Night Talk: An Interview With Niall Ferguson

click for video

Category: Finance, Television, Video

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

6 Responses to “The Ascent of Money: Niall Ferguson”

  1. haileris says:

    Oh, Niall Ferguson, he’s probably the most eloquent, erudite asshole neoconservative out there. His debate on the Long Now foundation really shows his pessimism, I’ve never read anything happy from him (not that I thing he’s wrong in this instance).

  2. wunsacon says:

    IMHO:
    - For regular TBP readers, this video probably not worth the 40 minutes. (Sorry if I’m not being generous enough.)
    - Niall’s book (about a history of money, starting from 4000BC in Iraq) is probably an interesting read.
    - Niall thinks we should double (the $700B) bailout to the banks (via equity infusions), because they have more to write off.
    - He expects a full year recession (dated from?) and much lower growth than we’ve been accustomed to. (“Growth ex-MEW during the Bush years would’ve been 1%.”)

  3. wunsacon says:

    >> neoconservative

    I never heard of him until watching this video. But, one of the things he said that struck me was “the US should not become Europe”. But, he doesn’t say in what sense he means. When later in the video he said equity infusions are better than buying toxic assets, I wondered “isn’t that what the Europeans are generally doing?”

  4. Mike in Nola says:

    haileris describes him so well.

  5. Mike in Nola says:

    Finally catching up on my reading after a few hectic days and ran across this piece by Michael Pettis in which he argues that those. like Bernanke and Ferguson, who think we need huge stimulus in and by the US to avoid a depression have it exactly backwards.

    China is in the role the US played in 1929: huge trade surplus accompanying huge overcapacity, while the US has been playing the role that Europe did at that time of absorbing the exports. When Europe could no longer keep up its end of the trade, the US resorted to trade policies like Smoot Hawley in a vain attempt to keep the merry go round from stopping. Pettis argues instead that the US should have tried to increase domestic demand to absorb the overcapacity.

    He is based in China, and he see China adopting policies that could well produce the same results as Smoot Hawley instead of trying to increase its own domestic demand to absorb its overcapacity.

    http://mpettis.com/2008/11/rising-unemployment-increases-the-pressure-for-misguided-trade-policies/

    It is a good blog worth following.

  6. mayorga says:

    can someone send me permission or invite to watch this video. Ferguson makes good historical arguments, and i havent seen this interview yet. please send an invite. it would be greatly appreciated.