• "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

Student Needs Advice!

A reader writes:

I am a senior at the University of [X]. I am studying political science, and I am enrolled in a class titled “Money and Politics.” One of our assignments is to write a 3-5 page paper on a subject related to the class. The caveat: our professor tells us to stop worshiping at the “altar of the market,” calls Bernanke and Krugman smart and accurate economists, and is a statist plain and simple. I want to write about how the Fed perpetuated the housing bubble in the 2000′s with damning evidence that Krugman and Bernanke are both part of the problem. Do you think I should potentially sacrifice my grade by staying true to my convictions in this paper, or should I suck up my pride and try to please my professor by writing a paper that would agree with his ideas?

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • http://twitter.com/AdamBlacksburg Anti State

    This a simple choice. It might be difficult, but it’s simple really.

  • David

    A grade is not worth going against your convictions. I too have returned to college and am majoring in History/American Government, and I have had my fair share of standing alone in the classroom for what I believe to be right. It gets easier everytime to the point, I enjoy it. I have caused so many other students to start thinking and questioning what is being taught. In one instance in a matter of minutes, I had the entire class on my side saying that something was unconstitutional. Whereas just a few minutes before I was alone. All it took was about 30 seconds of me quoting the constitution, and they were swayed. The TRUTH will set you FREE. Remember the old saying, stand up for what is right, even if you are the only one standing.

  • Joe E

    As long as your work is backed up with facts, from credible sources, like noted economists, state your views. I know I have before and still passed with an A.

  • D

    Like my grandma use to say, “tell the truth and shame the devil.”

  • http://twitter.com/ManishMGupte Manish Gupte, PhD

    Who created the “fiscal cliff” that “economists warned”? who manufactured the “se_ quest er”? Who is creating all sorts of negativity about the economic outlook? When I taught principles of Macroeconomics I left such topics open and did not enforce a political ideology. It is best to avoid such questions for grades.

  • http://twitter.com/ManishMGupte Manish Gupte, PhD

    One is cite other economists, the other is look at data. St. Louis FED, Census, BLS, etc have datasets. Plot them. See for yourself. Papers can be downloaded from the Internet. Cite the work. The work can be checked by others, economists come and go..

  • http://twitter.com/ManishMGupte Manish Gupte, PhD

    Who wrote papers on benefits of outsourcing to the USA?

  • josh

    pick a another topic, follow your professor’s instructions.

  • Sabrina Liukin

    Unlike a math or physics class where there is usually one right answer to a problem, a political science class is somewhat more opinionated and subjective. I would encourage you to write whatever you want to write. As long as the paper is WELL WRITTEN with good sources, I wouldn’t worry too much about your professors biases. If your professor does give you a hard time over the content of what you write and if you really feel that your grade is a reflection of his biases, I would meet with the him first and if you still have an issue, I would go to the department head and explain the situation. Be as respectful as possible and resolute in your position regarding your grades. If you’re a good student and they see that you take your academics seriously, your professors will usually give you the benefit of the doubt even if they disagree with you.

    I once spent 45 mins with a professor discussing why I should be allowed to take a daily 3pt attendance bell ringer quiz for the full 3 points and not only 2 points. He claimed that you had to be in class to be eligible for the full 3 possible points and that it encouraged attendance. I had a university excuse and stated that it’s university policy for me to be allowed to make up the quiz for full credit…. Anyways he ended up giving me the quiz right then and there and I only got two points out of 3 b/c I missed the problem. My professor then looked at my record and sent me an email saying that he was impressed that I took my academics so seriously and told me that I could write a 2 page paper on someone who was influential in the field of electrical engineering and he would give me back the point I missed on the quiz.

    And you better believe that I wrote that damn paper that night and got my point!!!

    Just wanted to tell that story.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jaredmark Jared Mark

    If you even need to ask this, you are a man of low character.

  • Sabrina Liukin

    If the topic of the paper is left up to you, write about whatever you want. As long as your paper is well written with good sources you should be fine.

  • http://www.TomWoods.com Tom Woods

    That is uncalled for.

