Harvard Economist Niall Ferguson Has to Apologize For Stating His True Feelings

An Apology – But No Explanation

Finally, finally we have the reason why Keynesian economics is a failure (despite its incredible success).  Harvard economist(?) and scholar(???) Niall Ferguson explained to a group of investors that the problem was Keynes’s sexuality and life style and that he talked "poetry" with his wife.

The Answer:  Niall Ferguson
The Question:  What does the face of bigotry and ignorance look like?

. . . Ferguson appeared to allude to a theory that Keynes's long-term economic theories were flawed because he was gay and had no children. "Keynes was a homosexual and had no intention of having children. We are not dead in the long run … our children are our progeny. It is the economic ideals of Keynes that have gotten us into the problems of today," Roberts wrote in his notes of Ferguson's remarks.

Another reporter, Tom Kostigen of Financial Advisor, gave a longer account. Kostigen wrote that Ferguson had also made mention of the fact that Keynes had married a ballerina, despite his gay affairs. "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," Kostigen wrote. He added that the audience at the event went quiet when the remarks were uttered.

Mr. Ferguson has issued one of the strongest apologies one can say,

He added: "I should not have suggested – in an off-the-cuff response that was not part of my presentation – that Keynes was indifferent to the long run because he had no children, nor that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes's wife Lydia miscarried."

but his claims that he is not “anti-gay” rings hollow. 

Ferguson insisted he was not anti-gay. "My disagreements with Keynes's economic philosophy have never had anything to do with his sexual orientation. It is simply false to suggest, as I did, that his approach to economic policy was inspired by any aspect of his personal life. As those who know me and my work are well aware, I detest all prejudice, sexual or otherwise," he said.

Now we don't know Mr. Ferguson, but it is hard to believe that anyone who knows him would conclude that he detests prejudice, particularly against the gay community.  (That poetry remark is straight out of the "I hate gays and they are a bunch of sissies who deserve nothing" textbook of Bigotry and Hatred, Santorum Publishing Co., East Ignorance, MS)

Thoughts uttered like he did do not come randomly, they come out of a deeply held belief that is suppressed until it finally is regurgitated and spewed into the open because of the intense pressure to display ignorance, prejudice and bitterness that people like Mr. Ferguson have.  For a person who claims to ‘detest all prejudice, sexual and otherwise’ he sure has a funny way of saying it.  (We expect him to proclaim soon that “some of my best friends are gay”).

Of course, the total lack of any relationship between one’s lifestyle, sexual orientation and economic philosophy is so great that it needs no comment.  The only thing that is noteworthy here is how despicable the opponents of modern economic theory are, and how lacking in substance are their arguments that they must default to ‘gay baiting’ in order to somehow try and make a point.

First Ted Cruz, then Reinhart and Rogoff and now Niall Ferguson, can Harvard live with the shame and embarrassment?  Probably so, the reservoir of arrogance there is so great almost nothing can shame or embarrass the school.  As for the fact that Mr. Ferguson is a self admitted “doubly stupid’ person, well, won’t the great University be proud to know that’s what they have in their ranks.  We suspect Mr. Ferguson is not the only one of his ilk.