A Couple Of Words On Niall Ferguson, Ctd

A reader writes: The man who apologizes with real contrition and full acknowledgement of the depth and wrongness of his failure is perhaps a greater man than one that never puts his mouth wrong.  God knows we have plenty of shit banging around on the inside of our heads. It is in the base nature … Continue reading A Couple Of Words On Niall Ferguson, Ctd

A Couple Of Words On Niall Ferguson

[Re-posted from earlier today] What he said about Keynes’ sex life, poetry, homosexuality and caring about future generations is stupid, offensive, and absurd. He has now issued an apology: During a recent question-and-answer session at a conference in California, I made comments about John Maynard Keynes that were as stupid as they were insensitive. I … Continue reading A Couple Of Words On Niall Ferguson

Niall Ferguson Doesn’t Know When To Quit

by Conor Clarke

I'm sure Niall Ferguson is a fine historian. But his real talent, it seems, is for digging ditches. Paul Krugman and Jim Fallows have written good posts on this already, but it strikes me as worthy of further attention that Ferguson is now doubling down and defending his original argument that what "pretty much sums up" the 44th president of the United States is that, like Felix the Cat, he is "not only black" but "very, very lucky."

Basically, Ferguson's response to the original criticism was to write a snippy blog post, and then email Henry Louis Gates to confirm that Felix the Cat was not African American, and, thus, that Ferguson is not a racist. Swell. Emailing Gates for help is really a whisker's length away from an explicit "but I have black friends!" argument, but let's put that aside for a moment. Ferguson's response has also done an impressive job of missing the point.

Ferguson’s Yellow Peril

YellowTerror

Fallows makes an important point:

A little earlier I had a testy on-stage exchange with [Niall Ferguson] about the United States and China. He said that U.S. budget deficits would lead to the certain collapse of the U.S.-China relationship, since China would cut off further credit to the spendthrift Yanks. I said that might sound like a neat theory but reflected no awareness of actual Chinese incentives and behavior, and that the showdown he considered "inevitable" in fact would not occur. As it has not.

Niall has made considerable contributions to the argument that holding US bonds is a strategic device advancing China's rise. Back in 2011, Fareed Zakaria broke down why this is off-base:

Here in the U.S. you hear many people worry that the Chinese government might stop buying American T-Bills. I think these fears are vastly overblown. The economic situation between China and the U.S. is the financial version of mutually assured destruction – that cold war doctrine of nuclear deterrence…. China is addicted to a strategy of export-led growth, which requires that it keep its goods cheap. This means keeping its currency undervalued. That's why it buys dollars.

In a 2010 post, economist Michael Pettis framed the issue in a little more detail: