What are your views on Niall Ferguson

[mr friendly guy]

From this thread.

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 4#p3709124

I am interested in people's views on Niall Ferguson, from his story on the ascent of money, his 6 killer apps, his other views etc.

I will post my own views later on when I am less tired.

[Ziggy Stardust]

I don't know anything about him, I only vaguely recognize the name. That said, I read through his Wikipedia entry just for a brief introduction to who the hell he is and what his stances are.

Apparently he spends a lot of time bitching about the "de-Christianization" and "Islamization" of Europe. Wiki has this little gem:

a decadent 'post-Christian' Europe that was drifting inexorably towards the dark denouement of a vanquished civilisation and the fatal embrace of Islam

Obviously Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source, but I'm not about to go read a half-dozen books to see what this guy is saying exactly. From what I can gather, though, is he doesn't have anything particularly profound or revolutionary to say, and some of his pet beliefs are idiotic.

[K. A. Pital]

His Empire is a cringeworthy cryptoimperialist shitpiece. War of the World is... well, basically the same. He's an ignorant racist Eurocentrist moron, and that's about it.

[Guardsman Bass]

His book on the Rothschilds is supposed to be excellent, but his later work is pretty meh. The guy has a huge hard-on for the British Empire, and worried that the US might not so readily embrace The White Man's Burden the "Burden of Empire".

[K. A. Pital]

It is remarkable that he's basically peddling the same shit your average dumb-as-shit Fox News anchor would be (American Empire, crush Iraq to freedomize, white Christian civilization, we have to protect our values, and of course the Islamic Horde of Darkness who hate our freedoms...)

And yet somehow this guy got a reputation of being a "controversial" top historian? What's "controversial" about this position? Being a redneck in academia is only "controversial" because most of his peers have the brains to keep their skeletons in the closet, but this guy is honest enough to show them and stupid enough to be proud of them.

[mr friendly guy]

I am less interested in his apologia for Imperialism, but his economic and developmental stuff, eg the 6 killer apps. The line where he summarises as, the West had 6 killer apps which allowed their economies to grow, China has now chosen to download 5 of them, and hence its economy is growing.

That being said, its quite clear he is concerned about the rise of China, but unlike some other "China experts" cough Gordon Chang cough, he actually doesn't predict bullshit collapses because he doesn't like China, he actually says China will continue to grow, albeit at a slower rate because of various factors, like an aging population etc. This seems to be similar to some of the discussions this board has done, particularly Surlethe.

I will also say this. At least he is honest enough to call America an empire.

[Guardsman Bass]

For reference purposes, these are the Six Killer Apps:

1. Competition, or rather political decentralization in Europe (the old Jared Diamond hypothesis about how Europe had the "optimal degree of political fragmentation").

2. Science, which in his case usually means comparing the decline in scientific output in the Arab World and Near East after the 13th century with the rise of scientific thought and advancement in Europe.

3. Property - the widespread ownership of property and its ties to democratic political processes.

4. Modern Medicine - speaks for itself. He's mostly talking about the application of it to areas like subsaharan Africa.

5. Consumerism

6. Work Ethic - or rather the Protestant Work Ethic.

Some of them are obvious, like Modern Medicine. "Consumerism" probably is under-rated as a phenomena driving growth, and "Property" has been discussed in the political science and economic history literature for decades - just look at Douglass North's book Rise of the Western World, which was written in 1976. "Science" is also probably under-rated, and not just in the case of the Islamic World - it applies to China as well. I've heard some interesting arguments that one of the things that ultimately started holding back Chinese scientific and technological advancement was that, for all their scientific discoveries, the Chinese never really developed a "scientific worldview", or the methodology of scientific discovery as we know it.

Others are not so strong. "Competition" strikes me as a dubious point because China went through some very prosperous periods both when it was unified and when it was fragmented (the Southern Song Dynasty), and because of the political diversity among the "powerful" states in Europe (the UK and France were both quite powerful post-17th century even with highly different political systems and degrees of centralization within their territory). The "Protestant Work Ethic" generally has trouble explaining Japan's rise, particularly since Japan was already a relatively rich, urbanized society even before Perry in the 1850s.

[General Mung Beans]

The "Protestant Work Ethic" generally has trouble explaining Japan's rise, particularly since Japan was already a relatively rich, urbanized society even before Perry in the 1850s.

Confucianism and its work ethic's been compared to the Protestant one-hence not just Japan but also Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore and of course increasingly China.

BTW shouldn't this be in the History subforum?

[Stark]

What does Confucianism have to do with the Taiwanese economic explosion and how is this relevant to a discussion of the kind of racist who would simply respond that it only happened because CHRIST?

