Harvard Professor apologizes for Keynes comments

I am posting this because it is so typical of the attitudes of people on the right whenever it comes to economics or political issues. Namely, if someone doesn't agree with their traditional views, then there must be something wrong with them, and of course they must be out to destroy the nation. This is ironic, however, since many conservative positions today are aimed at destroying the lives of regular people in order to enrich the upper crust.

news.yahoo.com...

Harvard Professor apologizes for Keynes comments

NEW YORK (AP) -- Niall Ferguson, a Harvard history professor and author, apologized on Saturday for saying economist John Maynard Keynes was less invested in the future because he was gay and had no children.

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

During a question-and-answer session after a prepared speech at the Altegris Strategic Investment conference in Carlsbad, Calif. on Thursday, Ferguson was asked to comment about Keynes, an influential 20thcentury British economist who advocated government spending as a way to make up for lagging demand in a down economy.

Ferguson suggested that Keynes philosophy was shaped by his homosexuality. Keynes, therefore, had no children so he wasn't as invested in future generations as others might be, Ferguson said.

The remarks were reported by the website of Financial Advisor magazine and other online publications.

well... I would try and lighten the mood by making a gay joke.... butt # it.

Ferguson shouldn't have to apologize in my opinion. It's an interesting point and concept, probably has some merit. The guy knows business history as much as anyone.

For the larger point, I think sweeping people's personal lives under the rug as irrelevant when evaluating their thinking is intellectually irresponsible. It's now taboo to say anything that can be perceived as anti-gay, but when talking about the legacy of a philosopher of any kind- whether it be ethics, politics, or economics- omitting their sexuality as a part of the context is just as bad as omitting their religion.

Originally posted by CB328
I am posting this because it is so typical of the attitudes of people on the right whenever it comes to economics or political issues. Namely, if someone doesn't agree with their traditional views, then there must be something wrong with them, and of course they must be out to destroy the nation. This is ironic, however, since many conservative positions today are aimed at destroying the lives of regular people in order to enrich the upper crust.

news.yahoo.com...

Harvard Professor apologizes for Keynes comments

NEW YORK (AP) -- Niall Ferguson, a Harvard history professor and author, apologized on Saturday for saying economist John Maynard Keynes was less invested in the future because he was gay and had no children.

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

During a question-and-answer session after a prepared speech at the Altegris Strategic Investment conference in Carlsbad, Calif. on Thursday, Ferguson was asked to comment about Keynes, an influential 20thcentury British economist who advocated government spending as a way to make up for lagging demand in a down economy.

Ferguson suggested that Keynes philosophy was shaped by his homosexuality. Keynes, therefore, had no children so he wasn't as invested in future generations as others might be, Ferguson said.

The remarks were reported by the website of Financial Advisor magazine and other online publications.

If you weren't so distracted by the noise, you'd see both sides of the aisle are doing the same. I mean why else would Obama sign the repeal of the law preventing Congress from insider trading or the many other bills that help companies such as Monsanto get a stranglehold on our food supply and continue to sign executive orders to further invade the privacy of American citizens? Oh it's for the children. Yes we know.

After this president's term is done, you'll feel just like those that supported Bush - like a fool.

So you're saying not everyone votes based on whether they have children or not? You just proved my point, thanks.

I still think this is really weird considering how many people with children don't care about anyone else, and how many people without children there are who are very moral and care about our society and our world.

reply to post by CB328


Bilk above said it best; both sides engage in this type of nonsense that doesn't serve to move the discussion forward. Was Ferguson out of line? Probably and it was not the best thing to say when you are arguing your points on economic theory.

It is easy to highlight what the "other-side" is doing wrong, but we cannot let it dictate the debate. My guess is Ferguson saw it as an opportunity to bring publicity to the discussion; a poor way to do so, but given the level of actual intellectual debate beyond the halls of academia, who can blame him?