It takes a lot of balls for a Keynesian to defend Hoover in an article.
It also takes a lot of balls for anyone to defend Hoover in an Austrian journal.
And while the Review of Austrian Economics is primarily staffed by softies in Fairfax, Virginia who suffer a Keynesian every once in a while, it takes testicular fortitude of the highest order for a Keynesian to try to publish in an outlet run by those crazy Alabaman Austrians.
And yet I, your host at F&OST, have tackled all three of these feats in the most recent issue of the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.
UPDATE: And Vedder and Gallaway have a response too. I'm sure one of them was one of my referees. I plan on writing a reply. I may post my response to the referee report here if anyone's interested in that (I don't think there's any privacy concerns associated with my response).
UPDATE 2: I'm really starting to wonder if V&G read either my article or Rose's article when they wrote theirs. Perhaps they did but with a predetermined view of what it was I was arguing. Please - don't take what they say about the Rose (2010) article to heart, especially. It's a great piece and it seems like they only read through the first of several models. Rose (2010) addresses the points they claim he doesn't address.
Why Study Economics Philosophically?
7 hours ago