Harvard Professor: Keynes was wrong because he was gay

Maxinquaye · May 4, 2013

http://www.fa-mag.com/news/harvard-professor-gay-bashes-keynes-14173.html

Harvard Professor and author Niall Ferguson says John Maynard Keynes' economic philosophy was flawed and he didn't care about future generations because he was gay and didn't have children.

Speaking at the Tenth Annual Altegris Conference in Carlsbad, Calif., in front of a group of more than 500 investors, Ferguson responded to a question about Keynes' famous philosophy of self-interest versus the economic philosophy of Edmund Burke, who believed there was a social contract among the living, as well as the dead. Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had. He explained that Keynes had none because he was a homosexual and was married to a ballerina, with whom he likely talked of "poetry" rather than procreated. The audience went quiet at the remark. Some attendees later said they found the remarks offensive.

I don't even...

This reminds me once again that even if you're at the top in your field, it doesn't mean you're good at your field.

Don · May 4, 2013

Keynes was wrong, but it has nothing to do with his sexual orientation.

He was wrong about specifics.

He was wrong about generalities, as the following chart shows what's happened to the average Joe's real wages since Nixon freed the Banksters. (1971 on the chart)

Those who follow his theories and claim the recession ended in '09 because Wall Street is humming and the one percent is getting richer... well, they need to read the suicide thread.

... and just for fun, in honor of Paul Krugman's "Keynesian" Alien Invasion Theory:

ETA: Oh, yeah, and he was wrong about eugenics as well as economics. He was a big fan, you know. Huge. Not a big fan of the common man.

Ken · May 4, 2013

... personally, I've always felt that bringing up personal stuff as a way of undermining somebody whom you disagree with is a cheap shot and easy way out. A person can have a valid opinion on something and not be directly involved with that something themselves. E.g. I can have an opinion on how Japan might be restructured, politically, without living there myself. Distance can result in increased objectivity and insight. So leave the personal stuff out of it and focus on the point. And if that means you can't counter another person's argument then admit defeat gracefully instead of squirming about pathetically and grasping at straws.

Don · May 4, 2013

Ken said:
... personally, I've always felt that bringing up personal stuff as a way of undermining somebody whom you disagree with is a cheap shot and easy way out. A person can have a valid opinion on something and not be directly involved with that something themselves. E.g. I can have an opinion on how Japan might be restructured, politically, without living there myself. Distance can result in increased objectivity and insight. So leave the personal stuff out of it and focus on the point. And if that means you can't counter another person's argument then admit defeat gracefully instead of squirming about pathetically and grasping at straws.

Exactly. It's not rocket science to point out Keynes' myriad failures without attacking his sexual orientation.

Ken · May 4, 2013

Don said:
Exactly. It's not rocket science to point out Keynes' myriad failures without attacking his sexual orientation.

... and in this case, it may not have even been a matter of grasping at straws.
B/c if Keynes argument is really that flawed Fergunson should have simply focused on that like you say.
But maybe he was still incapable.
Calling Don to the podium ;-)

Don · May 4, 2013

Ken said:
... and in this case, it may not have even been a matter of grasping at straws.
B/c if Keynes argument is really that flawed Fergunson should have simply focused on that like you say.
But maybe he was still incapable.
Calling Don to the podium ;-)

I know nothing about Ferguson, and based on the article, we know nothing about the legitimate arguments that Ferguson may have made, because he shot himself in the foot during the question and answer session. Whether the article would have even been written had Ferguson not done so is a whole 'nother issue. Coverage of alternative viewpoints isn't part of the trend toward diversity when it comes to economic schools of thought.

Mara · May 4, 2013

Niall Ferguson says something ignorant. In other news, a North Korean leader says something crazy, a U.S. politician got caught in a scandal, and water is wet.

He's well-known outside the field of history, but not exactly one of the titans of the field itself, and generally isn't widely adored or anything. He's also rather controversial within the field, and beyond his scholarly views, he's known for saying dumbass stuff like this.

Maxinquaye · May 4, 2013

Don said:
Exactly. It's not rocket science to point out Keynes' myriad failures without attacking his sexual orientation.

Keynes is a 19th century man addressing an early 20th century problem. As we do not look to Benjamin Disraeli to solve social problems of our times, it is equally problematic to look to Keynes to solve economic problems of the 21st century.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the man's sexual orientation.

missesdash · May 4, 2013

Yeah I didn't read it as "he was wrong because he was gay" but "he thought this way because he was gay and didn't have kids." Which is equally stupid, but slightly different.

From another source:

Speaking to a crowd of over 500 people, Ferguson said: ‘It is the economic ideals of [John Maynard] Keynes that have gotten us into the problems of today.’

Ferguson was referring to Keynes’ philosophies that focused more on short-term needs and immediate results in an economic system, contrary to classical economics that looks for more long-term solutions to economic problems.

Ferguson continued: ‘Keynes was a homosexual and had no intention of having children. We are not dead in the long run…our children are our progeny.

‘Short term fixes, with a neglect of the long run, leads to the continuous cycles of booms and busts. Economies that pursue such short-term solutions have always suffered not only decline, but destruction, in the long run.’

Ferguson accused Keynes of selfish economic policies because he was an ‘effete’ member of society who married a ballerina. Ferguson went on to say that Keynes probably discussed ‘poetry’ with his wife more often than they had sex.

The odd thing is his point could have been made in exactly the same way without bringing up sexual orientation. He seemed to be criticism zing his lifestyle and philosophies and conflating it with his sexuality. Gross.

