• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

Guest Suggestions Welcome

I’m hosting the Peter Schiff Show on Monday and Tuesday of next week, and I welcome guest suggestions. Can’t be anything I’d need to prepare for, like a formal debate, since the project I’m working on right now is consuming all my time. But let me know if there’s an interesting person you’d like to hear from.

And yes, my Tom Woods Show is awaiting two small edits to the website (and my web guy is out of town for a week), but then we are (finally) off to the races.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Tommy Gladnick

    walter williams

  • libert141

    Can someone help explain the difference between our economy now and our economy post ww2. Someone tried to argue we will get out of this mess just as we did after ww2

  • BD

    Marc Stevens of the No State Project. Marcstevens(dot)net

  • BD

    Not an economist but very different economies in my opinion.
    1. Breton-Woods agreement became operational in 1945 and there was an expected gold reserve backing the currency of US. After “Nixon shock” fiat currencies were now pegged to our fiat currency. So until 1971, monetary expansion (inflation) was limited because of a partial gold backing. We obviously have nothing of the sort with Bartender Ben.
    2. WW2 diverted many resources of production (we were once a productive country) to the MIC for bombs, tanks, etc. and these productive capacities shifted back to consumer needs rather than destructive needs. Therefore, the returning men had ample supply of jobs waiting and an economy waiting with pent-up demand if I may use such a term. Keep in mind that the women who were working while their men were fighting now returned to household jobs. This is much more rare today as families are nominally making more but both parents work to provide the same adjusted level of wealth. The difference between WW2 and the multiple wars of today is that there is no stated goal of victory. Rather there is a war on unspecified and non-nation related enemies with the term War on Terrorism. This is essentially a never ending war as the target is arbitrarily decided by those who provide legitimacy and funding for the MIC.
    3. Welfare state. In the mid 1940′s the welfare state was almost non-existent compared to today. There are various charts you can find on this but once Johnson began his “Great Society” (and Tom points this out in various lectures I believe) the poverty levels plateaued from a previously decreasing rate. Take a look at the food stamp recipient charts too. Now even if the person presenting the argument to you is correct in their assumption that these wars will end (as WW2 did), there is no productive capacity to fill for men and women trained to kill and do various murder related jobs. These individuals are on government pay and will most likely remain so (welfare) upon returning because of the regulatory and confiscatory (taxes) environment in this country will not facilitate a hiring market.
    4. Unfunded liabilities. Compare these two eras and it should shock your opponent. They will most likely say that these are not payed now but later, but this is false as debt must mature and benefits must be paid. Inevitably, an over-expansion of the money supply and the cost of living impoverishes the middle class into non-existence.
    Hope this helps and once again I am not an economist. I am sure others in the postings are more knowledgable and can help further strengthen your rebuttal.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MVMVLN267XCY2HS5KL25QTQRKQ John

    Tom, it would be great to hear from Hans Herman Hoppe who has become a YouTube hit with his suggestions on how to answer Krugman “like a child”. Krugman even noticed it when Mike Shedlock blogged it. This is good exposure for him!

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MVMVLN267XCY2HS5KL25QTQRKQ John

    No chance, they’re an anonymous collective and want to stay that way to protect their identities as they work in the finance industry.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Steven-Grim/26519204 Steven Grim

    Darn, Laurence Vance was my first choice also.

  • Anonymous

    I’d very much like to hear Scott Horton interviewed. He and Tom are both among my favorite interviewers. Heck, I’d just enjoy hearing Scott and Tom chit-chatting about anything for a couple of Schiff Radio segments. I have similar respect for both. Perhaps we could play devil’s advocates here and start a rivalry by asking readers here which one, Tom or Scott, presents the better Lew Rockwell interview. ;)

    In another comment here I suggested Will Grigg as Tom’s Schiff Radio guest. Scott has interviewed Will many times and has quite the head start on Tom. It’s time for Tom to do some catching up. Grigg is powerfully informed, thoughtful and well spoken, and I find this to be the best interview [of anyone, by anyone] I’ve heard so far this year…

    http://scotthorton.org/2013/02/06/2513-will-grigg/
    Hey Tom! Can you top that? :D

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    Ask how the transition to Heritage is treating JIM DEMINT.

  • Robert

    We The People Dr. Benjamin Carson

    http://youtu.be/orY6M0Ex0BM

    You have the wrong (black) man as US president, and the wrong man got the Nobel peace prize

  • John
  • edward

    Stephan Kinsella, Lew Rockwell, Robert Wenzel or Jeff Tucker on Ron Paul’s court case to appeal for ronpaul.com. All four have slightly different opinions on the subject. Kinsella sees it as an IP issue, Rockwell sees it as the “private internet” governing itself (I could be wrong about this), Tucker seems to take the Rothbardian line, while Wenzel thinks that a private property society could “design” rules governing domains and that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the owners of ronpaul.com are “misleading” people.
    Regardless of who you choose, this needs to be discussed. (In my humble opinion)

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/the-battle-over-ronpaulcom.html

    https://www.facebook.com/nskinsella (Post: “Wow. Paul’s claim is based, in part, on trademark law.”)

    I gleaned Rockwell and Tucker’s positions based upon comments on Kinsella’s FB page.

  • http://twitter.com/MALiberty1985 MALiberty1985

    I think it would be interesting to introduce some liberty-minded young people running for office. Leah Cole in Peabody MA is running for State Congress. She is being promoted by Campaign for Liberty, so I would be interested in hearing he take on a few things. Kind of like a coming-out party. I am not affiliated with her and can’t even vote in the election – but I would be interested in hearing what she is all about.

  • Steve

    Walid Shoebat:Christian convert from Islam who demonstrates a Muslim AntiChrist. OR Sheikh Imran Hosein who views Islamic eschatology in a unique way that will inform Christians of what to look out for (a double bluff).

  • Randy R

    Have you heard of Orrin Woodward? He’s a very successful business man, best selling author, and ranked the #11 leadership expert in the world. He’s also a huge defender of freedom and of the Austrian school.

  • Lawrence

    James Rickards, author of Currency Wars

Find me on Google