On the contrary, it is a very useful ability to be able to tell from very little reading if somebody's writing is worth further study. This is an absolutely crucial skill if one wants to survive in the academia, which is flooded with different information and interpretations. I know enough not to read more of Ferguson and I can't recommend it to you either.
You have beautifully illustrated my point (I admit, I hid it a bit) above. The fact that a country has liberal thinkers does not mean that it can be labelled as a bastion of liberalism. This applies to England as much as Germany (the two countries/regions fuelled the imperial game in Europe and tried to destroy the legacy of the French revolution). Surely the US and France should be regarded as more important for the spread of democracy.
The outcome of the French revolution is that France today is a republic. Not only that, but the French revolution and the form of government that it entailed has been an inspiration to many of the nations in continental Europe. It failed, true, in short term (and partly due to the actions of other monarchist countries) but lives on long term. The Glorious Revolution, on the other hand, is barely even remembered outside the UK.
Well I would have not got to see the interview if was not for Berkely and TH-cam. TH-cam hosts it. This kind content I appreciate - the rest - not that much - so I thought I would express thanks. I bought the book thanks to this interview.
Austrian economics would say the bubble is the problem: it is a time of misallocation of resources. The collapse of that bubble is the cure, it reallocates resources to better places and wipes out the mistakes of those that misread the market.
Have you read Tom Paine? To argue that he represents the continuation of English tradition is about equivalent to arguing that Lenin represents the continuation of the tradition of Russian czars. The choice of comparison is not accidental, as both Lenin and Paine were 'professional revolutionaries'. Paine eventually proved too extreme even for the rebelling Americans.
You don't seem to be listening. I repeat: "I don't care where Britain is in 2009. It is only relevant to this discussion (remember we are talking about India), where it was 1857-1947. "
About John Locke, he is far too preoccupied with the rights of property to be truly interested in the life and liberty of the individual. His theories can be conveniently used to defend the 'inalienable' rights of the nobility to hold on to their position. It is true that India today is a democracy, and in fact institutionally more democratic than the UK. This is great and I have always been fully in support of the right of Indians to live free of servitude.
The United States was in isolation. Germany was not unified during the time of von Humboldt, and his legacy was completely dwarfed by that of Otto von Bismarck, who put Germany on the path of militarization that really only ended after WWII. Bismarck was also the supreme enemy of France. In Britain there was no talk of "Iron and Blood."
Respond to this video... There was widespread famine. Britain encouraged/forced farmers to grow cash crops like tobacco on their farms instead of food. The booming population was unable to afford the amount of food that was grown and thus starved.
Yes I know they are closely related; that is a pre-eminently obvious observation. However, that does not change the difference between the two and their legacies. What is your evidence for your second point? Through all of Britain's political history? You will need a lot of evidence to prove that point.
I would like to point out that if you read this thread, you will notice that both myself and koreindian1 have illustrated our opinions with facts. I much preferred debating with him in fact. And what comes to debating on youtube, what are you doing here?
just travelled around Europe btw.. spent 9 months in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Germany, France and UK.... OK, the french didnt seem to like me much but the Brits have a massive indian community and treated me graciously as did everyone else... why do u think your own people are so dispicable?! really interesting
This seems to be the best track India could have been taken on due to circumstance, even with the injustice that came with it. And no, Locke's theory can't be manipulated to uphold the ruling-class in that way, because the primary idea of his writings is that of the social-contract, and that authority lies in the consent of the people.
It is certain beyond any doubt that democracy would not have spread to western Europe as quickly without the American and French revolutions that, by the way, were closely tied, even through operators such as Tom Paine. Had it been up to Britain, the whole of western Europe would still struggle under the yoke of monarchy, elitism and classism.
You can, but I was taking about the tradition of progress (what a great phrase) that the English embody. The Magna Carta, the adoption of Parliament, and the Glorious Revolution all represent the peaceful transfer of power from the ruling class to increasingly representational bodies. John Locke and Thomas Paine represent the continuation of this tradition to it's natural and logical conclusion.
His book on counterfactual history is superb and thought-provoking, and his research on Empire is a timely piece of revisionism that pits forward the uncontroversial suggestion that the British Empire was not entirely evil. Have you read his book on Sigmund Warburg? That book refutes your mindless suggestion because he extols the virtues of old fashioned banking: conservatism, probity and dignity. However, he has turned into a Kissinger apologist and that is most unfortunate.
..India became dependent due to imperialism. The destruction of the previous industries meant that nearly all processed goods were imported from Britain. As India was a protectorate it was made to only trade with Britain. Goods/materials not found in India were imported by Britain as it had done in order to "get it's foot in the door" prior to it's annexation of India. India basically became unable to support itself anymore because of European, mostly British of course, interference and trade.
@tooshlong The British rule in India had the same disadvantages that any colonial rule did. The Indians were not in control of their own country. It left them as 2nd class citizen. They could not profit from their natural resources. Their economic advancement was in the British hands. Their own language was secondary and their culture was stifled. Vast amounts of money were siphoned off by the East India Company and later by the British colonial administration.
