Back to Gideon RachmanI have enjoyed the spat between Niall Ferguson and Paul Krugman: public intellectual v public intellectual; Harvard v Princeton - and, most significantly, historian v economist.
Essentially Krugman accused Ferguson of not knowing what he was talking about and having a shaky grasp of economics. I thought Ferguson’s response in the FT was remarkably good-tempered under the circumstances. As a former historian, I particularly enjoyed his line - “A cat may look at a king and sometimes a historian can challenge an economist.” I quoted this to one of the economists on the FT staff, who remarkred snootily that he regarded that as a reasonable summary of the intellectual hierarchy.
I think one of the reasons that economists feel able to talk down to historians is that while they speak our language - English, we do not always speak their language - Maths. The arrogance of the economics “profession” seems to have survived the financial crisis, despite the fact that they have hardly covered themselves in glory. As Barry Eichengreen (an economics professor) notes in the latest edition of National Interest magazine: “The vast majority of the economics profession remained blissfully silent and indeed unaware of the risk of financial disaster.”
As you might have gathered, the historians v economists dispute has a personal aspect for me. I was reading the comments on my blog (often a mistake), when I came across one on the post about General Motors, advising me to keep silent on this matter - since I do not have a degree in economics. It is true that I cannot do all the silly sums that are necessary to get an economics degree. But then Eichengreen argues that one of the flaws in the economics profession revealed by the crisis is a domination by theorists with “their mastery of sophisticated mathematics” - at the expense of their more empirical and practical colleagues.
I heard something similar recently from a friend who teaches economics at Oxford, who was bemoaning the fact that the course there is increasingly maths-based. His explanation is that maths-driven economics is so obscure and uninteresting to the outside world, that the academics who specialise in it can spend all their time in Oxford, taking over the faculty. By contrast, the economists whose work is empirical and expressed largely in English find themselves in demand in the outside world - and therefore do not have the time to block the forward march of the mathemeticians.
Certainly my own grasp of economics - such as it is - comes from taking courses in economic history at university, and then sitting through fourteen years of editorial meetings at The Economist. Even accepting the fact that I was asleep half the time, that still counts as a seven-year tutorial in economic theory, as applied to the real world.
But let’s not make this too personal - it could get embarrassing. Returning to the Krugman-Ferguson dispute. In detail, it strikes me as rather arcane - and Martin Wolf has a go at arbitrating in today’s FT. But, on the general principle, I would argue that historians, with their tradition of empiricism, are at least as likely to have something useful to say about the current crisis as those economists whose models came so spectacularly unstuck a few months ago.
This blog covers a variety of topics from US foreign policy to European politics and the Middle East - and whatever else happens to be in the news or catch my attention. I joined the FT as chief foreign affairs commentator in 2006, after a 15-year career at The Economist which included stints as a correspondent in Brussels, Bangkok and Washington. I write a weekly column on foreign affairs, which appears in the paper on Tuesdays. Occasionally my FT colleagues contribute posts to this blog.
Geoff Dyer is the FT's China bureau chief. He has been a correspondent in Shanghai and in Brazil and has also covered the pharmaceuticals and biotechnology industries from London.
Roula Khalaf is the FT's Middle East editor. She has worked for the FT since 1995, first as North Africa correspondent, then Middle East correspondent and most recently as Middle East editor. Before joining the FT, she was a staff writer for Forbes magazine in New York. 
James Blitz is the FT's defence and diplomatic editor. He has been the FT's political editor, based in London, and Rome bureau chief. James is a former Moscow bureau chief for the Sunday Times.
Alan Beattie is the FT's world trade editor. He has previously been economics leader writer and spent two years in Washington DC as chief US economics correspondent. Before joining the FT, Alan was an economist at the Bank of England. 
Victor Mallet is the FT's Madrid correspondent. He is a former Asia editor of the FT, and, in more than 20 years at the organisation, has also worked in Africa, Europe and the Middle East. In 1990 he escaped from Kuwait after being one of the few foreign correspondents there when Iraq invaded. 
Stefan Wagstyl is the FT's eastern Europe editor, co-ordinating coverage of the region. He has also been the FT's bureau chief in Tokyo and New Delhi.
