With a long update.
He continues to misunderstand the argument when he writes things like this: " If Morici – as I gather interpreted by Daniel – is correct, folks in places such as St. Louis and Phoenix should be disappointed, at least as far as their material standard of living goes, that they were denied Sandy’s munificence."
The idea is offensive, and he owes Morici an apology for even suggesting it - to say nothing of promoting that on a well read blog.
There was a brief comical interlude when the economics professor called it "fancying up the discussion" simply to distinguish between stocks and flows.
And then (as forecast) he brought in Krugman and accused him of celebrating the "benefits of terrorist attacks".
You know why I continue to point out the problems with Cafe Hayek? Because they're bullies. And I've gotten lots of emails thanking me for it, including from a former student of Don's who agrees he's a bully. The man has a book whose title accuses people who disagree with him of being "half-wits" and "hypocrites". As long as people seem relatively interested in the critique I'll keep pointing it out.
A lot of their ammo gets pointed at Keynesianism, and I also have an interest in responding to that (the heyday of that was a couple years ago) because of personal interests. But certainly if you accuse good people of "celebrating" this stuff, I'm going to say something. It's not well reasoned, and it's simply not nice.
Monday Smackdown: New York Times Edition
7 hours ago