All the former imperial powers today have abolished monarchy or totalitarism, and are representative democracies. There's only one exception and that is Britain with its unelected upper house that, contrary to what you might think, actually has a lot of power over legislation. The monarchy and the upper classes in the UK has been very cunning. During storms of history they have allowed the public just enough leeway to survive, but not much more.
What imperial power has undergone "explosively increasing representation?" I don't care where Britain is in 2009. It is only relevant to this discussion (remember we are talking about India), where it was 1857-1947.
What about the tradition of progress in the US and France. Or the tradition of German liberals such as von Humboldt? The problem with arguing for Britain as the bastion of liberalism is that it is 300 years out of date. As far as I understand, the revolution in England was followed by restoration. Contrary to this the US and France actually became republics and models for democratic government ever since. As you know, not many countries follow the UK model of parliament today.
Dear Gh., Well, yes you are absolutely right -to be grateful and also to differentiate between the content and the provider; the provider being something without which you may not have been enlightened so, by the book author Dr. Ferguson. . It is a mistake to attribute to colleges and internet hosts anything to do with knowledge, they are only the conduit through which the realisation that an individual has about any particular thing. . Your father would have told you the same thing too.
Britain cannot be a constitutional monarchy because it does not have a written constitution. Contrary to popular belief, the House of Lords actually has a lot of power. They can delay and block legislation, and generally the use of the parliament act to overcome their objection is frowned upon in the UK. In practice they have power and even more than power, they have influence. It is not a passive house by any means as you make it sound like.
@tooshlong Here is some "meat": Imperialism drained India's wealth. The East India Trading Company sold processed goods at a steep rate while buying materials at a low one, similar to the American Colonies. Wars with Britain, and between leaders instigated by Britain, took money. Prices of goods made in India which keep money in India were too high to compete with imported goods.
But to put indirect benefits in the periphery is a mistake. To assess the benefits of any historical event we might assess both what happened and what would have happened if the event had not occurred. If the British had not governed India, then it is very probable that the Germans or even the Japanese would have. Given the nature of these two particularly aggressive imperial powers, this would have shifted the geopolitical status into, what I assess to be, a worse state.
@hyylo Do you think. I kept thinking this is an awfully bright guy who needs to read the Austrian economists to put this all together without holes. He just keeps missing things when he tries to explain the economy.
sponnyboy, Why dont we ask Paul Krugman what he things of Niall Fergusons books? Krugman was very critical of Galbraith's work. We must wait and see what role Russia, India and Brazil will play if the China-America (Chimera Monster) turns upon itself.
It has nothing to do with You-tube, it doesn't give a damn about content; show you gratitude if any, by giving to a registered charity. . Or, by buying yourself, Niall's book, and giving it to a registered charity after you've read it. .
There are benefits about everything, so it is all a question of balance. Most westerners today view colonialism negatively, and for a good reason. It involved hostile attitudes of arrogance, racism and exploitation. Whatever benefits the subject nations derived from it, were mostly indirect. May I also remind you that it is difficult to find a writer more hostile to British monarchy than Thomas Paine who played an active role in both the American and French revolutions.
china is currently too weak to be called chimerica, but in the long run, the chimerica is definately a solution to not only the 2 nations but also the whole world, i expect in a normal term like 2 dacades, the chimerica will be a realilty.
Thomas Paine used the language of the English liberal tradition: he spoke of "natural liberty," and proposed for America a Continental Charter as its Magna Carta. The facts are that the political history of Britain is that of ever increasing representation, whereas that is certainly untrue of pre-colonial India and very untrue of Russia. Lenin absorbed none of the language or ideas from the previous czarists. Paine simply separated himself from Locke as much as Locke did from those before him.
And what is your world view? Let's hear it so I can throw the same accusation back to you. Which fact that I have quoted you'd like me to substantiate? You will be able to check them yourself. Such is the wonder of modern internet. The debate is over interpretation. The point about not reading him is that even a layman can see his bias. It is relatively easy to find more measured writing of history.
"...there are a number of different ways that (the state) can actually exploit financial institutions. It can monopolize the production of money, and then debase it...by printing more paper to finance its deficit. .." He's got it backwards. Privately run central banks (US fed, bank of England) create currency, not the government. To gloss over this fact is so absurd that it makes me distrust just about everything else this professor has to say about financial institutions and their motives.
I did not realise I'm a socialist. Actually, I think the American consitution and the accompanying documents are the greatest political achievement of human history. Which side were you lot on when the US was asserting that consitution? The fact that Britain itself is a monarchy today with an unelected house in its parliament is proof enough for the first point. It's no opinion, I'm afraid. And don't even get me started on the class issues...
@guninthewater One two buckle my shoe. Do you know that one? Try saying it while you go to sleep. It won't help with your problem but will keep you from being a problem to the people around you.
Not true. That's like saying that the 1848 revolutions turned those countries into democracies. They didn't. They failed. Yes, later thinkers were certainly influenced by the thoughts of that period, but the revolutions themselves were suppressed and unsuccessful. That's what I'm saying, the French revolution is relevant as an idea, but the American revolution can be demonstrated in its voracity.
