Brad DeLong criticizes The Financial Times for enabling Niall Ferguson's obvious errors of fact

Similarly, I think I am qualified to lament that the Financial Times published Niall Ferguson's misleading screed on July 19, 2010....

Could we please have some acknowledgement of the fact that the reason the debt-to-GDP ratio did not rise across the 1930s was because GDP rose, not because debt didn't rise? Debt more than doubled from $22.5 billion to $49.0 billion between June 30, 1933 and June 30, 1941. But nominal GDP rose from $56 billion in 1933 to $127 billion in 1941.
And could we please have some acknowledgement that our 9.4% of GDP deficit in fiscal 2010 pales in comparison to the 30.8% of GDP deficit of 1943, or the 23.3% and 22.0% deficits of 1944 and 1945?

Niall Ferguson should not do this. The Financial Times should not enable Niall Ferguson to do this.

Grasping Reality with Every Possible Tentacle
In Email, Niall Ferguson Requests I Acknowledge His "I Would Have Gotten Away With It If Not For Those Meddling Bloggers!" Rant
J. Bradford DeLong | Professor of Economics, UCAL Berkeley

Take that, Financial Times. News source need to do some fact checking.

The Huffington Post Niall Ferguson On Paul Krugman: 'New York Times Has Lost Control Of Him'

Ferguson throws slimeball on TV. Now the real agenda surfaces. Neoliberal push to take down Paul Krugman and deprive him of his NYT bully pulpit?

The Huffington Post
Niall Ferguson On Paul Krugman: 'New York Times Has Lost Control Of Him'

David Ruccio — Is there something in the water at Harvard?

Summers, Mankiw, Ferguson and Rogoff?

And people really believe Harvard stands at the pinnacle of the intellectual meritocracy in the United States?

Occasional Links & Commentary
Is there something in the water at Harvard?
David Ruccio | Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame

Yes, it is embarrassing.

John Aziz — In The Long Run We’re All Dead

What Keynes actually said and meant.

Azizonomics
In The Long Run We’re All Dead
John Aziz

Here is another Keynes quote about "the long run."

When the accumulation of wealth is no longer of high social importance, there will be greatchanges in the code of morals. We shall be able to rid ourselves of many of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years, by which we have exalted some of the most distasteful of human qualities into the position of the highestvirtues. We shall be able to afford to dare to assess the money-motive at its true value. The love of money as a possession — as distinguished from the love of money as a means to the enjoyments and realities of life — will be recognised for what it is, a somewhat disgusting morbidity, one of those semi-criminal, semi-pathological propensities which one hands over with a shudder to the specialists in mental disease ... But beware! The time for all this is not yet. For at least another hundred years we must pretend to ourselves and to everyone that fair is foul and foul is fair; for foul is useful and fair is not. Avarice andusury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessityinto daylight.

• "The Future", Essays in Persuasion (1931) Ch. 5, JMK, CW, IX, pp.329 - 331, Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren (1930); as quoted in "Keynes and the Ethics of Capitalism" by Robert Skidelsy
Wikiquote

Will humanity make out of this morass by 2030? Or was Keynes being overly optimistic?