  • Mike Gardner

    Use reliable sources and prove your points. He may be biased, but if he has any professional character at all, he will grade you based on how well articulated your points are, not if he agrees or not. If he gives you a bad grade, report him. Good luck, and remember, it’s always worth speaking up for what you believe; don’t worry about the grade. End the Fed!

  • http://www.facebook.com/joshua.bloomquist Joshua Bloomquist

    If the professor alines with the political left, probably best avoid writing anything that gives the impression that you’re alined with the right, but rather a more objective view.
    There might be some middle ground with a topic that relates to and allows you to talk some about the Fed’s involvement in the housing bubble, but isn’t strictly about that.
    If you go all in with the Fed route, it might have to be excellent. Put in the effort though by turning in a well-written and accurate paper that explains things clearly and logically, and the only thing you’ll have to worry about is making it TOO good. If he starts to wake up to the truth, he could get scared and flunk ya! (not really I hope)

  • http://twitter.com/evokelabs Adrian Pikios

    You are there to get the piece of paper, not to show your principles. To get the piece of paper, you have to play the game. So make it easier on yourself; do what they want, appeal to their bias, and then get out. Once you are out with your piece of paper, you can do whatever you want.

  • http://twitter.com/brianbonner Brian Bonner

    I can’t tell you what you should do that is up to you. Besides, I am uncooperative and would likely get you into trouble!

  • Dan

    I figure that since I only live once I’m going to spend it doing what makes me happy, and nothing makes me happier than blowing up statist arguments.

  • Anonymous

    Ultimately it depends upon what is more important to you. But keep in mind that what you think is the right answer now may not be the right answer in afterthought. That’s just how life goes, you ultimately are the only one making the choice in a specific moment, and the only thing that tells us whether or not that was the right choice is the passage of time.

    I say that if you can still get a passing grade in the class and it won’t hurt your average too much, go for it; if taking a principled stand is what is most important to you. I’d also take into consideration how your schooling is being funded, there’s a certain obligation there with regard to passing. But that’s just my opinion. Keep in mind that my college experience had nothing to do with scholarly pursuits, nor was it completed.

  • Ryan

    Having taught political science for years and knowing the faculty that exists out here, I can say without a doubt that writing a good paper with good sources will not save you. Many faculty members are just arrogant know-it-alls who have no respect for their students, and see themselves as the founts of infallible knowledge. I’m apparently in the minority here, but I view getting a degree (as opposed to an education which you’re obviously not getting at this university anyway) as simply a matter of doing what it takes to get the degree. Why sacrifice your future in some vain attempt to teach this guy anything? It won’t work. You could write the equivalent of Human Action and this this guy may still give you an F with impunity. I don’t see how integrity has anything to do with it. Does writing a memo at work with which you don’t agree on every point make you a sell-out? No. It’s just something you did for your employer. No one but you and the prof will read this paper or care anything about it. Get your grade and class credit and get on with your life, so you can say things that matter to people who matter, and leave this faculty member to his sad, pathetic, petty existence.

  • Joseph

    Perhaps write from the point of view of rational self-interest. if your intent in pursuing a college degree is to start a career in field X, state your cynicism of the bush and obama economic policies vis a vis the tenures of greenspan and bernanke and how you feel the prospects of earning a living wage in field X will be overshadowed by a gargantuan student debt tantamount to indentured servitude.

  • Jake

    I had many classes where the professor was clearly biased to the left. However, I had one class that was particularly bad. In the beginning, my classmates thought I was nuts, but I continually made good arguments that my professor could not refute and several other students changed their minds and started agreeing with me. I’m sure it drove her crazy having a student challenge her, but in the end she was forced to give me an A (I also knew the head of the department was more fair-minded so I had a means of recourse). It was far more work for me because I always had to make sure my arguments were solid and well supported, but it forced me to challenge myself and I learned a lot from the class. If I had just gone along with the professor then the class would have been a waste of time rather than the catalyst for a great leaning experience that it was. The way I see it, your choice should be about what you want from the class more–a grade or an education. I personally value the education more because my job has nothing to do with the degrees I got, but you may be in a different situation.

