Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

[LargoWinch]

"There is clearly a global recovery, but the engine of growth is not the US, it is China" - Ferguson

Sneak Peek: 2min.33sec.




Part 1: 9min.


Part 2: 9min.


Part 3: 9min.

Niall Ferguson, author of "The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World" on Charlie Rose, Nov. 3, 2009.

[grapejelly]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I'm reading Ascent of Money. Niall is not sophisticated when it comes to the economics of the printing press. It is a good book but not great because he lacks the insight and therefore it is quite a surface explanation, at least so far, I am about 30% into the book.

He has swallowed the line about the superiority of fiat money, is what it amounts to, and that it is simply problems that have happened, nothing about the basic assumption of unlimited central bank money counterfeiting and where that inevitably leads.

The US achieved amazing growth in the 19th century largely on the strength of the gold coin standard. International money. Gradual deflation, making every saver wealthier.

When that regime went permanently, the world's governments went into high gear killing tens of millions with wars financed via the printing press.

The left doesn't get the solid link between printed money and war. I wish they did. I wish Niall did but so far I don't think he does get it.

I didn't watch the videos posted here, so I am just rambling based upon what I have read so far. No wonder Mauldin liked the book so much.

[D-Mack]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I'm reading Ascent of Money. Niall is not sophisticated when it comes to the economics of the printing press. It is a good book but not great because he lacks the insight and therefore it is quite a surface explanation, at least so far, I am about 30% into the book.

He has swallowed the line about the superiority of fiat money, is what it amounts to, and that it is simply problems that have happened, nothing about the basic assumption of unlimited central bank money counterfeiting and where that inevitably leads.

The US achieved amazing growth in the 19th century largely on the strength of the gold coin standard. International money. Gradual deflation, making every saver wealthier.

When that regime went permanently, the world's governments went into high gear killing tens of millions with wars financed via the printing press.

The left doesn't get the solid link between printed money and war. I wish they did. I wish Niall did but so far I don't think he does get it.

I didn't watch the videos posted here, so I am just rambling based upon what I have read so far. No wonder Mauldin liked the book so much.

Don't forget that he wrote/writes authorized biographies on Rothchilds and Kissinger

[WDCRob]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

When that regime went permanently, the world's governments went into high gear killing tens of millions with wars financed via the printing press.

...the solid link between printed money and war.

Grape, this is interesting to me. Can you point me to something that has the idea more fully developed?

I assume the basic idea is that the difficulty in financing war and the risk of bankrupting the country through war have historically been a restraining force for peace?

[World Traveler]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I'm a history buff (undergrad degree is in History) and read history for relaxation and enjoyment to this day. Never could make a living at it, so I switched to Information Technology for graduate degree, but still, as I tell my friends "History is my first and true love!".

I would postulate another theory on war. In the early days of humanity (hunter-gatherer societies) when human popluation was very low, and to this day in places like the Amazon rain forest tribal societies, when disputes arise, disputees just move out and into new vigin areas. That's because there is no overpopulation and a surplus of "necessary goods" (animals to hunt, roots to dig, etc.) in the environment. No need to go to war, just avoid your enemies, and you can still survive very well.

War, to this day, very often springs from resource competition and a population too large to be supported by the local environment. In northern Kenya (dry, harsh environment), tribes raid and kill each other each other for cattle. Another example, if Iraq was not one of the largest oil sources in the world, would the U.S. have been interested in a war there? I think not. And Hitler wanted "lebensraum" (living space) for Germans in heavily populated Europe. Rome went to war to exploit existing nations/tribes/cities, because all the areas close enough to conquor and control were already heavily populated. No virgin territory that Romans could just move into.

Even in ancient times, when there was no paper money, when money was gold and silver coins and/or bartering systems, war was rife. Look at the history of Europe, Middle East, Egypt (which are fairly well documented), for starters, from 3000 B.C. onward. War was always a possibility and a threat.

It's about population levels and resource competition.

[Adeptus]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

War...
(paraphrase)

...It's possible due to the printing press & fiat.

...It's about population levels and resource competition.

... and religion and women.

Adeptus

[D-Mack]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I'm a history buff (undergrad degree is in History) and read history for relaxation and enjoyment to this day. Never could make a living at it, so I switched to Information Technology for graduate degree, but still, as I tell my friends "History is my first and true love!".

I would postulate another theory on war. In the early days of humanity (hunter-gatherer societies) when human popluation was very low, and to this day in places like the Amazon rain forest tribal societies, when disputes arise, disputees just move out and into new vigin areas. That's because there is no overpopulation and a surplus of "necessary goods" (animals to hunt, roots to dig, etc.) in the environment. No need to go to war, just avoid your enemies, and you can still survive very well.

War, to this day, very often springs from resource competition and a population too large to be supported by the local environment. In northern Kenya (dry, harsh environment), tribes raid and kill each other each other for cattle. Another example, if Iraq was not one of the largest oil sources in the world, would the U.S. have been interested in a war there? I think not. And Hitler wanted "lebensraum" (living space) for Germans in heavily populated Europe. Rome went to war to exploit existing nations/tribes/cities, because all the areas close enough to conquor and control were already heavily populated. No virgin territory that Romans could just move into.

