Liam Halligan: Why I believe Tim Congdon is on losing side of monetary easing argument

As a hardcore Rothbardian myself, I could quibble with one or two of the things that Mr Liam Halligan has written in his latest Daily Telegraph article on money. However, let me avoid being churlish, because most of it is excellent and can be safely read whilst wearing your favourite Skinny Rothbard Tie. Here’s a small selected sample:

In the current edition of Standpoint magazine, Professor Tim Congdon refers to me as a “monetary conservative of the backwoods persuasion”.

He argues that this column’s description of quantitative easing as “a polite, yet intellectually dishonest name for money-printing” amounts not to a reasoned point of view but, instead, belies an “implicit prejudice”.

Modern capitalism, at its core, relies on the public’s trust of fiat money and the sanctity of contract. QE is seriously undermining both those cardinal concepts. We’re not supposed to call QE “money printing” because money printing is the last refuge of declining economic empires and banana republics. It also amounts to state-sponsored theft. And against that, yes Professor Congdon, I declare an “implicit prejudice”.

Read the article in full, here.

Written By
More from Andy Duncan
Interview with an Austrian — Jesús Huerta de Soto
I’ve just discovered a recent interview with Professor Huerta de Soto, released...
Read More
0 replies on “Liam Halligan: Why I believe Tim Congdon is on losing side of monetary easing argument”