I certainly will not take offense and would not leave if I did. The ignore button works for those who perpetually have no valuable input, and I always value your thoughts also so no chance of that happening.

I don't agree with everything Ferguson says but he is thoughtful enough that I always read any article he puts out that I find on the web. Everyone has a bias as does he, but I find him to give a more balanced view of his information and research than most.

I think you will find in history that often times the failure of the monetary system comes before the fall of a government, not after, and is sometimes instrumental in that fall.

I would agree that Ferguson does have a slight bent towards central planning although he does not come right out and say it. In his book there are several instances where he points out the advantages of gold keeping the money supply in check when it was a standard and you would think by what you were reading he would be in favor of a gold standard by the evidence he presents, yet he is not and tends to be more favorable of government intervention even when his own examples suggest otherwise.

As far as him not being an economist sometimes that is an advantage, being outside the formal teachings of an industry yet having significant knowledge of it (which he, to me at least, obviously has) allows that person to sometimes have a perspective that is not available to those within the industry that tend to all have the same schooling and have been taught the same things. Conventional wisdom is nearly always held on to far too long till an outsider (outside the given industry) finally irrefutably points out the error. Then conventional wisdom is still held on to for a very long time even after. Imagine how long it took for the idea of the world being flat to die out ofter Columbus pointed out with perfect reasoning why it must not be so. He was after all, not an expert or scientist in that field. Why should anyone believe him? Forget logic, he was not a scientist and only scientists should know about such things. Economists may not know everything about the economy (that is an understatement).

I have a general distrust in what all economists say starting about two or three years ago. After all, didn't the best and brightest economists declare the business cycle and boom and bust cycles dead? How well did that work out? I think macro economists recently beat out weather men on the credibility scale so I am more inclined to listen to logic rather than a professional title.

 John