Even in ancient times, when there was no paper money, when money was gold and silver coins and/or bartering systems, war was rife. Look at the history of Europe, Middle East, Egypt (which are fairly well documented), for starters, from 3000 B.C. onward. War was always a possibility and a threat.

It's about population levels and resource competition.

Reminds me of this



and a bit of this

Recruited by MI5: the name's Mussolini. Benito Mussolini

Documents reveal Italian dictator got start in politics in 1917 with help of £100 weekly wage from MI5


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...ited-mi5-italy

[LargoWinch]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I'm reading Ascent of Money. Niall is not sophisticated when it comes to the economics of the printing press.

GJ, I certainly agree with the above quoted.

Ferguson appears naive regarding the consequences of bank bailouts and even mentions in the titled video that massive intervention was the right thing to do in order to prevent another great depression.

I for one, agree with Jim Rogers - and I believe yourself -: let the incompetent fail and that should have included LTCM in the first place.


Regarding your comments about wars and the gold standard; I respecfully think you may oversimplifying a bit there, although I would certainly not disagree that a fiat system does not provide the same "checks and balances" as a metallic system. All I would like to point out is that money or not, war and its causes can be incredibly complex.

[Jay]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

Check out "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin for a worthwhile viewpoint on the relationship between fiat and war, and a whole lot else to boot. It's a really good read.

[grapejelly]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

Look at all wars that have been documented in history and they are financed either through massive borrowing or massive inflation.

Or both.

The 20th century was the bloodiest century in world history. I believe it is because of the 1) rise of democracy or more particularly democratic socialism, and 2) fiat money that made it that way.

Look at the US imperialist regime. If taxes had to pay for the US' wars then the wars wouldn't happen, doncha think? It's the fact that taxpayers pay for the wars only through the hidden tax of the printing press that finances the imperialists.

[SamAdams]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

Grape, this is interesting to me. Can you point me to something that has the idea more fully developed?

I assume the basic idea is that the difficulty in financing war and the risk of bankrupting the country through war have historically been a restraining force for peace?

Lecture on the topic

Slides at http://www.mises.org/pdf/higgs2009.pdf

[grapejelly]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I am 60% through the book.

Niall just doesn't get the FIRE economy, the printing press system, any of that. He feels the recent massive intervention was a good thing. And that the closure of the stock exchanges in 1914 was appropriate. None of which I think is at all right.

[cjppjc]

Re: Niall Ferguson on Charlie Rose - Nov. 3, 2009 (28min.)

I'm a history buff (undergrad degree is in History) and read history for relaxation and enjoyment to this day. Never could make a living at it, so I switched to Information Technology for graduate degree, but still, as I tell my friends "History is my first and true love!".

I would postulate another theory on war. In the early days of humanity (hunter-gatherer societies) when human popluation was very low, and to this day in places like the Amazon rain forest tribal societies, when disputes arise, disputees just move out and into new vigin areas. That's because there is no overpopulation and a surplus of "necessary goods" (animals to hunt, roots to dig, etc.) in the environment. No need to go to war, just avoid your enemies, and you can still survive very well.

War, to this day, very often springs from resource competition and a population too large to be supported by the local environment. In northern Kenya (dry, harsh environment), tribes raid and kill each other each other for cattle. Another example, if Iraq was not one of the largest oil sources in the world, would the U.S. have been interested in a war there? I think not. And Hitler wanted "lebensraum" (living space) for Germans in heavily populated Europe. Rome went to war to exploit existing nations/tribes/cities, because all the areas close enough to conquor and control were already heavily populated. No virgin territory that Romans could just move into.

Even in ancient times, when there was no paper money, when money was gold and silver coins and/or bartering systems, war was rife. Look at the history of Europe, Middle East, Egypt (which are fairly well documented), for starters, from 3000 B.C. onward. War was always a possibility and a threat.

It's about population levels and resource competition.

George Ivanovich Gurdjieff (1866 – 1949), an Armenian-Greek mystic, a teacher of sacred dances, and a spiritual teacher said: "There was a question about War. How to stop wars? Wars cannot be stopped. War is the result of the slavery in which men live. Strictly speaking, men are not to blame for war. War is due to cosmic forces, to planetary influences. But in men there is no resistance whatever against these influences, and there cannot be any, because men are slaves. If they were Men and were capable of 'doing' (had Will), they would be able to resist these influences and refrain from killing one another.' 'But surely those who realize this can do something?' said the man who asked the question about war. 'If a sufficient number of men came to a definite conclusion that there should be no war, could they not influence others?'

'Those who dislike war have been trying to do so almost since the creation of the world' said G. 'And yet there has never been such a war as the present (the First World War). Wars are not decreasing, they are increasing and war cannot be stopped by ordinary means. All these theories about universal peace, about peace conferences, and so on, are again simply laziness and hypocrisy.

Men do not want to think about themselves, do not want to work on themselves, but think of how to make other people do what they want. If a sufficient number of people who wanted to stop war really did gather together they would first of all begin by making war upon those who disagreed with them. And it is still more certain that they would make war on people who also want to stop wars but in another way. And so they would fight.

Men are what they are and they cannot be different. War has many causes that are unknown to us. Some causes are in men themselves, others are outside them. One must begin with the causes that are in man himself. How he can be independent of the external influences of great cosmic forces when he is a slave of everything that surrounds him? He is controlled by everything around him. If he becomes free from things, he may then become free from planetary influences.