissinger, who knows a bit about fights, both > political and intellectual, once observed that the reason > academic tussles were so vicious was “because the stakes > are so small”. And although that is true in one sense — > it doesn’t matter very much whether the professor from > Princeton doesn’t like his rival from Harvard — it is > wrong in another. The stakes in this row are pretty high. > > The argument is about whether the huge stimulus programmes > launched by governments around the world, and the way > central banks are furiously printing money, are lifting the > global economy out of recession. Or whether they are just > teeing up the next crisis — hyper-inflation and an even > worse economic collapse. > > In a week in which it emerged that Mervyn King, governor of > the Bank of England, wanted to print even more money, this > is far more than an academic debate. It is about where > long-term interest rates are going, and so whether mortgages > will be affordable next year. It is about whether the > glimmers of recovery seen now are about to be crushed by > government spending. > > “The deficits are stimulating the economy right now, but > once the recovery starts they may choke it off,” said > Stuart Thomson, a bond fund manager who controls assets of > $100 billion at Ignis Asset Management. “That is what they > are really arguing about.” > > In short, it is about whether we are fixing the problems or > whether we are just papering over the cracks, and so just > storing up more trouble a few years down the road. > > NO INTELLECTUAL cuts quite such a swagger in American > public debate as Paul Krugman. Born in New York and educated > at Yale and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he > rose quickly through the ranks to become professor of > economics at Princeton, just about the summit of the > academic mountain. > > Unusually for a scholar, Krugman pulls no punches. He > avoids the dry, technical discourses of most economists, and > engages passionately in public debate. In academia, he > specialises in the detail of trade theory, work for which > last year he was awarded the Nobel prize, a trophy that > cemented his reputation as one of the leading economists of > his generation. > > But it is his column in The New York Times that has > catapulted him into the stratosphere. Avowedly liberal, it > ripped into the Bush regime and the excesses of Wall Street > with a passion and a commitment that are rare in the usually > stultifying neutral world of American journalism. Washington > Monthly called him “the most important political columnist > in America”, and few would dispute that judgment. > > It was Krugman who said Gordon Brown’s bank rescue had > “saved the world”, so creating the warm glow of approval > that our beleaguered prime minister basked in for a few > weeks. > > In Ferguson, however, Krugman has met his match. The men > are, in many ways, mirror images of one another: lippy, > self-publicising academics, with a taste for the public > stage and an ear for the big theory. Ferguson, a Glaswegian, > was educated at Oxford before embarking on a career as a > historian for which the word stellar isn’t quite good > enough. > > From his history chair at Oxford, he decamped to America, > eventually adding a chair at Harvard Business School to his > portfolio. Along the way he has written best-selling books > on the history of finance and empire, and presented > documentaries on television. > > Married to the former Sunday Express editor Susan Douglas, > he plays the media skilfully, turning himself into that > modern creation, a “public thinker”. Indeed, he is very > much the right-wing Krugman: a man with a solid academic > background, who still engages furiously in the big public > issues of the day. > > THE FIGHT began at the unlikely setting of the Metropolitan > Museum of Modern Art on April 30, at a symposium on the > recession organised by the New York Review of Books. The > panel was certainly impressive. Alongside Ferguson and > Krugman were George Soros, the hedge-fund manager, and the > former senator Bill Bradley. > > Krugman, an ultra-Keynesian, argued for stimulus spending. > Ferguson put the case for fiscal conservatism, warning of a > “rapid explosion of federal debt”. At some point, the > “financial credibility of the United States will be called > into question”, he said. > > A few days later, Krugman returned to the argument in a > withering put-down on his blog, describing Ferguson’s > views as “really sad” and “depressing” and belonging > to “the dark ages of economics”. > > Ferguson shot back in a piece in the Financial Times. “It > is a brave or foolhardy man who picks a fight with Mr > Krugman,” he wrote. “Yet a cat may look at a king, and > sometimes a historian can challenge an economist.” Krugman > was “patronising” he said, before offering him a > “refresher course” in the historical context of > Keynes’s work. > > You can’t offer to lecture Krugman on Keynes, however, > without expecting the return punch to be a big one. Earlier > this month, Ferguson wrote another piece for the FT, > comparing Barack Obama to Felix the Cat: “Felix was not > only black,” he wrote. “He was always very, very > lucky.” > > Krugman saw the opportunity to deploy the nuclear weapon of > American academic arguments — an accusation of racism. > “I cannot fathom the state of mind that led Ferguson to > think this was a good way to introduce a column,” he > blogged furiously. “Admittedly, it doesn’t really > distract from his larger point, since as far as I can tell > he doesn’t have one.” > > As it was succinctly put in the posters for Jaws: The > Revenge, this time it was personal. Over on the influential > Huffington Post blog, Ferguson defended the intro, rather > amusingly pointing out that Felix was just a black cat, > “not