  • David

    I guess with me, character is more important than grades. I have to look at myself in the mirror every morning, and if because I put morals above everything else, so far I am happy with what I see. If you must write about an economist that you do not agree with, then write it to show their faults somehow. Use what the professor likes against them. These are just my thoughts because I do not take any crap off of anybody (not saying that’s right all the time). However that is how I am wired. I figured if I did not take any crap off of people when I was deployed overseas, I sure as heck am not going to take any crap off of any know it all liberals. I suppose if you are that concerned with your grade, then just pick an entirely different topic, one that will not be so controversial.

  • Gregory

    Change your major.

  • Gregory

    Hastily written, sorry you’re a senior – good luck

  • Raoul

    Use Krugman and Bernanke’s own false predictions against them. Don’t come out as explicitly pro-market. Just point out that the case for government intervention in the money and banking isn’t clear, and that more work needs to be done. Say that more work needs to be done figuring out what the government’s role is in preventing recessions. In other words, play dumb. But play the part honestly, so that if you were trying to follow Krugman and Bernanke’s arguments, you would be finding all kinds of problems, failed predictions, and contradictions, but without pointing to how the government should stay out of money and banking. Just pretend that you haven’t looked into that side, but that your search for Krugman and Bernanke’s evidence for the need to regulate markets proved unsatisfactory pending further research.

    In this recent article, Krugman is shown to explicitly call for and supported a housing bubble as a way of dealing with the previous recession.

    http://www.mises.org/daily/6372/Krugmans-Call-for-a-Housing-Bubble

    In this, Krugman is shown to use statistics that don’t support his case for more regulation, and that Krugman admits that the worst recessions have been after the creation of the Fed, with recessions after the Fed being, on average, more than twice as bad as recessions before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

    http://mises.org/daily/6055/Charting-Fun-with-Krugman

    Or this video, in which Bernanke gives failed predictions for years about how housing is sound and there won’t be a housing downturn when he’s explicitly asked if there will be one.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw

  • Frank M

    Good story. I have one too. Mine may be somewhat harder to believe but I swear it is true. If nothing else, I think you’ll find it entertaining and it gives credence to why it really depends on whether the professor’s ego can handle it when somebody disagrees.

    Back in college, the first history course I took was very popular with one particular professor who was nicknamed “A.B.” The reason for this label was that he gave nearly every student an “A” or a “B.” Well, needless to say, ol’ A.B.’s classes filled up early because students were interested in high grades without having to work terribly hard. I knew about this easy grading when I signed up, but what I didn’t know until I saw the man in person was that he must have thought he was Karl Marx, or at the very least, idolized him. He wore overalls, work boots, and the little cap each day. He had wild white hair and a matching beard. I’m not kidding. The one time I visited his office, I saw a poster of Marx on the back of his door, facing his desk. It might as well have been a mirror.

    Well, yeah, as you’ve already guessed, A.B. was somewhat slanted in his presentation of history. But surprisingly, he wasn’t as radical as some of the leftist teachers I had in high school. I occassionally raised my hand with some objections, and he would usually just say to the class something like, “Well, what do you think of that?” Nobody would say anything, and he’d go back to lecturing.

    As the mid-term approached, he announced a novelty; you could take his written mid-term exam, write a paper on any topic we covered, or give an oral presentation. Then he chuckled about how nobody ever took the oral option. Why would they when it was easy enough to get a good grade? I decided I’d be the first. In this way, I could attempt to reach through to the people who were taking in the socialist dogma without hearing much of anything else.

    When the day arrived, I went right for the heart of the matter. I drew a chart on the board that placed all the brands of big government, (communism, fascism, socialism, monachy, etc.) on the same side and placed “anarchy” on the other. I then explained that we have it all wrong, worrying about “left wing vs. right wing,” when limited government was the goal of the Founding Fathers and the reason America flourished. Then I drew “democracy within a republic” way over about an inch or two before anarchy. The students sat there just like they did when the professor lectured, not looking overly interested, just waiting it out to get their good grade. However, A.B. flipped over my lecture. He told me it was a great presentation and gave me an “A.” Then, as the bell was ringing, he pulled me aside and thanked me for doing it, and said he was happy to have me in his class because people should hear, “the other side.”

