The Bickerstaffe Record


Oy, Ferguson – over here! I’m talking to you

07.27.09 | 6 Comments

Loyal readers may remember my totally shameless attempt to boost reader numbers by picking a fight with Conservative blogger Iain Dale

It didn’t work at all.  Dale, a foolish boy in many respects, knows a very fine leftwing blog, ready to persuade many millions that the course of Conservatism is deeply intellectually flawed if only it can get that first mass readership breakthrough, when he sees one, and he has judiciously and consistently failed to link to the Bickerstaffe Record, for fear that his right wing nonsenses will be overwhelmed by a tidal wave of intellectually rigorous political economy in blog form.

Either that or he just thinks the Record is crap.

No matter.  Dale is small fry in the scheme of the Record’s plans for wordblog domination, and there are much bigger fairly pointless fights to be picked.

And while the coming gratuitous but fairly detailed attack on numpty liberal economic historian Niall Ferguson may at the moment seem insignificant in the context of his war of words with the boy Krugman, historians of the blogsophere will in years to come see the day the Record took on Ferugson as the more seminal point in the soon-to-be relentless move towards a system of govrnment and economy which operates in favour of the working class rather than against them.

But I digress.  I must get to the point.

Niall Ferguson, you are a rubbish liberal numpty of an economic historian and wannabee economic adviser, and you just make stuff up as you go along to make yourself look good, and to make Conservative economics seem relevant to the current context.  But I have found you out.

Here is what you said in the Los Angeles Times in October 2005:

‘Parties out of power usually tell themselves that sooner or later the incumbent will be tripped up by the economy. That was indeed the pattern throughout the 20th century. Yet this is to overlook four things.

First, economic volatility has declined markedly since the 1970s. In all the G7 industrialized countries, annual growth rates vary much less than they used to. So do inflation rates. Recessions are happening less often, and when they do, they are not too steep and not too protracted’ (my emphasis).

But here is what you said in Vanity Fair in January 2009 (yes, Vanity Fair), in an interview to publicise your new book, and in which you refer to a period very shortly after you wrote what you wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

‘Well, I can say with a degree of self-satisfaction that it wasn’t luck. Two and a half years ago I decided to write this book, because I was sure that this financial crisis was going to happen, and the reason I was sure was because people kept coming up to me—whether it was investment bankers or hedge fund managers—telling me that volatility was dead that there would never be another recession. I just thought, ‘These people have completely disconnected from reality, and financial history is going to come back and bite them in the ass’ (my emphasis).

You are a charlatan and a fraud, Professor Ferguson.  From these two statements it is perfectly obvious that a) you did not see the financial crisis coming at all, and just pretended to later; b) you do not really know what you are talking about.

Oh, and by the way, an increase in the interest rates on 10 year US Treasury yields in no way invalidates the idea that the key post-Keynesian argument that a further fiscal stimulus is required.  China may be wary of the long term solvency of the US, but that does not make it right to crap on the economy when it most needs notto be crapped on. 

But that’s another post.


I rest my case.   I bet he’s worried.


have your say

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. Subscribe to these comments.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>