Other Schools of Thought

The New York Times trumpets a new theory of economics (actually a very old one) that yields predictably interventionist conclusions. Tibor Machan responds.

Lincoln’s main objective was protectionism for Northern manufacturers and the creation of a massive spoils system, writes Thomas DiLorenzo

The famed economist seems never to have met a government intervention he can't justify or a tax cut he can't attack, writes Christopher Westley.

Paul Krugman rails against cutting taxes, but his own quack solution is more of what brought about the downturn in the first place.

Woodward reports that Greenspan himself was willing, on occasion, to do things that weren't strictly legal.

Are economic downturns caused by falling demand? No, this is only a symptom of a structural problem, says Frank Shostak.

The latest outrage from the Profession that Gave Us John Maynard Keynes, John Kenneth Galbraith, and Paul Samuelson is in the form of a story in The Economist.

The argument that democracy is better than revolution because it provides for "peaceful change" doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny, writes Murray Rothbard in this unpublished piece (1959)

Economists like them, and they serve some useful purposes. But Frank Shostak reminds us that they can't predict the future.

Why is it always socialist academics from the USA who fill the posts of visiting professors in European universities? William Anderson explains.