-- Your message was: (from ""Anish"") Having met Niall and having read his books, he is defenitely one to two sigma to the "right". Some of his views are a bit "interesting" hence I suspect there is some truth in Mishra views on Niall's book :)My two cents worthPS:- I am no historian, nearest to what I am qualified is a doctor then a security bod/cryptographer :)
------------------ Hi all - First, a brief introduction -- I'm a Harvard- and Stanford-trained mathematical economist with a doctorate in Public Policy Analysis. And I'm modestly competent as a historian. When I've had occasion to look at Ferguson's forays into economics, they seem almost embarrassingly incompetent. He has a truly impressive ego and a lack of understanding to match. Most economists would say about the same -- Paul Krugman has a notoriously low regard for Ferguson, and J. Bradford DeLong of Berkeley famously observed that "Niall Ferguson does indeed know a lot less than economists knew in the 1920s". Though I wouldn't begin to pass direct judgment on Ferguson as a historian -- that's just a collateral field for me -- I would find it very easy to believe that Mishra's criticisms of Ferguson's work are richly deserved. And by the way, I find it intensely annoying when any scholar attempts to deflect criticism by immediately attacking the politics of their opponent. I haven't noticed truth to be the the sole province of academics on the right or the left, and sometimes incompetent work is just, well, incompetent work. Cheers, B.
