Skip to comments.John Maynard Keynes had it all wrong because he was gay and childless says Harvard professor
Posted on 05/04/2013 7:07:00 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
A Harvard professor took to the podium at a finance conference Friday and called major influencer of modern economics John Maynard Keynes wrong about his philosophies because he was gay and childless.
During a question and answer session in Carlsbad, California, well-known historian Niall Ferguson was asked how he felt about the theories of English economist John Maynard Keynes versus those of Edmund Burke.
What the prominent Obama critic said in response hushed the crowd of over 500.
According to Tom Kostigen, editor-at-large of Financial Advisor magazine, Ferguson made it clear that he believed Keynes was uninterested in the what was good for society, basically because of his sexual orientation.
Ferguson asked the audience how many children Keynes had, wrote Kostigen in Financial Advisor. 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 said many of the audience members took offense at the remark, but that Ferguson continued.
Ferguson, author of The Great Degeneration: How Institutions Decay and Economies Die,' wrote Kostigen, says it's only logical that Keynes would take this selfish worldview because he was an "effete" member of society.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Couples who choose to not have children tend to be more liberal just like couples who choose to have 10 children tend to be more conservative.
Maybe you should re-read the headline of the thread.
"In the long run, we're all dead." --John Maynard Krebs
A childless homo can more afford a "screw future generations" and "spend it all now" philosophy.
He was childless and his philosophy of life was essentially a short-run philosophy. --Joseph Schumpeter
John Maynard Keynes would have done a great service if he had begun The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money with the disclosure that he was a Bloomsbury aesthete and a practicing homosexual. He could have explained how he and friends did not believe in self-denial or consider that they had any obligation to posterity. (An historian has pointed out that Keyness famous remark, In the long run we are all dead, is easy to make if you have no children and dont want any.) Perhaps as a result we might have lower federal deficits.
I guess Ferguson has already retracted his statement, but hopefully this episode will open some eyes.
So you know what I do now? I shout louder.
If that's the game they want to play, so be it.
What do they have in common?
Preach it. His writing changed my life.
I wish at least Catholics knew of him.
Why? Because when government spending doesn't result in economic growth, government spending is increased, further delaying recovery and prompting more government spending.
It's a vicious Keynesian circle.
All true enough. I said I won’t defend Keynes... And I won’t. But most people still misunderstand what Keynesianism was all about.
And Obama is sending our economy further in to debt and despair intentionally so there is a good argument he could care even less than Keynes. It’s mathematically impossible to pay off in any case however many generations of slave laborers out. Whatever anyone may think of gays or childless couples there is no way in hell they are primarily responsible for our current deficit.
To clarify, I don’t at the present time know any childless couples. [When I lived in MA I knew many, but they were moonbats to begin w so their unconcern for debts & deficits had partly to do w no kids & partly to do w being mindless leftists.] What’s even more disturbing, the singles I was alluding to are not self-identifying liberals.
To give you one example. I know a heterosexual, single man of 57. He is Southern Baptist & claims to be a Republican. He’s spent his life trying to make a living at what he loves & never really made a go of it. He has zip put aside for retirement, no health insurance, & is beginning to develop symptoms of some type of physical malady.
The last time this formerly good friend of mine & I spoke, he told me flat out he wants “free” healthcare. He voted for Obama in hopes of getting it. I guess I got a little too excited trying to explain what “free” means in this context. [I.e.: his healthcare probably *will* be ‘free’—for him. The younger generation will be saddled w paying for it. That is, until he moves to the head of the death panel die-list (which given his circumstances, won’t take long).] He hasn’t spoken to me since.
The original point I had in mind is that this man is uninvested in the future. W no kids, he sees only himself. He wants things for “free”. What that does to future generations is none of his concern.
Hope that helps.
Mrs. Don-o: I always love your pings, regardless of subject matter. You are one of my all-time favorite freepers—no time like the present to let you know. :)
It's like a heart-punch to me now when I hear young couples proudly proclaim, "we don't want kids."
Then what is your relationship about? I doubt it's self-sacrifice for the eternal good of the other.
I attribute this primarily to his atheism (motivated by his homosexuality) and self-centeredness, exacerbated by being childless.
And that gets to the nitty gritty of the traditional view of marriage vs today’s.
Long before they redefined it to include gays, I thought it had already been redefined...by those who declared marriage was purely about the “happiness” of the adults involved. Their self fulfillment - their goals - their hobbies - their money etc....
The notion that the primary purpose of marriage was to have children and form a family seems to be rare now.
Thank is a beautiful, heartwarming pic. Thank you for making my day!
Well I can understand it more in the case of an atheist. I got overly frustrated w my friend because somewhere between his Southern Baptist & claimed Republican affiliations he ought to know better.
Now another single man I had in mind is a Wiccan. He’s not, interestingly enough, a self-described liberal. He makes much of his paganism, though. He wants one thing only from the government: uninterrupted benefits. He’s an implicit believer in reincarnation, which you’d think wd give him a stake in the future. I guess since he doesn’t claim to know where or in what form he’ll be back, he doesn’t care if the US is broke by then, or even exists. (I’ve challenged his reincarnation views, incidentally; it just makes him cranky. According to him, all Christians are hypocrites, & that is the end of the discussion.]
I should have said, ‘more broke than we already are’. But in my friend’s eyes the US won’t be truly broke until his checks stop coming, so in his eyes it hasn’t happened yet.
Gay and childless. The professor’s comments focused on the childless aspects.
And he's certain that he's smarter than you are. He just doesn't have to prove it.