printHe’s trillions of dollars and a decade too late, but Kevin D. Williamson of National Review can assure himself he’s “contrarian” for advocating an about face in the Federal Reserve Bank’s fiddling.
Williamson may be reading Austrian economics. By that I mean the reality based thinking of Ludwig von Mises (taught at the Mises Institute); preached by Ron Paul (whom the neoconery mocked during the Bush years), practiced by financier Peter Schiff, written about by Tom Woods in Meltdown: A Free-Market Look at Why the Stock Market Collapsed, the Economy Tanked, and Government Bailouts Will Make Things Worse; as well as by Vox Day, and in this writer’s columns and blogs over the past decade.
Being of the establishment, however, Williamson can just put his hands over his ears and tell himself over and over again “I’m contrarian,” and this will be so.
“So here’s a contrarian take,” Williamson assures himself: “The Fed should stop trying to drive down interest rates. It should instead work to raise them. Why? Our economy needs savings and investment. …”
As I said, trillions of dollars and a decades too later … (“PUNDITS, HEAL THYSELVES!”)
Your host, writing in “Those Invisible Jobs,” did not anoint herself a “contrarian” for advocating that Fed supremo Ben Bernanke raise interest rates.” Not then, and not in 2000 (“The Central Bank’s Game is the Same, Whoever’s the Name”), and on all those occasions in-between.
Why? Because in the Austrian community, represented by some very prominent people, this is common wisdom.
Bloody annoying…
UPDATE I: I’ll be honest: it’s hard to know from Mr. Williamson’s wishy-washy articles exactly where he stands on matters of political philosophy (or if he is a neoconservative or not). However, this post’s point was pretty clear. It expressed annoyance that someone can call himself contrarian for proposing less quantitative easing. Granted, it’s a prickly post, but Mr. Williamson can understand, surely, why writers like myself get a tad testy? We’ve been marginalized for being right on foreign policy and fiscal matters our entire careers, such as they are. Then, when the rest catch up with us, a decade down the line, they pretend that truth began with them.
If I’ve learned anything about the American Mind it is this: Truth doesn’t exist until someone in the establishment pronounces it, usually a decade or so after it has been in circulation. I guess, better late than never, but why not acknowledge those who went before?
I saw Mr. Williamson go up against one or the other left-liberals on TV, and I remember thinking: much better than Rich. Still, I do not believe there is a sufficient amount of information to conclude that “better than Rich” is a meaningful statement.
Mr. Williamson is young (and presentable). He has plenty of time to correct any mistaken impressions I might have formed, not least of which is his sharing that horrible habit common among the Republican establishment of never admitting to being Johnny-come-latelies on Iraq, Bush, economy, QE, etc.
UPDATE II: Mr. Glisson, first, why don’t you provide hyperlinks and particular quotes in substantiation of your position that Mr. Williamson is never a neoconservative? Second, why misconstrue the point of this writer’s post, encapsulated again in the last two sentences of “UPDATE I”? Moreover, from a parenthetic statement about the neoconservatives’ attitude toward Ron Paul, Mr. Williamson concluded that I had called him a neoconservative. You do the same, for some reason.
Again, Mr. Williamson is better than Rich; way better. I am still unsure as to what kind of badge of honor this really is; or if Mr. Williamson is or is not a neoconservative. Isn’t that a condition of employment at National Review? John Derbyshire is NRO’s only paleoconservative (sort of). I’d love to see John thrust into the spotlight, but they keep him in the basement, so to speak.
UPDATE III (Oct. 17): We thank Kevin D. Williamson for responding to the intrigue he has generated on Barely A Blog. He remains a man of mystery, and that is not half bad. In the age of too much information (and letting it all hang loose), mystery is a good thing. We agree that Mr. Williamson ain’t Rich. Has Rich employed a non-neoconservative in the hope of generating some oscillation in the static National Review? Or because the readership has little patience with that old guard? Who knows? We also understand that a man has to make a living. To do so, he must often walk an ideological tightrope.