"Intellectuals o not have strong opinions or outlooks" What?! Edward Said did not have strong outlooks? Noam Chomsky does not have strong outlooks? You're not even just talking about historians now, you are talking about "intellectuals?" Bertrand Russell did not have strong views? What are you talking about?
That's a strange statement: I offered a critique of Ferguson's works and you just made a point without evidence. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim, as you initiated it dear boy. Try again
@Pervyable I don't understand why this fascination with a man who extols the virtues of Imperialism? For me an idiot isn't someone who is necessarily obtuse and lacking in mental deduction. But it's someone who openly and unashamedly espouses notions and ideologies which have been proven over and over again to be repugnant to any decent thinking human being. It's like supporting the idea of slavery, and saying that it's a profitable and valid phenomenon. How can anyone justify that?
Hmm, it didn't take long before people in Russia started talking of Stalin as the 'red czar'. Britain's story may be that of ever increasing representation, but for other countries the story is that of explosively increasing representation. Britain's fallen off the boat. It's 2009 and unelected bishops serve for life in its parliament. Come on, give me a break. In the UK Edmund Burke is a far more important influence than any of the liberals.
I'm sorry, I just realised that we are not talking about the same thing. By an 'intellectual', you seem to mean somebody who touts their personal political views as the 'truth'. I'm talking of intelligence. Interestingly, Chomsky and Russell have produced very respectable works in linguistics and maths, respectively. Touting their political views for them is only a side thing whereas for Ferguson it's the main act. Truly intelligent people are more measured than that.
15:55 - 15:56 Not really good to gesticulate, as these relate to documents he has read and are lost on folk who are unfamiliar with Belle Curve, et al. . If it is a good story, his being a doctor, should mean he can use English to explain without his using arms or legs as these are counter-intuitive, and distract the listener from hearing his message. . .
My problem is that I cannot read him, because as a layman in history, I cannot be sure when he is colouring things to suit his political motives. To read his books is thus a waste of time, unless I also read the counterpoint and I do not have time for that.
Respond to this video... It destroyed India's previous economy and India's handicraft small scale industries. The traditional handmade cloth industry was felled by the manufactured cloth made in and imported from Britain. The cloth was much cheaper for it's quality and could be mass produced because it was made by machines. Many other handicrafts such as clock-making, carpentry, the metal industry, etc. were destroyed, again because of the superior and cheaper manufactured imports.
@TheMelani50 to develop an education system that matches the west's. gave me a chance to defend my self in a courts under teh presumption of 'innocent til proven guilty'. In the 18th/19th centruy India had a choice... look to China, France, Turkey, UK, Dutch and Germans.. only the frnch and british would have helped us to develop... india under the chinese, turks, germans and belgians would have been hprrendous and i count myslef fortunate it was the brith not them that won the battle of India!
@TheMelani50 Just because he supports policies you don't happen to like, and may even find morally repugnant does not mean that he's an idiot or that some or even alot of what he has to say is true. Maybe it isn't, but moralizing about it isn't going to make your case. Perhaps you should actually look at what he says a bit more objectively and not just emote all over the place?
@tooshlong Then why did India fight for its independence if the British were so benevolent? If I am presumptuous, imagine the thousands of British who ruled your country for hundreds of years....how presumptuous were they? Continue to be deluded. I am done with this silly argument.
@tooshlong I think you're the one with issues. You're obviously a wealthy, well-to-do, educated Indian. Look at the rest of your country - the slums, the poverty etc. Had the British really been a benevolent influence, you would have seen a different India today. Don't just talk for yourself, because you have benefited from colonial rule. Talk for the millions who have not!
u didnt answer me! we didnt need to be colonized by anyone but if you think that india would have remained independant you live in a parallel universe somewhere with a different concept of rationale. india was to be chewed over and spat out by someone, it was far too strategic an asset for the major powers to dismiss. id have prefered nobody but compared to other colonialists your people were the most moral! why do you find this concept of your people not being completely evil so uncomfortable?
Well the problem is then that you don't know his arguments and the evidence he puts forth for them. It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss a theory without learning about it first.
@TheMelani50 Ha, why would you say that? is that the best you can do... accuse me of being an American as if its akin to being a Nazi or something?like i should be ahamed of it if i was?i am actually from and live in Ahmadbad in India. and anyway, id be proud of being american if i was one. The Uk didnt cause the break up of india, the idea of muslim nationialism (Started in the 1930s) broke india up, not the brits... insular westerners should do more reading.
@tooshlong ad i also can tell cos its a typical view of liberal europe... most toher people apart from the arabs (they should look closer to home)and africa (tho germany and belgium get the brunt of criticism as they shud!) u lot thinkthe same.. have the same views.. and are mostly to unintelligent to analyse hypothose properly so JUMP ON BAND WAGONS!