[General Mung Beans]

What does Confucianism have to do with the Taiwanese economic explosion and how is this relevant to a discussion of the kind of racist who would simply respond that it only happened because CHRIST?

I mean that Confucian values encourage things like hard work or thrift and the issue got raised because of the example of Japan cited. And those certainly aren't Ferguson's argument-he's an atheist and the work ethic is largely limited to Protestants.

[K. A. Pital]

What does Confucianism have to do with the Taiwanese economic explosion and how is this relevant to a discussion of the kind of racist who would simply respond that it only happened because CHRIST?

I mean that Confucian values encourage things like hard work or thrift and the issue got raised because of the example of Japan cited. And those certainly aren't Ferguson's argument-he's an atheist and the work ethic is largely limited to Protestants.

Ferguson might be an atheist, but his lamentations about Christian culture and secularism being "weak" in the face of Muslimhorde fanaticism show that he's a Christo-fanatic sympathizer, which even worse than actual Christians. His idea is to fight fanatics with fanatics. If Confucian values encourage things like hard work and thrift, why most of Confucian Asia didn't really "take off" anywhere during the XVII-XIX centuries but instead declined - Chinese monarchy is one of many examples? This seems to be a bullshit explanation for Japan.

I'd say secularism, science, tech transfer and capitalism are an adequate enough explanation. Religion on the other hand means jack and shit.

[mr friendly guy]

1. Competition, or rather political decentralization in Europe (the old Jared Diamond hypothesis about how Europe had the "optimal degree of political fragmentation").

This one doesn't seem so unreasonable to me, because it can also apply to companies within a nation. Successfully companies will certainly help the nation be successful.

2. Science, which in his case usually means comparing the decline in scientific output in the Arab World and Near East after the 13th century with the rise of scientific thought and advancement in Europe.

I think this one is a no brainer to most people here, since we are a scientifically orientated board. The only issue I take is people who try to attribute scientific innovation to democracy.

3. Property - the widespread ownership of property and its ties to democratic political processes.

He talks about property rights (since property ownership springs from the former) and links this in subsequent lectures to the rule of law. While he does mention that this may lead to democracy, its quite clear he views this as separate, and more important for successful economic development rather than democracy per se. Especially since he describes democracy as a luxury.

4. Modern Medicine - speaks for itself. He's mostly talking about the application of it to areas like subsaharan Africa.

Agreed with this one.

5. Consumerism

I agree with you. Its most probably does drive growth and is under rated. Case in point (anecdotal evidence only), I have seen on Chinese base message boards people ranting against the over consumerism of the West. Never mind that consumerism drove the West economic growth, and consumerism (from Western customers and the world at large) is helping to drive Chinese economic growth. Its like they fail to see the link between consumerism and growth.

6. Work Ethic - or rather the Protestant Work Ethic.

This is unconvincing especially in the same breath Ferguson mentions that Asians now have also developed the work ethic (buttressed with statistics) but made no mention that most Asians aren't protestants. Even if Protestants did have a superior work ethic in the West than say, Catholics, and the work ethic is based on their religion, it still doesn't alter the fact that people have work ethic without being Protestants. In other words, they have some other philosophy driving their work ethic.

To be fair, in a subsequent interview Ferguson re-evaluated his view on the contributions of Protestants. He no longer agreed with Weber's view, and attributed the Protestants contribution to increasing literacy rather than the work ethic.

Confucianism and its work ethic's been compared to the Protestant one-hence not just Japan but also Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore and of course increasingly China.
BTW shouldn't this be in the History subforum?

Perhaps, but Ferguson changed his view on the contributions of Protestants, and now think their contribution is mainly from increasing literacy. Generally my view is, a work ethic is a work ethic. You could choose to work hard based on whatever philosophical / religious belief. I work hard. There is a reason for that. Its called $$$$$ and has nothing to do with religious inclination.

What does Confucianism have to do with the Taiwanese economic explosion and how is this relevant to a discussion of the kind of racist who would simply respond that it only happened because CHRIST?

Basically it boils down to
1. Work ethic helps economic growth
2. The Protestant religion advocates hard work. Presumably Confucianism is alleged to do the same thing.
BTW the Protestant work ethic is TEH AWESOME was an old idea by German sociologist Max Weber, whose book on the topic is listed as one of the most important sociological book of the 20th century.

I suspect this speaks more about sociology than anything else. In any event, Ferguson didn't make this idea out of the blue to say it only happened because of Christ. He freely admits to studying Weber's original work.

