In her review of Warsh, Polly Cleveland wrote:  
>  
>  
> "I confess to skepticism. I find no contradiction in Adam Smith. I   
> have difficulty with modern macroeconomics, which disregards factor   
> proportions and prices, as well as distribution. I cannot swallow   
> growth theory--especially the aggregate production function into which   
> Romer incorporates knowledge acquisition. Warsh's heroes battle for   
> honor and glory--the admiration of colleagues, publications in top   
> journals, prestigious professorships, the Clark Medal, the Nobel   
> Prize. And they experience the sheer joy of solving puzzles. But, has   
> their new mathematical arsenal enabled them to capture a better   
> understanding of the economy, as Warsh assumes?"  
  
There is something rather unseemly, and professionally dishonorable, in   
reviewing a book which surveys work which the reviewer abhors, and which   
review then concludes that the author of the book is off-base.  
  
If the reviewer wishes to argue with say Romer, by all means let her do   
so directly, but archly to dismiss a writer-historian's narrative in   
which Romer is one protagonist is too easy a course, and patronizing of   
Warsh to boot. I would have been interested in an HES review of Warsh's   
book, not this wink-wink assault on its subject matter which   
self-importantly appears to be a story of what Cleveland can and cannot   
swallow.  
  
E. Roy Weintraub