That is inaccurate. Of course he has exposed himself to opposing views- he has simply taken a side. You are asking him to be more centrists, or maybe just not right wing. The reason Harvard and Yale have intellectuals like him is because they take on the best every field, and intellectuals at that level have specific outlooks and opinions on matters. Their opinions are debate-worthy and thus not entirely objective. Students simply have to make up their own minds and do their own research.
Plus, you are only seeing the Ferguson that is a public intellectual and not as a professor. Intellectuals use the media to put out their strongest views, but use the classroom to introduce people to the concepts pertaining to a certain topic. "Clearly does not care about truth." That is something to be demonstrated, not stated. Your points aren't as convincing as you think they might be. It's childish to say that no one can take any side strongly because there are so many sides to a question.
@TheMelani50 so the British did NO good? is this what you are getting at?.. serously?! dont just make assertions... back it up with some substance as opposed to resorting to insulting someone who has studies his suggest for decades.... disagree with him... dont disrespect
@tooshlong Because being British, I know the British better than you and know that they were not a benevolent power. I know the racism, exploitation and victimization we inflicted on those we colonised. This discussion cannot be done here adequately, as I am unable to really give you a detailed analysis of history on a TH-cam forum. You will continue to have your opinions whatever I say, so let's agree to disagree.
@tooshlong Why would you assume that India needs to be colonized by anyone in order for it to develop? Do you have such little faith in the Indian nation that you give me the poor comparison of counties colonized by certain oppressive powers as opposed to a lesser oppressive power. You don't seem to have much pride or dignity to think that you need to be patronised by the British in order to develop. Why do you need the British to help you to develop?
@tooshlong I have disagreed with him for years now. But he continues to spout nonsense and insults people's intelligence. You need to do a comparative study of empire and look closely at what he is saying and why before you act as his advocate. I too have studied this subject for years. British imperialism did more harm than good, and this is from a Brit whose family benefited from the empire. You need to exercise objectivity, and not fawn over a celebrity.
so the British did NO good? is this what you are getting at?.. serously?! dont just make assertions... back it up with some substance as opposed to resorting to insulting someone who has studies his subjest for decades.... disagree with him... dont disrespect
Wrong. Intellectuals do not have strong opinions or outlooks because they know the fallacy of such outlooks and opinions. That is how I always in my mind separate intellectuals from pseudo-intellectuals. In relativist fields such as history, any true intellectual can find the truth in many arguments, not just one. Ferguson is more provocative than intellectual. Of course he knows his views are controversial and plays it up, twisting facts as he goes along.
Don't try to put historians on the same standards you would would put a scientist on; that is dishonest. The use of counterfactuals are vital, but tricky. Of course counterfactuals arn't objective and must be contested from all sides, but to say they can't be used bars us off from much speculation. And it is rather pathetic that you're not addressing his ideas directly and just saying that is at some sort of advantage. You can take the same liberties, but just justify your reasoning.
Wrong. Ferguson's main act is economics and financial history. None of these people, including Ferguson, tout their views as fact. They simply know how to stick to an argument. I'm sorry that you don't have enough intellectual courage to create your own perspective for analysis.
@TheMelani50 Why am I obviously wealthy?! once again you undermine your own baseless assertions with presumptious bile. i was brought up in Anduri slums in Guji ok? i worked my arse off for Siemans bolting chips for mobile phones for pennies before making my way up to nothing more than a management position and moved to a lower middle class neighbourhood... i am far from rich. what kind of india? democratic? developing at incredible rate? free press? how else would ya want it to have turned out?
@TheMelani50 You obviously are self loathing if you canot drag your own withering perception of the world into the realms of logic. Displacement and manipulation was certainly a trait of British expansionist policies and this should never be forgotten and by the same token one cant wholly dismiss the foundations the UK laid in India's and other Asian states legislative, judicial, education and democratic institutions... nor can you dismiss the policies of vaccination and sanitation in Africa
![ประสบการณ์ จ้าง Developer ที่ผมจะไม่มีวันลืม [ภาค2]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pZbsSDRrmXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you Berkeley ! A real credit to TH-cam and the Internet.
I have learned from Ferguson's videos and his new book/DVDs more than all my years in school and in the market.
This is a very good interview which shows a brilliant unbiased look at the facts. Mr. Ferguson is right on the money. Thanks to Berkeley for the post!
Thanks - I found this book on Amazon and wanted to know more about the author.
On the contrary, it is a very useful ability to be able to tell from very little reading if somebody's writing is worth further study. This is an absolutely crucial skill if one wants to survive in the academia, which is flooded with different information and interpretations. I know enough not to read more of Ferguson and I can't recommend it to you either.
You have beautifully illustrated my point (I admit, I hid it a bit) above. The fact that a country has liberal thinkers does not mean that it can be labelled as a bastion of liberalism. This applies to England as much as Germany (the two countries/regions fuelled the imperial game in Europe and tried to destroy the legacy of the French revolution). Surely the US and France should be regarded as more important for the spread of democracy.
Unique. Worth going back to. Informative & educational. Thought-provoking.
