Steven Kates, in praise of his recent book, writes that it is:

"the most relentlessly anti-Keynesian
book written in the past forty years.”

It is more helpful to know what something is PRO than ANTI, so please give us a hint of that. Keynes was a Protean figure, so which image of him are you anti?

He goes on:

"Moreover, if you would like to
have an economics text that explains the classical theory of the cycle
– the best alternative I know to Keynesian theory – my book does
that as well, and I think in this regard, it may be the first book to do
so in over three-quarters of a century." 

Good, please define "the classical theory of the cycle", and what book written over 75 years ago do you refer to?  I'd like to study it.

He continues:

"To my knowledge, there is no
other book like it, although I truly do wish the market was flooded by
hundreds of alternative titles along the same lines."

There may be one, that is my After the Crash, 2009, Wiley-Blackwell, where I find a lot of merit in views of Turgot, Smith, Ricardo, Mill, and Wicksell. But since I am not sure what Steve Kates means, I am equally unsure of whether he'll find what he seeks in my work. Basically I favor speeding the turnover of capital, something Austrians once favored too, but write little of any more.

Mason Gaffney