Ferguson might be an atheist, but his lamentations about Christian culture and secularism being "weak" in the face of Muslimhorde fanaticism show that he's a Christo-fanatic sympathizer, which even worse than actual Christians. His idea is to fight fanatics with fanatics. If Confucian values encourage things like hard work and thrift, why most of Confucian Asia didn't really "take off" anywhere during the XVII-XIX centuries but instead declined - Chinese monarchy is one of many examples? This seems to be a bullshit explanation for Japan.

I'd say secularism, science, tech transfer and capitalism are an adequate enough explanation. Religion on the other hand means jack and shit.

I wonder how much of that is because he is married to Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was born a Muslim and is one of Islam's most outspoken critics. In regards to the work ethic thing, I don't see it unreasonable that work ethic contributes to economic growth. IIRC you have made a note about how the USSR has slackers who drank coffee in cafes when they were supposed to work, and how this was bad.

The weakness with these type of arguments, is to try and equate a philosophy with willingness to work hard, when its likely multifactorial - ie everyone has their own motivations for working hard (or for that matter, motivations for choosing to slack off).

[Guardsman Bass]

To be fair, in a subsequent interview Ferguson re-evaluated his view on the contributions of Protestants. He no longer agreed with Weber's view, and attributed the Protestants contribution to increasing literacy rather than the work ethic.

I think it was that, plus a cultural propensity towards business as a means of prosperity (and high savings rates). I wonder if being marginalized politically, at least at first, also helped make them more prone to focusing on business success and trade, since we see the same thing with the Chinese Diaspora - being shut out from the land-holding elite meant that they had to focus on other potential avenues to prosperity and power.

[Stark]

But then you're back to civilisations and culture being a result of many factors, most outside the control of the culture, and not WOW PEOPLE LIKE ME RULE.

If he seriously used the phrase 'developed the Work Ethic', that's the funniest thing ever. I bet it's a third tier tech unlock in the age if exploration, and not some complex response to ever changing economic and social situation.

The idea his published thoughts are driven by his wife is hilarious.

[Skylon]

His Empire is a cringeworthy cryptoimperialist shitpiece. War of the World is... well, basically the same. He's an ignorant racist Eurocentrist moron, and that's about it.

Some of the content from "Empire" I found interesting, in an anecdotal sense but agreed, his conclusions filled me with rage, and has left me a bit reluctant to look at "Ascent of Money" which I was given a copy of by a colleague. Of course, "Empire" didn't leave me as angry as Max Boot's "The Savage Wars of Peace" did.

"Pity of War" which I read excerpts of for a class in college I found a more interesting read - it at least provoked some solid class discussion.

[mr friendly guy]

The thing with Ferguson is, he feels that Western democracies can be justified in going into countries like Iraq, spreading Western values. He isn't shy about calling this Empire. He also admits that the US went into Iraq in a manner he wouldn't have liked. So people should simply pin him down, and ask him did the US do the right thing even if it was done in the "wrong manner". That would be an interesting question.

[Guardsman Bass]

I watched his TED video. I think I can understand why he commands such high speaking fees, but his killer apps still felt very simplistic (particularly with regards to China). I think Ian Morris (a historian at Stanford) wrote a much better historical treatment of the Great Divergence (and its lead-up in terms of Chinese and European history) for lay readers in Why the West Rules - for now.

[Chirios]

My opinion is that he's a fairly smart man who, as he got increasingly famous gave up all pretence of scholarship and fully jumped the shark.

[Elfdart]

I haven't read any of his stuff other than Op-Ed pieces, though I did watch his series on PBS about the rise of Western Civilization [sic]. He's basically Victor Davis Hanson without the furious milwank, but with a foreign accent, which means fatuous Americans lap up his bullshit like vampire bats lap up blood from Central American mammals.

[Guardsman Bass]

The interesting thing about Ferguson is that he's pretty much unabashedly Imperialist, to the point where his main criticism of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was that we didn't go far enough - we didn't set up an authority to rule the Iraqis for decades, we didn't bring a whole ton of US expats over to "settle the country" to import American customs, and all the kind of behavior that the British used to rule parts of their Empire. Even most of the neo-cons shied away from that, although not away from the invasion and attempted nation-building project.

[mr friendly guy]

The interesting thing about Ferguson is that he's pretty much unabashedly Imperialist, to the point where his main criticism of the US invasion and occupation of Iraq was that we didn't go far enough - we didn't set up an authority to rule the Iraqis for decades, we didn't bring a whole ton of US expats over to "settle the country" to import American customs, and all the kind of behavior that the British used to rule parts of their Empire. Even most of the neo-cons shied away from that, although not away from the invasion and attempted nation-building project.

After reading that about Ferguson, its why I stick to his analysis of economic growth development. His empire building shit is mind boggling.