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