As I said before, peer review means nothing to me, because peer review replicates error just as much as it replicates truth. In general, a piece of writing can

As I said before, peer review means nothing to me, because peer review replicates error just as much as it replicates truth. In general, a piece of writing can contain facts (ex. the stock market crashed in 2009), interpretations of facts (ex. President x's policies reduced unemployment), and oughts (ex. leisure is inherently good). The line between the three can often be blurry. Henderson's piece contains facts, interpretations, and oughts. Most academic papers contain facts, interpretations, and oughts. Denigrating something as merely an "opinion" piece is simply a cheap and uninformative way of saying that you disagree with someone's interpretation of the facts. and government research funding doesn't dictate political ideology Ha! Future economists are selected by present economists based on their interpretation of the facts. Present economists were selected by past economists. The grant system was originally setup by the FDR administration and Vannevar Bush, who all believed in a powerful state managed by technocratic experts. So just as the Liberty Fund tries replicates libertarian interpretations of the facts, academic system tends to replicate the statist interpretations of the facts that the founders of the system believed in. And you still didn't answer my original question. How many peer reviewed economics papers have you read through and carefully thought about? Do you have a favorite paper or two?