I saw Niall ferguson on Bill Maher yesterday. He answered two questions:
1. He suggested if you didn’t support armed conflict in a third country you were an isolationist non patriot (no one suggested that there are different types of intervention ie financial, humanitarian, not just military)
2. He lambasted the guy who has done Gasland about fracking as not knowing anything on the basis he wasn’t a scientist. I think his argument is you cannot propound a theory unless you have studied it. That means as a historian and not an economist he shouldn’t talk about bond yields that seems to be the essence of most of his works?
I am afraid that I had fallen into the Julie Burchill/ Stephen Fry position (you know what I mean).
The title is from this discussion.