• "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

Krugman Wants to Know

Where the Austrians stand on money-market mutual funds. Joe Salerno, who helped formulate the Austrian True Money Supply (TMS) measure, talks about them in an interview from not long ago. An excerpt:

I hold a fairly conventional theoretical definition of money as the general medium of exchange, meaning the good in the economy which is routinely and universally accepted in exchange for all other goods and services. Less orthodox is my view of what things constitute the money supply in our current system of central bank-monopolized fiat money. I follow Rothbard’s rule that any item that is either itself money or is redeemable at par on demand for money should be included as a component of the money supply….

In contrast to savings accounts, shares in money market mutual funds (MMMFs) are excluded from TMS because they are not redeemable at par. They are not federally insured and are not claims to a fixed quantity of currency. Rather they are titles to shares of a managed portfolio of highly liquid, short-term securities. The value of these shares, typically maintained at $1.00 per share, could decline below $1.00 (called “breaking the buck”) depending on the performance of the fund’s portfolio. Thus the equity share owner (not depositor) in the fund bears the burden of interest rate and default risk. By the way, in fall 2008, during the financial crisis, the U.S. Treasury established a temporary program to guarantee MMMF shares giving them the character of bank demand deposits, but this program expired in 2009, so we can continue to comfortably omit them from the money supply.

And check out Joe’s book Money: Sound and Unsound.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • George

    Just out out curiosity where does Krugman ask this (if published). Wonder what the motive of the question is

  • http://www.facebook.com/srinivas.libertarian Anarcho Libertarian
  • http://www.facebook.com/srinivas.libertarian Anarcho Libertarian

    The comments to Krugman’s blog post are interesting. Seems like the Austro-Libertarians are growing in number! This must worry people like Krugman.

  • Robert Roddis

    In response, some of the imaginary non-existent anti-Rothbard cult have come out in force.

    http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=2732

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/ron-paul-on-money-market-funds/?comments#permid=28

  • Robert Roddis

    In response to
    Krugman, more from the non-existent and imaginary anti-Rothbard cult:

    [Selgin]: So, to be clear, (1) I am perfectly convinced
    that banks in a free system will move toward very small fractional
    reserves, MEANING PERHAPS 1 PERCENT OR EVEN LESS [emphasis added]; (2) the
    empirical evidence overwhelmingly supports my position, while overwhelmingly
    refuting Rothbard’s. The tendency of Rothbardians to repeat their
    “theory” or ‘prediction” or whatever they wish to call it, to
    the effect that FR banks “would” tend to move toward 100-percent
    reserves, despite all manner of past evidence contradicting the claim (and as
    if the possibility of free banking were merely hypothetical rather than
    something already reasonably approximated in the past) is one reason why I find
    their position, not merely incorrect, but utterly inconsistent with the most
    elementary principles of reason.

    http://www.freebanking.org/2011/06/02/rothbards-vigilantes/#comment-638

    [Roddis]:
    “Wasn’t the Great Depression caused by FRB in a non-competitive
    environment?”

    [Selgin]: Yes, in
    the same sense in which obesity is caused by food in a gluttonous environment.

    http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=2732#comment-653596131

    BUT

    [SELGIN] And
    Jonathan, it was the Fed that supplied the fuel for the expansion of the late
    20s. The rate of expansion was determined solely by it. Fractional reserves are
    a complete red herring here.

    http://www.economicthought.net/blog/?p=2732#comment-653603888