The outcome of the French revolution is that France today is a republic. Not only that, but the French revolution and the form of government that it entailed has been an inspiration to many of the nations in continental Europe. It failed, true, in short term (and partly due to the actions of other monarchist countries) but lives on long term. The Glorious Revolution, on the other hand, is barely even remembered outside the UK.
Well I would have not got to see the interview if was not for Berkely and TH-cam. TH-cam hosts it. This kind content I appreciate - the rest - not that much - so I thought I would express thanks. I bought the book thanks to this interview.
Thank you for all the effort
Austrian economics would say the bubble is the problem: it is a time of
misallocation of resources. The collapse of that bubble is the cure, it reallocates resources to better places and wipes out the mistakes of those that misread the market.
Have you read Tom Paine? To argue that he represents the continuation of English tradition is about equivalent to arguing that Lenin represents the continuation of the tradition of Russian czars. The choice of comparison is not accidental, as both Lenin and Paine were 'professional revolutionaries'. Paine eventually proved too extreme even for the rebelling Americans.
You don't seem to be listening. I repeat:
"I don't care where Britain is in 2009.
It is only relevant to this discussion (remember we are talking about India), where it was 1857-1947. "
Niall is a great historian, great book too, thanks!
About John Locke, he is far too preoccupied with the rights of property to be truly interested in the life and liberty of the individual. His theories can be conveniently used to defend the 'inalienable' rights of the nobility to hold on to their position. It is true that India today is a democracy, and in fact institutionally more democratic than the UK. This is great and I have always been fully in support of the right of Indians to live free of servitude.
The United States was in isolation. Germany was not unified during the time of von Humboldt, and his legacy was completely dwarfed by that of Otto von Bismarck, who put Germany on the path of militarization that really only ended after WWII. Bismarck was also the supreme enemy of France. In Britain there was no talk of "Iron and Blood."
I thought the first bubble was in 16th century Holland with Tulip bulbs.
Respond to this video... There was widespread famine. Britain encouraged/forced farmers to grow cash crops like tobacco on their farms instead of food. The booming population was unable to afford the amount of food that was grown and thus starved.
Yes I know they are closely related; that is a pre-eminently obvious observation. However, that does not change the difference between the two and their legacies. What is your evidence for your second point? Through all of Britain's political history? You will need a lot of evidence to prove that point.
I would like to point out that if you read this thread, you will notice that both myself and koreindian1 have illustrated our opinions with facts. I much preferred debating with him in fact. And what comes to debating on youtube, what are you doing here?
@guninthewater You've read it then?
@guninthewater Try doing some reading. A good start would be The Road to Serfdom by F. von Hayek. Nial would do well to read it as well.
@guninthewater Sorry - I need more context?
just travelled around Europe btw.. spent 9 months in Portugal, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Germany, France and UK.... OK, the french didnt seem to like me much but the Brits have a massive indian community and treated me graciously as did everyone else... why do u think your own people are so dispicable?! really interesting
This seems to be the best track India could have been taken on due to circumstance, even with the injustice that came with it. And no, Locke's theory can't be manipulated to uphold the ruling-class in that way, because the primary idea of his writings is that of the social-contract, and that authority lies in the consent of the people.
It is certain beyond any doubt that democracy would not have spread to western Europe as quickly without the American and French revolutions that, by the way, were closely tied, even through operators such as Tom Paine. Had it been up to Britain, the whole of western Europe would still struggle under the yoke of monarchy, elitism and classism.
You can, but I was taking about the tradition of progress (what a great phrase) that the English embody. The Magna Carta, the adoption of Parliament, and the Glorious Revolution all represent the peaceful transfer of power from the ruling class to increasingly representational bodies. John Locke and Thomas Paine represent the continuation of this tradition to it's natural and logical conclusion.
His book on counterfactual history is superb and thought-provoking, and his research on Empire is a timely piece of revisionism that pits forward the uncontroversial suggestion that the British Empire was not entirely evil. Have you read his book on Sigmund Warburg? That book refutes your mindless suggestion because he extols the virtues of old fashioned banking: conservatism, probity and dignity.
However, he has turned into a Kissinger apologist and that is most unfortunate.
..India became dependent due to imperialism. The destruction of the previous industries meant that nearly all processed goods were imported from Britain. As India was a protectorate it was made to only trade with Britain. Goods/materials not found in India were imported by Britain as it had done in order to "get it's foot in the door" prior to it's annexation of India. India basically became unable to support itself anymore because of European, mostly British of course, interference and trade.
@tooshlong The British rule in India had the same disadvantages that any colonial rule did. The Indians were not in control of their own country. It left them as 2nd class citizen. They could not profit from their natural resources. Their economic advancement was in the British hands. Their own language was secondary and their culture was stifled. Vast amounts of money were siphoned off by the East India Company and later by the British colonial administration.
All the former imperial powers today have abolished monarchy or totalitarism, and are representative democracies. There's only one exception and that is Britain with its unelected upper house that, contrary to what you might think, actually has a lot of power over legislation. The monarchy and the upper classes in the UK has been very cunning. During storms of history they have allowed the public just enough leeway to survive, but not much more.
