• "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

The Real Significance of the Murphy-Krugman Debate?

Chris writes:

I just wanted to make one little point which I think that Bob Murphy is not exploiting enough, namely the fact that his challenge to debate Krugman is not merely one ivory tower [figure] asking to duel another for sport. It’s more like the fact that Krugman, in being the de-facto spokesperson for the prevalent economic ‘philosophy,’ under which we are all suffering, actually owes us all an explanation for the manifestly miserable results and very dangerous further risks which this philosophy is foistering.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Yup

    Incorrect. Krugman has consistently written on his blog and in articles that he did not endorse policy decisions over the past few years. Granted, his disagreements were a matter of scale – advising for much greater stimulus – but the above point would be easily dodged by him and he would be able to historically back this up via his writings.

  • Occam’s Banana

    Should “foistering” be “fostering”?
    Is “foistering” a word?
    If it isn’t, it should be!

  • Chris

    yes, correct, I misspelled the word. mea culpa

  • Chris

    Yes of couse, he is the cheerleader for the system urging more in order to make Bernake look like a moderate by comparison. Though the last Bernake announcement ought to have Krugman scrambling to outflank him again (“to infinity and beyond !”). My point is only that through Krugman’s ideological kinship to Bernake and the entire policies which they both support, the Nobel prized and NYT trumpeting Mr. Krugman is the government’s promo man here on earth, and as such, Bob Murphy can definitely appeal to him to scrutinize the risks which these policies are promoting.

  • http://twitter.com/jontycampbell Jonty H. Campbell

    Krugman features in this programme: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01n2rpx/Masters_of_Money_Hayek
    and what an embarrassment he is, wheeling out his usual canards, straw men and irrelevant red herrings. I’ve no nobel prize and a beginner in economic principles, but even I could defeat him in argument because all his arguments are usually heavy on politics and light on economics. Everyone else in the documentary with the exception of Alastair Darling (Socialist politician) disagrees with him.

  • Chris

    might have gotten that word from Daffy Duck

Find me on Google