I’m all in favor of authors’ reviewing their reviewers if they have worthwhile points to make. Pathetic whining is another thing. So the Times and the Post are coming at Easterbrook from different directions? And we are supposed to draw from this what conclusion? Easterbrook doesn’t even seem to have read the reviews carefully. He complains that the Washington Post reviewer faulted him for not addressing the possibility that a higher minimum wage would cause unemployment, when he did so address it. But the actual complaint was that Easterbrook’s assurances that unemployment would not rise are implausible. More here.