This is not about, Tithe, Papal Indulgence, or Islamic Banking. Actually I wanted to title this post Homophobic Economics, but I demurred, not because I am a prude but because I wanted to reach the root.
This is the third post of mine arising out of the unfortunate utterings of an academic and historian - Niall Ferguson of Harvard – at a conference in California, addressing investors and people of finance [1]. Ferguson accepted that, at the very least, he had implied that John Maynard Keynes could not have cared for future generations because he was possibly a homosexual.
I want to delve a little deeper than merely asserting, without proof, that Ferguson is a Homophobe. Assuming he is one, how did he happen to be so? At the minimum, what made him mouth the fateful words, what allowed him that liberty?
The second question answered first. It was religion that emboldened Ferguson. Here, and given the context, I am going to use Christianity as proxy for religion. Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore, if I can trace your position in an argument to your homosexual predilections, your goose is cooked. You are sinning and therefore your position is wrong. Keynes’s alleged indifference towards future generations is rooted in his homosexuality. Oh, my God!
Now, to the first question. Ferguson could have converted to Homophobia because of the returns he could be getting. With Christianity making homosexuality a sin, there is a religious premium to be drawn – it becomes easier to condemn, if not homosexual people, their ideas when they pose uncomfortable questions. The whole thing is so finger lickin’ good.
On these lines, we can say the following with certainty: counter-cyclical fiscal interventions are sinful because a sinner endorses them. He is a sinner because he is probably a homosexual. His homosexuality and his theories of economics are partners in bed in sinning. And, there are no short- and long-term in sinning.
This is the fundamental tenet of religious economics.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/niall-ferguson-apologises-gay-keynes?INTCMP=SRCH
This is the third post of mine arising out of the unfortunate utterings of an academic and historian - Niall Ferguson of Harvard – at a conference in California, addressing investors and people of finance [1]. Ferguson accepted that, at the very least, he had implied that John Maynard Keynes could not have cared for future generations because he was possibly a homosexual.
I want to delve a little deeper than merely asserting, without proof, that Ferguson is a Homophobe. Assuming he is one, how did he happen to be so? At the minimum, what made him mouth the fateful words, what allowed him that liberty?
The second question answered first. It was religion that emboldened Ferguson. Here, and given the context, I am going to use Christianity as proxy for religion. Christianity says that homosexuality is sin. Therefore, if I can trace your position in an argument to your homosexual predilections, your goose is cooked. You are sinning and therefore your position is wrong. Keynes’s alleged indifference towards future generations is rooted in his homosexuality. Oh, my God!
Now, to the first question. Ferguson could have converted to Homophobia because of the returns he could be getting. With Christianity making homosexuality a sin, there is a religious premium to be drawn – it becomes easier to condemn, if not homosexual people, their ideas when they pose uncomfortable questions. The whole thing is so finger lickin’ good.
On these lines, we can say the following with certainty: counter-cyclical fiscal interventions are sinful because a sinner endorses them. He is a sinner because he is probably a homosexual. His homosexuality and his theories of economics are partners in bed in sinning. And, there are no short- and long-term in sinning.
This is the fundamental tenet of religious economics.
Raghuram Ekambaram
References
1. http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/04/niall-ferguson-apologises-gay-keynes?INTCMP=SRCH
2 comments:
Ferguson's remark is absolutely silly. But does Christianity's teaching make any difference really in anything? Doesn't the Catholic Church forbid the use of any type of contraceptive? Yet 90%, if not more, Catholics must be using one contraceptive or another, (I mean those who engage in sex). People pick and choose their truths even from religions. Ferguson has done the same.
Matheikal, perhaps you missed a crucial point of what I said.If you are using condoms then I would accuse you of sinning and take down any other argument of yours (no matter how disconnected it may be from use of condoms) that I do not like by saying it comes form a sinner and hence should be discounted. Of course, it would be better if I could connect condom use and the issue at hand and that is what Ferguson and his ilk have done. They do not like Keynes short-term fiscal prescriptions. They then argue that as Keynes is child-free he can be a short-termist. They then trace Keynes short-termism to his homosexuality, THE sin. Yes, the path is tortuous, yet, it is a path. This is precisely what I would do against anyone using a condom.
My argument is religion allows you to cherry pick.
RE
Post a Comment