    My next history course was with another lefty professor, but one with a much worse disposition. He was losing his hair and had some whiskers on his chin. It took me a little while, but then it dawned on me that he reminded of Vladimir Lenin. I don’t know if he was trying to look like Lenin, as A.B. was trying to look like Marx, but in any case, that’s who he reminded me of. Oh, and get this. He had written a book about what a “paradise” North Korea was. Paradise! North Korea!

    But early on, somebody who’d recognized me from A.B.’s class, warned me not to say anything in this professor’s class. “The word is he doesn’t like when people disagree with him and he’ll give you a bad grade if you do.”

    With that in mind, I kept my mouth shut and listened to his commie propaganda. Yes, this character was as radical leftist as they come. The government was only thing that could save mankind. Oh, this was frustrating!

    Then something unexpected happened. One day, while he was extolling the virtues of government social programs and emphatically guaranteeing us that statistics show how very few people cheat on these necessary and wonderful plans, he suddenly stopped lecturing and started challenging us, essentially harassing us, to give some input that might conflict with his ideas on the subject.

    “You all just sit there like sheep. Doesn’t anybody disagree with anything I say? There must be somebody in this class who questions some of this? Anybody? I’d like to hear from somebody so I know some of you are thinking for yourselves.”

    Now I’m thinking I should break my silence. I mean, after all, this guy is asking us to do it. What kind of jerk would he be if he invited people to voice their opinion and then still gave them a bad grade just for doing so? I raised my hand.

    “Professor, how can statistics show that people don’t cheat on welfare programs when the stats would presumably only show the people who have been caught, not the ones who are getting away with it?”

    He turned red with anger and started hollering at me. “You’re naive! I have a doctorate. Who do you think you are!”
    Good grief! I told him I was from the inner city and I’ve seen what people do. I gave him some examples, including one condemned apartment building (I heard about from a cop) where some 86 welfare checks were going although nobody lived there. He wasn’t having any of it.
    The next time class met, I walked in to a smattering cheers from the other students. One guy said, “That was awesome. You really had him hot under the collar!”
    Then the professor showed up and everybody became “sheep” again. He gave us an essay midterm. I thought I did pretty well; at least a “B” or “B+,” maybe even an “A.”
    The creep gave me a “C-.”

  • Jake

    I say cave. Had a speech teacher who was a hardcore Democrat. Friend of mine gave a speech against Gun Control (One of the best I’ve heard) and he got a C. I did mine about Climate Change and got an A+.

  • guest

    For Krugman, these are good:

    Krugman In ’02: ‘Greenspan Needs To Create A Housing Bubble’
    http://articles.businessinsider.com/2009-06-17/wall_street/30100530_1_housing-bubble-slump-fed

    Running Out of Bubbles
    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/27/opinion/27krugman.html

    And for Bernanke, try this …

    Ben Bernanke was Wrong
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QpD64GUoXw

    … followed by this:

    Peter Schiff Was Right 2006 – 2007 (2nd Edition)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0QN-FYkpw

    And here is a lecture that Peter Schiff gave in rebuttal to a series of lectures by Ben Bernanke regarding the recent housing crash and the Great Depression:

    Peter Schiff – The Fed Unspun: The Other Side of the Story
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdB9I79BQRI

    And here’s another former Federal Reserve guy talking about the housing crash, just for fun:

    Herman Cain vs. Ron Paul On Predicting The Economic Collapse.mp4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tn0EApd5wgw

  • LibertaryAnne

    Almost 6 or 7 years ago, my husband was in a class where they had to debate the justice of affirmative action. My husband was on the “against” side, while another student, with the very liberal professor’s constant help, was on the “pro” side. All the students were told to bring cans of soda with them to class, and as they’d leave, they’d give the soda to the student debator who they agreed with by the end of the period. They took a poll before hand, and the class leaned heavily on the “pro” side. My husband argued that the merits and challenges faced by the individual mattered more than the merits and challenges faced by a group defined by skin color. At the end, the entire class gave him their sodas.

    The prof was livid, and she restructured her course to be pure lecture for the remainder of the term and wouldn’t take questions or comments. She at least had the integrity to give him an A for his work, though.