Maxinquaye · May 4, 2013

Criticism of 'gay lifestyles' is just dog whistling by another name.

missesdash · May 4, 2013

Maxinquaye said:
Criticism of 'gay lifestyles' is just dog whistling by another name.

Yeah but no one said anything about "gay lifestyle." I meant his actual lifestyle, and I don't consider sexual orientation a "lifestyle choice."

Maxinquaye · May 4, 2013

missesdash said:
Yeah but no one said anything about "gay lifestyle." I meant his actual lifestyle, and I don't consider sexual orientation a "lifestyle choice."

Ferguson did.

Ferguson, who is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of History at Harvard University, and author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die, says it's only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an "effete" member of society. Apparently, in Ferguson's world, if you are gay or childless, you cannot care about future generations nor society.

Zoombie · May 4, 2013

What a fuckhead...

muravyets · May 4, 2013

Okay, but if Keynes was a bad economic philosopher because he was gay and married to a ballet dancer, then what does this Ferguson guy do that explains why he's so full of shit? I mean, something must account for it.

missesdash · May 4, 2013

Maxinquaye said:
Ferguson did.

That wasn't even a quote? And I might be making a mistake in assuming we feel the same way about the term "lifestyle" used to describe homosexuality. I generally find it offense. So when I say he was speaking about Keynes lifestyle, I'm not referring to his sexuality. I'm talking about his actual (or rather perceived) lifestyle of childless, artistic, selfish intellectual.

maxmordon · May 4, 2013

Am I the only one who thinks Keynes was unto something? I prefer him over Milton Friedman any given day, at least.

Xelebes · May 4, 2013

Don said:
He was wrong about generalities, as the following chart shows what's happened to the average Joe's real wages since Nixon freed the Banksters. (1971 on the chart)

Would that mean that Nixon stepped away from Keynesian policy? As I understand it, there were external factors that pushed politicians to other policies, including the hard sell of Friedmanian policies that would dominate the 80s. There was also the surplus of consumable goods from the redevelopment of Japanese and German economies and the advance of technologies that introduced robotics and computers.

rugcat · May 4, 2013

muravyets said:
Okay, but if Keynes was a bad economic philosopher because he was gay and married to a ballet dancer, then what does this Ferguson guy do that explains why he's so full of shit? I mean, something must account for it.

Well, he's openly atheist. Without the moral foundations that a belief in God provides, how can anyone trust his economic theories?

dfwtinman · May 4, 2013

rugcat said:
Well, he's openly atheist. Without the moral foundations that a belief in God provides, how can anyone trust his economic theories?

He claims progeny makes us immortal. But, if one were motivated by the desire to actually become immortal...

AncientEagle · May 4, 2013

maxmordon said:
Am I the only one who thinks Keynes was unto something? I prefer him over Milton Friedman any given day, at least.

No, you're not the only one. There's at least two of us. And I prefer almost anyone over Milton Friedman.

clintl · May 4, 2013

That graph might be more convincing if the deviation started in 1935 rather than 1975. But we all really know what happened, right? Nixon did a bunch of stuff in 1970-1972 to overstimulate the economy to improve his re-election chances, and then Reagan came along with his supply-side, anti-union policies. Neither one of those things was proper Keynesian policy.

Xelebes · May 4, 2013

clintl said:
That graph might be more convincing if the deviation started in 1935 rather than 1975. But we all really know what happened, right? Nixon did a bunch of stuff in 1970-1972 to overstimulate the economy to improve his re-election chances, and then Reagan came along with his supply-side, anti-union policies. Neither one of those things was proper Keynesian policy.

Correct. The Keynesian Consensus was from 1945-1970. At around 1970, the shifts in policies worldwide started changing due to a multitude of reasons.

BenPanced · May 4, 2013

And an apology has been issued.

muravyets · May 4, 2013

AncientEagle said:
No, you're not the only one. There's at least two of us. And I prefer almost anyone over Milton Friedman.

Make that three.

BenPanced said:
And an apology has been issued.

I congratulate him on a moment of honesty:

Ferguson said his remarks at an earlier conference were "as stupid as they were insensitive."

Yeah.

So many people these days seem to have to apologize for themselves. I wonder if it ever occurs to them not to say stupid stuff in the first place.

Mara · May 4, 2013

muravyets said:
So many people these days seem to have to apologize for themselves. I wonder if it ever occurs to them not to say stupid stuff in the first place.

Ferguson would be out of a career if he stopped saying stupid stuff. Seriously. He's produced like, one academically-respected scholarly work and the rest are just a bunch of dubious "historical" works supporting and justifying imperialism. Some of his statements are also Eurocentric chauvinism at best and racism at worst.

Many historians have strong political views, and there are plenty of left-wing and right-wing activists who are highly respected in the field, even by people who disagree with their politics. But those historians are still doing serious historian and contributing to the field, whereas Ferguson is mostly just a cheerleader for Bush-43-era neo-conservatism and hasn't actually contributed a lot to the field. He's a prolific writer and more famous outside the discipline than others, but I wouldn't really consider him to be at the top of the field or anything.

Harvard Professor: Keynes was wrong because he was gay

That cheeky buggerer

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

All Living is Local

Clever User Title

That cheeky buggerer

You can't sit with us!

That cheeky buggerer

You can't sit with us!

That cheeky buggerer

Dragon of the Multiverse

Old revolutionary

You can't sit with us!

Penúltimo

Delerium ex Ennui

Lost in the Fog

Cubic Zirconia in the rough

Old kid, no need to be gentle.

Represent.

Delerium ex Ennui

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

Old revolutionary

Clever User Title