Niall Ferguson

[Expat]

Niall Ferguson

[Bardia]

He made me laugh. I would pay to see Hilary Clinton veiled in Iran.

[Logos]

He seems rather conservative, but the Hoover Institution (a right-wing political think tank)background should make that point clear enough.

[Warlord]

His expressions remind me very much of the guy who plays Daniel Jackson in Stargåte.

[Expat]

He seems rather conservative, but the Hoover Institution (a right-wing political think tank)background should make that point clear enough.

What you call "right-wing" and "conservative" is actually the stance of what is largely a Gamma-dominated environment.

A large part of their members or quasi-members (at least those I readily recognize) - Niall Ferguson, Robert Conquest, Thomas Sowell, the late Milton Friedman, Condoleezza Rice, Victor Davis Hanson, maybe even Peter Robinson, their talk-show host - are Gammas imo.

One question then is precisely what is meant by "conservative".

[Expat]

he's extremely good looking.

He's older than me, fwiw.

[Phaedrus]

A large part of their members or quasi-members (at least those I readily recognize) - Niall Ferguson, Robert Conquest, Thomas Sowell, the late Milton Friedman, Condoleezza Rice, Victor Davis Hanson, maybe even Peter Robinson, their talk-show host - are Gammas imo.

Milton Friedman is clearly a Gamma NT, most likely an INTp.

[Logos]

What you call "right-wing" and "conservative" is actually the stance of what is largely a Gamma-dominated environment.

A large part of their members or quasi-members (at least those I readily recognize) - Niall Ferguson, Robert Conquest, Thomas Sowell, the late Milton Friedman, Condoleezza Rice, Victor Davis Hanson, maybe even Peter Robinson, their talk-show host - are Gammas imo.

One question then is precisely what is meant by "conservative".

The standard understanding as right-wing politics.

[Expat]

The standard understanding as right-wing politics.

I have to ask you to be more precise and spell it out.

For instance, "right-wing politics" in one "standard understanding" in the US, as I understand it, would include moral and religious conservatism, and perhaps hostility to immigration as such (the Pat Buchanan kind of "right-wing"). That fits none of the people I listed.

[Logos]

Milton Friedman is clearly a Gamma NT, most likely an INTp.

LIE.

I have to ask you to be more precise and spell it out.

For instance, "right-wing politics" in one "standard understanding" in the US, as I understand it, would include moral and religious conservatism, and perhaps hostility to immigration as such (the Pat Buchanan kind of "right-wing"). That fits none of the people I listed.

Right-wing in the European sense - mostly divorced from the an allied religious right.

[Expat]

Right-wing in the European sense - mostly divorced from the an allied religious right.

That's still not satisfactory.

I'm not being pedantic. I very much doubt that Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Niall Ferguson and others would appreciate being lumped together, and put into a box, together with the likes of Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi, Helmut Kohl, Joerg Haider, let alone Le Pen and such.

Besides Margaret Thatcher, perhaps Vaclav Klaus would be accepted at Hoover. Not the others I mentioned. I think you make it easy for yourself in saying that they're all "right wing" as if that clarified everything.

[Logos]

That's still not satisfactory.

I'm not being pedantic. I very much doubt that Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Niall Ferguson and others would appreciate being lumped together, and put into a box, together with the likes of Jacques Chirac, Silvio Berlusconi, Helmut Kohl, Joerg Haider, let alone Le Pen and such.

Besides Margaret Thatcher, perhaps Vaclav Klaus would be accepted at Hoover. Not the others I mentioned. I think you make it easy for yourself in saying that they're all "right wing" as if that clarified everything.

Reagan/Nixon/Kissinger + US Republican Party, Thatcher + British Conservative Party, Angela Merkel + CDU conservative, economic Laissez-Faire conservatives, libertarian conservative. I know you are not being pedantic, but you can split hairs all you want to with what is meant by conservative and right-wing, but at the end of the day, Niall Ferguson "and ilk" will widely be considered right-wing. Niall did not bother clarifying when he talked about the "liberal." What "liberal bloggers" were he talking about? Obviously it had an understood meaning that did not involve playing a game of semantics. So instead of playing this game, why don't you just say what you consider the categories of conservative to be?

(BTW, I found Niall Ferguson's argumentation in the video for McCain to be incredibly unconvincing.)