    I’d stick to my guns, though. If the paper is well researched and supported, then if he tries to fail you on it, you should be able to take it up with the department head or dean.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jaredmark Jared Mark

    Perhaps, but we really need to stop coddling people. This whole question, and the necessity of it, is absurd. There was a time when the answer would be so obvious, the question would never have entered anyone’s head. There was a time when people were actually ashamed to cower and give in to the powers that be all for the sake of “going along to get along”. What happened to the John Wayne mentality? What happened to the ethic of “do what is right, even when no one is looking”?

    And in today’s politically correct day and age, we are no longer allowed to call someone out for being a coward, or for not having character, or for not standing up for what is right… is that it, Mr. Woods?

    It absolutely is a matter of the student’s character. If the teacher grades him lower for disagreement, then that reflects poorly upon the teacher. The grade may create an ILLUSION of what the student is, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not about a single grade on a single class. If this guy is so concerned about that, where he’s even CONSIDERING tossing away his core principles… well, either his core principles are not firmly held, or he is willing to toss away his core principles for expedience sake. Either way, that is a man of low character.

    Of course, you may be saying “well yeah he IS, but that’s not the point… it’s uncalled for to point it out, though.”

    On that, I disagree. I think this world needs more of such honesty. We, as a society, have gotten to the point where no one is allowed to slap anyone else in the face anymore, and look where it’s gotten us.

  • Phil

    Thank you for this comment, sir. I do not have a combative personality and tend to be reserved when stating my opinions to people I do not know. It is a trait of mine that leaves me screaming in my head 9 times out of 10, then looking back and wishing I had done more. I appreciate the feedback, and will work harder to stand up for my beliefs.

    -Student asking the Question

  • Anonymous

    Well I disagree with some comments here. You aren’t going to change the mind of a calcified statist of this order no matter how brilliant your paper. Unless you think you are likely to sway your class with a public reading of the paper, I’d leave it at some subtle sarcasm in the paper, and maybe not even that. He sounds like the punitive petty sort of Paul Krugman type person.

    Your convictions aren’t on trial here, but I’d suggest your common sense may be. You’re paying a lot for that piece of paper, it may as well have a high GPA on it.

    Let the wookie win here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jaredmark Jared Mark

    Honesty and introspection. Very good.

  • Eric Phillips

    We are talking about a political science paper here that will be read by one person who is not going to change his mind. This is not a sworn affidavit. Papers in college are exercises. You come up with a thesis, find supporting evidence, and construct an argument.

    I’ve been assigned papers where we have to use a specific set of sources, which, shockingly don’t include any libertarian or conservative perspectives. I’ve written those papers as assigned. It was good practice in reading and writing.

    I’ve also written for mises.org, LRC, have written an op-ed for a Pittsburgh newspaper, and have gotten letters to the editor published by the Philadelphia Inquirer. These writings were not exercises, of course, and I argued what I believed.

    But alas, I wrote some papers in college that argued for a variety of propositions that I would not swear by. I guess that makes me “a man of low character”?

  • Jeremiah

    Phil, I second Mr. Phillips’ opinion above. This is just an assignment; it’s not a public confession of faith. In fact, you can please your professor *and* make a constructive intellectual exercise of the assignment. Regard the paper as a mere exercise in rhetoric and argumentative logic and take the establishment position without qualm. After all, if one is ambitious to argue with the devil, it helps to learn just what and how the devil argues. And there is no better way to do this than to attain practical mastery of the devil’s own premises, arguments and conclusions.

    To assuage any lingering pangs of conscience, write a thorough refutation of your original paper; you can even publish it on a blog (which are easy enough to come by, if you don’t already have one), making it a public and bona fide statement. If your conscience is quiet — and it really ought to be — write it anyway. The contra paper will serve as the capstone of an edifying little exercise in writing, thinking and formulating arguments.

  • http://www.facebook.com/benhertzbourbon Ben Hertz

    Jeremy R Hammond has a book called “Ron Paul vs. Paul Krugman: Austrian vs. Keynesian economics in the financial crisis”.

    Here’s a 3-minute video of it with quotes from Dr. Paul and Mr. Krugman: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=924tOs-FStU

  • JTG

    Quite a bit can be said by meticulously “proving” positions your professor is likely to uncritically hold.

    Examples: Check kiting is incomparable to FOMC operations, Regulatory capture can be rolled back by further regulation, Government monopolies are good – unlike those in the market, etc.