[nickff]

This is written in the same convoluted style as a New York Review of Books literature review; it's confusing and seems to be more about proving the author's intelligence than making a point. When the article (finally) comes to the point, the author overstates its significance. He says that Romer was wrong, but then admits Romer was mostly correct, with a few addenda which Romer may have thought too obvious to bother with.

[pksebben]

having read the (yes, quite long) whole article, I don't see where the author asserts that Romer was "mostly correct". "Mostly cohesive but critically flawed" would be a more accurate description of the author's conclusion.

[mbrodersen]

I honestly think writing this way demonstrates a lack of intelligence. Clarity of writing demonstrates a clarity of thought. Muddy writing demonstrates a muddy mind.