Now would you clarify what you mean by a "Gamma-dominanted environment"? Also, I am growing worried (however unfounded or irrational my worries may be) that you may be taking your own political and economic views as being Gammas views.

[Expat]

but at the end of the day, Niall Ferguson "and ilk" will widely be considered right-wing. Niall did not bother clarifying when he talked about the "liberal." What "liberal bloggers" were he talking about?

I did not write his speech. I don't regard such simplistic classifications as useful. Just because I see him as LIE and agree with most of what he says (in books, not in speeches necessarily) it doesn't mean I have to agree with cheap shots at political opponents.

Obviously it had an understood meaning that did not involve playing a game of semantics. So instead of playing this game, why don't you just say what you consider the categories of conservative to be?

I'm the one to provide Te to satisfy your Ti? Later.

(BTW, I found Niall Ferguson's argumentation in the video for McCain to be incredibly unconvincing.)

You would, wouldn't you?

Now would you clarify what you mean by a "Gamma-dominanted environment"? Also, I am growing worried (however unfounded or irrational my worries may be) that you may be taking your own political and economic views as being Gammas views.

First, I have been following publications by the Hoover Institution for some 10 years, and I have read books by Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Niall Ferguson, and Robert Conquest. I have typed them as Gamma NT independently of their views. Maybe "Gamma-dominated" is exaggerated, but their most visible figures seem to be Gammas.

Second, I have typed Nicolas Sarkozy as LIE, and I don't share all his political and economic views (maybe 50%). I had already typed Lionel Jospin as ESI, and I certainly don't share his. The same goes for Silvio Berlusconi, who I think is SEE. Finally, one of the heros of the Hoover Institution, Ronald Reagan, which you include as right-wing-conservative, has been consistenly typed by myself as EIE.

My point is that the most visible figures - at least as I see them - of the Hoover Institution are Gammas in my opinion. I happen to share the views on economics (and partly on politics) of those I have quoted above. It does not follow at all that I have typed them as Gammas because of this. You're making it too easy for yourself and your Ti.

Having said that, I do think that the economic and political understanding as outlined by Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell in particular will be comprehensible, and attractive, to Gammas, and I think this is connected to the quadra preferences.

As for the other examples you cited: I would agree with the Thatcher/Conservative reference, if applied to the 1980s (not to today's ridiculous Tory party of David Cameron). I never related to the German CDU of Helmut Kohl and Angela Merkel. I don't particularly like any German party.

As for Nixon/Kissinger, I don't think it's easy to classify Kissinger in that area since he's essentially a strategic-power world politics strategist, and his views on economics - if any - are either totally muddled or subject to foreign policy considerations. As for Nixon, he's the guy who introduced wage and price freezes and who was responsible for the greatest expansion of governmental rules and agencies (among many, the EPA by the way) in the US after WWII. Perhaps you can tell me what that has to do with the views of the people in the Hoover Institution that I listed.

[Logos]

I'm the one to provide Te to satisfy your Ti?

Why are you surprised? I could see where the conversation was heading if I continued with the path I was taking. So now I am taking a different approach and just asking you directly.

You would, wouldn't you?

But I have not been convinced by Obama's rhetoric either, and Niall's argumentation did not seem factual so much as it did politically-charged speculation (akin to, though not as extreme as, the LBJ nuclear campaign video).

First, I have been following publications by the Hoover Institution for some 10 years, and I have read books by Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell, Niall Ferguson, and Robert Conquest. I have typed them as Gamma NT independently of their views. Maybe "Gamma-dominated" is exaggerated, but their most visible figures seem to be Gammas.

Second, I have typed Nicolas Sarkozy as LIE, and I don't share all his political and economic views (maybe 50%). I had already typed Lionel Jospin as ESI, and I certainly don't share his. The same goes for Silvio Berlusconi, who I think is SEE. Finally, one of the heros of the Hoover Institution, Ronald Reagan, which you include as right-wing-conservative, has been consistenly typed by myself as EIE.

My point is that the most visible figures - at least as I see them - of the Hoover Institution are Gammas in my opinion. I happen to share the views on economics (and partly on politics) of those I have quoted above. It does not follow at all that I have typed them as Gammas because of this. You're making it too easy for yourself and your Ti.

I did not think that you necessarily were typing them as Gammas because of this, but when there have been a number of such people you have typed as Gamma who you have read and share similar views with, then my concern became one of objective caution such that I am worried that it will appear that "Gammas are right-wing" when that is certainly not always the case.