Nevertheless, those who went before—and remain permanently frozen out of mainstream—deserve mention. It gets terribly cold out here. Mr. Glisson seems to think I’m some kind of intellectual missionary, spreading the good word, pleased to turn the other cheek just so long as the new guard can adopt the gospel, even if they falsely pretend to be pioneers.
Rubbish. Nonsense on stilts. I’m all about justice. Intellectual justice included.
UPDATE IV (3/5/2016):
“NRO Writer’s ‘UnFollow’ Leads To Musing About The Manners-Morals Connection.”
@KevinNR TV has gone to your head. Let's remind your ditto heads who went before. You were 1st to contact me. https://t.co/W1TJJvA0BW
— Ilana Mercer (@IlanaMercer) March 5, 2016
If my memory serves me correctly didn’t Paul Volker head of the fed during the Reagan years raise interest rates to encourage savings, investment, and fight inflation? This was done in parallel with the Reagan tax cuts. Unfortunately Reagan was unable to get Congress to reduce spending.
I understand your frustration that Kevin D. Williamson would now see the light and call himself a contrarian. It seems like common wisdom (at least among the Austrian economic community) and its close friend common sense are not so common anymore.
One of the interesting ironies of the unbridled free market is the order that results, assuming a civil society, from a seemingly chatoic process. Clearly, decisions made by knowledgeable individuals distributed throughout the economy (on the spot, if you will) result in a much more orderly economy than one controlled by a centralized arbitray bureaucracy. The millions of intricate free simultaneous transactions results in an unbeatable economic system. In the end it does a much better job of separating the wheat from the chaff than a slow hulking bureaucracy.
Austrian economics? I think I’ve heard of that.
Also, it’s not like I supported the stimulus (the Bush stimulus or the Obama stimuli), or general Republican fiscal shenanigans, etc., so I’m not entirely sure how I’m a decade late and a trillion bucks short.
And a “neocon” tag — on me? Have you ever read a word I’ve written?
Now this could get interesting!
In reading Mr. Williamson’s article and a scan of the archives, which only go back to June that I was able to access, I did notice that though he takes a different side than Ron Paul in the matter of the war between the United States and the Confederate States government and other unmentioned criticisms he does give support (85%) to him. An important point since it is Ron Paul vs. the Neoconservative and if he was a neo! he would trash Ron Paul. Mr. Williamson doesn’t appear to give the neoconservatives support and seems to have a better sense of humor than it is possible for a neoconservative to possess. The important thing is that, other people are beginning to say the same things you have.
“substantiation of your position that Mr. Williamson is never a neoconservative?” Aw come on Mrs. Mercer- I didn’t say that he is “never a neoconservative” I said that I screened his archives which only go back four and a half months. From reading various articles of his posting, I didn’t find the normal neoconservative view. By that, I only inferred that I leaned toward the possibility that he wasn’t. My statement of his somewhat grudging acceptance of Ron Paul was only meant to reflect that he did not show animosity toward Ron Paul, whereas a neoconservative would. However, the link is “http://www.nationalreview.com/exchequer/231027/ten-things-you-should-know-about-rand-paul” Truth is, I still don’t know what political stripes he wears.
“his sharing that horrible habit common among the Republican establishment of never admitting to being Johnny-come-latelies on Iraq, Bush, economy, QE, etc.” With only 4.5 months worth of articles to scan, I have no idea how long he has been writing, He may not have anything in print in regard to Bush and the Middle East. I still say that it is good to see at least one writer that agrees with you in regard to the economy. Incidentally, I did mention “sense of humor” too.
Okay, last observation: “ . . . his sharing that horrible habit common among the Republican establishment of never admitting . . .” I am not a Republican, which would make it hard to be a member of the Republican establishment.
“Granted, it’s a prickly post, but Mr. Williamson can understand, surely, why writers like myself get a tad testy?” Yes, indeed, I can understand why.