What imperial power has undergone "explosively increasing representation?"
I don't care where Britain is in 2009.
It is only relevant to this discussion (remember we are talking about India), where it was 1857-1947.
What about the tradition of progress in the US and France. Or the tradition of German liberals such as von Humboldt? The problem with arguing for Britain as the bastion of liberalism is that it is 300 years out of date. As far as I understand, the revolution in England was followed by restoration. Contrary to this the US and France actually became republics and models for democratic government ever since. As you know, not many countries follow the UK model of parliament today.
YOU CANNOT PREDICT HUMAN BEHAVIOUR EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS.. NOT EVEN PEOPLE BEHAVE RATIONALLY DUE TO THE UNCONSCIOUS
Dear Gh.,
Well, yes you are absolutely right -to be grateful and also to differentiate between the content and the provider; the provider being something without which you may not have been enlightened so, by the book author Dr. Ferguson.
.
It is a mistake to attribute to colleges and internet hosts anything to do with knowledge, they are only the conduit through which the realisation that an individual has about any particular thing.
.
Your father would have told you the same thing too.
Simple rule: Never trust a book on whose cover the author's name is in larger print than the title of the book.
Britain cannot be a constitutional monarchy because it does not have a written constitution. Contrary to popular belief, the House of Lords actually has a lot of power. They can delay and block legislation, and generally the use of the parliament act to overcome their objection is frowned upon in the UK. In practice they have power and even more than power, they have influence. It is not a passive house by any means as you make it sound like.
@tooshlong Here is some "meat": Imperialism drained India's wealth. The East India Trading Company sold processed goods at a steep rate while buying materials at a low one, similar to the American Colonies. Wars with Britain, and between leaders instigated by Britain, took money. Prices of goods made in India which keep money in India were too high to compete with imported goods.
Nevermind mate.
But to put indirect benefits in the periphery is a mistake. To assess the benefits of any historical event we might assess both what happened and what would have happened if the event had not occurred. If the British had not governed India, then it is very probable that the Germans or even the Japanese would have. Given the nature of these two particularly aggressive imperial powers, this would have shifted the geopolitical status into, what I assess to be, a worse state.
@hyylo Do you think. I kept thinking this is an awfully bright guy who needs to read the Austrian economists to put this all together without holes. He just keeps missing things when he tries to explain the economy.
sponnyboy, Why dont we ask Paul Krugman what he things of Niall Fergusons books? Krugman was very critical of Galbraith's work. We must wait and see what role Russia, India and Brazil will play if the China-America (Chimera Monster) turns upon itself.
@Bastiat90 It's rather obvious where you stand.
@guninthewater A credit to your heritage.
It has nothing to do with You-tube, it doesn't give a damn about content; show you gratitude if any, by giving to a registered charity.
.
Or, by buying yourself, Niall's book, and giving it to a registered charity after you've read it.
.
Still waiting comrade
There are benefits about everything, so it is all a question of balance. Most westerners today view colonialism negatively, and for a good reason. It involved hostile attitudes of arrogance, racism and exploitation. Whatever benefits the subject nations derived from it, were mostly indirect. May I also remind you that it is difficult to find a writer more hostile to British monarchy than Thomas Paine who played an active role in both the American and French revolutions.
china is currently too weak to be called chimerica, but in the long run, the chimerica is definately a solution to not only the 2 nations but also the whole world, i expect in a normal term like 2 dacades, the chimerica will be a realilty.
CBMurph - You should try criticizing his ideas as opposed to lobbing meaningless insults.
Nice I like the term he uses "Ninja Loans"
Thomas Paine used the language of the English liberal tradition: he spoke of "natural liberty," and proposed for America a Continental Charter as its Magna Carta.
The facts are that the political history of Britain is that of ever increasing representation, whereas that is certainly untrue of pre-colonial India and very untrue of Russia. Lenin absorbed none of the language or ideas from the previous czarists. Paine simply separated himself from Locke as much as Locke did from those before him.
And what is your world view? Let's hear it so I can throw the same accusation back to you.
Which fact that I have quoted you'd like me to substantiate? You will be able to check them yourself. Such is the wonder of modern internet. The debate is over interpretation. The point about not reading him is that even a layman can see his bias. It is relatively easy to find more measured writing of history.
Yes, representative democracy without unelected elements is better than communism or aristocracy.
"...there are a number of different ways that (the state) can actually exploit financial institutions. It can monopolize the production of money, and then debase it...by printing more paper to finance its deficit. .."
He's got it backwards. Privately run central banks (US fed, bank of England) create currency, not the government. To gloss over this fact is so absurd that it makes me distrust just about everything else this professor has to say about financial institutions and their motives.
I did not realise I'm a socialist. Actually, I think the American consitution and the accompanying documents are the greatest political achievement of human history. Which side were you lot on when the US was asserting that consitution? The fact that Britain itself is a monarchy today with an unelected house in its parliament is proof enough for the first point. It's no opinion, I'm afraid. And don't even get me started on the class issues...