As for Nixon/Kissinger, I don't think it's easy to classify Kissinger in that area since he's essentially a strategic-power world politics strategist, and his views on economics - if any - are either totally muddled or subject to foreign policy considerations. As for Nixon, he's the guy who introduced wage and price freezes and who was responsible for the greatest expansion of governmental rules and agencies (among many, the EPA by the way) in the US after WWII. Perhaps you can tell me what that has to do with the views of the people in the Hoover Institution that I listed.

Yes, and Niall Ferguson's talk reminded me a great deal of Kissinger and Nixon's policies will forever be tied to Kissinger.

[force my hand]

I would agree simply on the basis of his books.

[Expat]

But I have not been convinced by Obama's rhetoric either, and Niall's argumentation did not seem factual so much as it did politically-charged speculation (akin to, though not as extreme as, the LBJ nuclear campaign video).

Yes, and Niall Ferguson's talk reminded me a great deal of Kissinger and Nixon's policies will forever be tied to Kissinger.

Well for the purpose of typing Niall Ferguson, I chose that particular video because it is short, and it provides a sampling of him as a person, when talking, etc. It was not because of his making a case for McCain. To get a better view of his views on economics, history, foreign policy, etc, it would be fair to look at his other videos, articles, etc.

I did not think that you necessarily were typing them as Gammas because of this, but when there have been a number of such people you have typed as Gamma who you have read and share similar views with, then my concern became one of objective caution such that I am worried that it will appear that "Gammas are right-wing" when that is certainly not always the case.

Actually I am aware of such things myself, as I am of typing as Gammas people I happen to like or such.

However, again, it is necessary to see precisely what is meant by "right-wing" (and by "liberal", of course).

Having said that, though, I do think that Gammas - perhaps Gamma NTs more obviously - are likely to relate to so-called "right-wing" stances as a dislike for collectivism in any form (which includes global-warming activism, gun control, etc) and a preference for economic growth over income equality; finally, a preference for talking tough to enemies rather than sweet-talking them. All of those make sense as per quadra values, and would be reflected on political views.

Historically, I am now inclined to typing FDR as SEE (rather than EIE as I previously said), and Lyndon Johnson too, neither of whom can really be called right-wing (despite LBJ's foreign policy, not so different from Nixon's). I have now typed Hillary Clinton as ESI; not sure that she could be called "right-wing".

[Logos]

Well for the purpose of typing Niall Ferguson, I chose that particular video because it is short, and it provides a sampling of him as a person, when talking, etc. It was not because of his making a case for McCain. To get a better view of his views on economics, history, foreign policy, etc, it would be fair to look at his other videos, articles, etc.

I actually have read a few of his articles in a political science course.

[Logos]

You're both wrong. Niall Ferguson is actually a Mormon anarchist.

Hitta, is that you?

[Logos]

You're both wrong. Niall Ferguson is actually a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.

Phaedrus, is that you?

[Logos]

You're both wrong. Niall Ferguson is actually Pennywise The Clown.

Virgin.

[Expat]

So instead of playing this game, why don't you just say what you consider the categories of conservative to be?

I think true "right-wing conservatives" are those opposing changes for the sake of sheer conservatism, that is, they want to preserve things as they are, either because they think they are okay as they are, or because they find it reassuring. Such "conservatives" are perhaps people like Pat Buchanan or Jesse Helms in the US, and some in the CDU/CSU in Germany, and a large part of the right wing in France, including Jacques Chirac. They are usually very concerned with things like public morals and such, and their economic policies are often muddled, as they interfere in economics to stop economic change, usually disastrously in the longer term.

Then there are those who are "conservative" in the sense that they are not opposed to change as such, but neither do they see in any point in forcing it or speeding it up. They are usually concerned with managing well the present state of affairs and are close to non-ideological, except in their opposition to strong ideologies. In the US, those would be people like Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and Bush 41; also Bob Dole. Usually "boring" politicians.

Then you have the kind of "conservatives" who have a clear idea of how things should be, and are willing to push things in that direction. Those are people like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and those people in the Hoover Institution I mentioned. And that is why I find inaccurate to lump them together, or even to call them "conservatives".

Obviously these are not black and white categories, with lots of shades of gray.

[discojoe]

I think it's okay to call them all conservatives, but if you want to break them down into more specific groups you should use another term.