an African-American cat”. Krugman shot back on his > blog: “He’s a whiner too.” > > Undaunted, Ferguson enlisted the opinion of Henry Louis > Gates Jr, one of America’s leading African-American > scholars, who handed down the verdict that referring to > Felix as black wasn’t racist, on the grounds that he > really did have black fur, and, anyway, it wasn’t clear > that cats had race. > > None of which was going to appease Krugman. On his blog on > August 17, he put the boot straight into the British > academic. “For the record, I don’t think that Professor > Ferguson is a racist. I think he’s a poseur. I’m told > that some of his straight historical work is very good. When > it comes to economics, however, he hasn’t bothered to > understand the basics, relying on snide comments and surface > cleverness to convey the impression of wisdom. It’s all > style, no comprehension of substance. And this time he ended > up choking on his own snark.” > > This weekend Ferguson said: “I am saddened by Krugman’s > resort to ad hominem attacks, couched in the language of the > playground. I presume it is because he knows, but bitterly > resents, that I won the argument we had back in April about > the future path of long-term interest rates.” > > He is disappointed by Krugman’s insistence on playing the > man rather than the ball. “He certainly seems much more > ready these days to speculate about the cultural > significance of Felix the Cat than to discuss the issue I > once again raised in my FT piece — namely the potential > dangers of the spiralling US fiscal deficit,” said > Ferguson. “It is all very sad and an illustration of the > dangers of blogging, which encourages verbal diarrhoea.” > > Krugman didn’t respond to a request for an interview for > this article. But it is unlikely the battle will end there > — keep an eye on his blog tomorrow morning. > > IS there anything to this argument, other than a couple of > intellectual egos that have got out of control? Plenty, as > it happens. > > Leave aside the personalities — these are both men who > could happily start a fight in an empty room — and there > is a substantive issue at stake. > > “What they are really arguing about is whether we should > exit quickly from the policy that has been taken up,” said > Stephen Lewis, a veteran City economist with Monument > Securities. “Even Krugman would agree that you cannot > carry on building up public debt forever. Ferguson’s point > is that we should be looking for the exit right now.” > > In that, he is far from alone. Warren Buffett, the > world’s richest man, was warning last week of the dangers > of what he called, with his skill for a pithy phrase, > “greenback emissions” — the vast accumulation of > public debt that risks turning America into a “banana > republic”. > > The debate could not be more relevant in Britain. The > Conservative leader David Cameron has already warned that > Gordon Brown’s plans to double the UK’s national debt > has created a risk of default, with crippling consequences. > > The reality is that governments are racking up debt on an > unprecedented scale. “We have never been in a position > like this before, not even during the great depression of > the 1930s,” said Lewis. > > Maybe that’s why people are looking for guidance from > historians as much as economists. Because while the > economists blithely assure the public that the policies are > the right ones, you don’t need to be a Harvard history > professor to know the past tells us that the prescriptions > of experts often go badly wrong, no matter how confidently > the medicine is administered. And when that happens, > everyone ends up paying a high price. > > Men of many words > > Paul Krugman does not disguise his aggressive approach to > public life. The Princeton professor’s personal website > carries this warning for readers: “With any luck, you will > find many of these pieces extremely annoying. My belief is > that if a column does not greatly upset a substantial number > of people, the author has wasted the space.” > > It is a dictum he has followed closely, even if to his > cost. It is thought that he missed out on a senior role in > the Clinton administration by giving too direct an answer > about whether the president could balance the budget and > afford healthcare reform. It was a resounding “no”. > > “You have to be very good at people skills, biting your > tongue when people say silly things,” Krugman said later. > > He did serve on the White House Council of Economic > Advisers during the Reagan administration. He has had more > than 20 books published, and his hero is the British > economist John Maynard Keynes. > > The collapse of the American banking system allowed Krugman > to say that advocates of laissez-faire capitalism had got it > wrong. “We’re all socialists now,” he said, calling > for the government to “seize the commanding heights of the > economy”. > > Niall Ferguson has taken a similarly rugged approach to > academia and public life, never afraid of a contrary > approach. This runs through many of his general works — he > argued that the British Empire was not a bad thing and that > a de facto American-led empire could do even more good > works. > > The same approach runs through his economic histories. In > his best known book, The Ascent of Money, he examined how > good banking and financial systems eclipsed poor ones. > > Unlike Krugman, he has been sceptical about the > effectiveness of government programmes to fix the economic > crisis. “My worry is that we end up with an > over-reaction,” he said. “All this zeal for regulation > actually grows out of a very faulty analysis. If > deregulation were such a big problem, why was it that the > most regulated entities, banks, caused the biggest > trouble?” > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