@guninthewater One two buckle my shoe. Do you know that one? Try saying it while you go to sleep. It won't help with your problem but will keep you from being a problem to the people around you.
What a way to end the interview.
Not true. That's like saying that the 1848 revolutions turned those countries into democracies. They didn't. They failed. Yes, later thinkers were certainly influenced by the thoughts of that period, but the revolutions themselves were suppressed and unsuccessful. That's what I'm saying, the French revolution is relevant as an idea, but the American revolution can be demonstrated in its voracity.
who r u???
@panhandlepatriots Indeed ;)
@bipbibop Absolutely. He does not deserve his title of "professor". His thinking is more than flawed.
"Intellectuals o not have strong opinions or outlooks"
What?!
Edward Said did not have strong outlooks?
Noam Chomsky does not have strong outlooks?
You're not even just talking about historians now, you are talking about "intellectuals?"
Bertrand Russell did not have strong views?
What are you talking about?
That's a strange statement: I offered a critique of Ferguson's works and you just made a point without evidence. The onus is on you to substantiate your claim, as you initiated it dear boy. Try again
@guninthewater :)
@Pervyable I don't understand why this fascination with a man who extols the virtues of Imperialism? For me an idiot isn't someone who is necessarily obtuse and lacking in mental deduction. But it's someone who openly and unashamedly espouses notions and ideologies which have been proven over and over again to be repugnant to any decent thinking human being. It's like supporting the idea of slavery, and saying that it's a profitable and valid phenomenon. How can anyone justify that?
@Sh012222 Lol, so true ;)
Hmm, it didn't take long before people in Russia started talking of Stalin as the 'red czar'. Britain's story may be that of ever increasing representation, but for other countries the story is that of explosively increasing representation. Britain's fallen off the boat. It's 2009 and unelected bishops serve for life in its parliament. Come on, give me a break. In the UK Edmund Burke is a far more important influence than any of the liberals.
I'm sorry, I just realised that we are not talking about the same thing. By an 'intellectual', you seem to mean somebody who touts their personal political views as the 'truth'. I'm talking of intelligence. Interestingly, Chomsky and Russell have produced very respectable works in linguistics and maths, respectively. Touting their political views for them is only a side thing whereas for Ferguson it's the main act. Truly intelligent people are more measured than that.
St Andrews, old boy
15:55 - 15:56
Not really good to gesticulate, as these relate to documents he has read and are lost on folk who are unfamiliar with Belle Curve, et al.
.
If it is a good story, his being a doctor, should mean he can use English to explain without his using arms or legs as these are counter-intuitive, and distract the listener from hearing his message.
.
.
My problem is that I cannot read him, because as a layman in history, I cannot be sure when he is colouring things to suit his political motives. To read his books is thus a waste of time, unless I also read the counterpoint and I do not have time for that.
Respond to this video... It destroyed India's previous economy and India's handicraft small scale industries. The traditional handmade cloth industry was felled by the manufactured cloth made in and imported from Britain. The cloth was much cheaper for it's quality and could be mass produced because it was made by machines. Many other handicrafts such as clock-making, carpentry, the metal industry, etc. were destroyed, again because of the superior and cheaper manufactured imports.
Financial Enlightment! wow! =O
@RedTyphoon1 It would be indeed very sad if I didn't agree with myself ;D
@TheMelani50 well googled
@TheMelani50 to develop an education system that matches the west's. gave me a chance to defend my self in a courts under teh presumption of 'innocent til proven guilty'. In the 18th/19th centruy India had a choice... look to China, France, Turkey, UK, Dutch and Germans.. only the frnch and british would have helped us to develop... india under the chinese, turks, germans and belgians would have been hprrendous and i count myslef fortunate it was the brith not them that won the battle of India!
Can you explain that comment: give some proof to back it up, because assertions with evidence are just banal and moronic.
@TheMelani50
Just because he supports policies you don't happen to like, and may even find morally repugnant does not mean that he's an idiot or that some or even alot of what he has to say is true. Maybe it isn't, but moralizing about it isn't going to make your case. Perhaps you should actually look at what he says a bit more objectively and not just emote all over the place?
@tooshlong Then why did India fight for its independence if the British were so benevolent? If I am presumptuous, imagine the thousands of British who ruled your country for hundreds of years....how presumptuous were they? Continue to be deluded. I am done with this silly argument.
@tooshlong I think you're the one with issues. You're obviously a wealthy, well-to-do, educated Indian. Look at the rest of your country - the slums, the poverty etc. Had the British really been a benevolent influence, you would have seen a different India today. Don't just talk for yourself, because you have benefited from colonial rule. Talk for the millions who have not!
u didnt answer me! we didnt need to be colonized by anyone but if you think that india would have remained independant you live in a parallel universe somewhere with a different concept of rationale. india was to be chewed over and spat out by someone, it was far too strategic an asset for the major powers to dismiss. id have prefered nobody but compared to other colonialists your people were the most moral! why do you find this concept of your people not being completely evil so uncomfortable?
Well the problem is then that you don't know his arguments and the evidence he puts forth for them. It is intellectually dishonest to dismiss a theory without learning about it first.
@RedTyphoon1 well, my "hole" is shut but my fingers are doing the typing, so no argument there my friend ;D
@TheMelani50 Ha, why would you say that? is that the best you can do... accuse me of being an American as if its akin to being a Nazi or something?like i should be ahamed of it if i was?i am actually from and live in Ahmadbad in India. and anyway, id be proud of being american if i was one. The Uk didnt cause the break up of india, the idea of muslim nationialism (Started in the 1930s) broke india up, not the brits... insular westerners should do more reading.
@tooshlong ad i also can tell cos its a typical view of liberal europe... most toher people apart from the arabs (they should look closer to home)and africa (tho germany and belgium get the brunt of criticism as they shud!) u lot thinkthe same.. have the same views.. and are mostly to unintelligent to analyse hypothose properly so JUMP ON BAND WAGONS!
Another sophisticate who doesn't understand that the crises is fundamentally caused by the government and nothing else.
That is inaccurate.
Of course he has exposed himself to opposing views- he has simply taken a side. You are asking him to be more centrists, or maybe just not right wing. The reason Harvard and Yale have intellectuals like him is because they take on the best every field, and intellectuals at that level have specific outlooks and opinions on matters. Their opinions are debate-worthy and thus not entirely objective. Students simply have to make up their own minds and do their own research.
Plus, you are only seeing the Ferguson that is a public intellectual and not as a professor. Intellectuals use the media to put out their strongest views, but use the classroom to introduce people to the concepts pertaining to a certain topic.
"Clearly does not care about truth."
That is something to be demonstrated, not stated. Your points aren't as convincing as you think they might be. It's childish to say that no one can take any side strongly because there are so many sides to a question.
@TheMelani50 so the British did NO good? is this what you are getting at?.. serously?! dont just make assertions... back it up with some substance as opposed to resorting to insulting someone who has studies his suggest for decades.... disagree with him... dont disrespect
@tooshlong Because being British, I know the British better than you and know that they were not a benevolent power. I know the racism, exploitation and victimization we inflicted on those we colonised. This discussion cannot be done here adequately, as I am unable to really give you a detailed analysis of history on a TH-cam forum. You will continue to have your opinions whatever I say, so let's agree to disagree.
@tooshlong Why would you assume that India needs to be colonized by anyone in order for it to develop? Do you have such little faith in the Indian nation that you give me the poor comparison of counties colonized by certain oppressive powers as opposed to a lesser oppressive power. You don't seem to have much pride or dignity to think that you need to be patronised by the British in order to develop. Why do you need the British to help you to develop?
@tooshlong I have disagreed with him for years now. But he continues to spout nonsense and insults people's intelligence. You need to do a comparative study of empire and look closely at what he is saying and why before you act as his advocate. I too have studied this subject for years. British imperialism did more harm than good, and this is from a Brit whose family benefited from the empire. You need to exercise objectivity, and not fawn over a celebrity.
so the British did NO good? is this what you are getting at?.. serously?! dont just make assertions... back it up with some substance as opposed to resorting to insulting someone who has studies his subjest for decades.... disagree with him... dont disrespect
Wrong. Intellectuals do not have strong opinions or outlooks because they know the fallacy of such outlooks and opinions. That is how I always in my mind separate intellectuals from pseudo-intellectuals. In relativist fields such as history, any true intellectual can find the truth in many arguments, not just one. Ferguson is more provocative than intellectual. Of course he knows his views are controversial and plays it up, twisting facts as he goes along.
Don't try to put historians on the same standards you would would put a scientist on; that is dishonest. The use of counterfactuals are vital, but tricky. Of course counterfactuals arn't objective and must be contested from all sides, but to say they can't be used bars us off from much speculation. And it is rather pathetic that you're not addressing his ideas directly and just saying that is at some sort of advantage. You can take the same liberties, but just justify your reasoning.
Niall Ferguson simply copied what ron paul and peter schiff said in their books which were out in 2006. lol
Wrong. Ferguson's main act is economics and financial history. None of these people, including Ferguson, tout their views as fact. They simply know how to stick to an argument. I'm sorry that you don't have enough intellectual courage to create your own perspective for analysis.
@TheMelani50 Why am I obviously wealthy?! once again you undermine your own baseless assertions with presumptious bile. i was brought up in Anduri slums in Guji ok? i worked my arse off for Siemans bolting chips for mobile phones for pennies before making my way up to nothing more than a management position and moved to a lower middle class neighbourhood... i am far from rich. what kind of india? democratic? developing at incredible rate? free press? how else would ya want it to have turned out?
@TheMelani50 You obviously are self loathing if you canot drag your own withering perception of the world into the realms of logic. Displacement and manipulation was certainly a trait of British expansionist policies and this should never be forgotten and by the same token one cant wholly dismiss the foundations the UK laid in India's and other Asian states legislative, judicial, education and democratic institutions... nor can you dismiss the policies of vaccination and sanitation in Africa
@RedTyphoon1 shut my whole? what whole is that? the whole truth and nothing but the truth? lol