Krugman has noted it clearly and more. That he uses slightly different words (though not particularly weaker ones) and thus you won't find your quote verbatim does not detract from the meaning of his statements on his blog. I understand that he is more restricted in his column by NYT policy, although it is hardly conciliatory.

Beyond that, does Mankiw publish much these days? Why would Wren-Lewis be the reviewer necessarily on the odd occasions that he does?
And would this be the appropriate course of action -ie judging the author, not the paper? Can a paid hack not also stumble upon a genuine result on occasion, and if the model and calculations are documented, can they not be judged per se?

Of course, it would raise my skepticism up quite a few notches.

By the way, I do believe that Wren-Lewis is part of the problem, but mostly for his staunch, almost religious, defense of microfoundations (at least in the way it was pursued -why not look for the roots of macro behaviour, but demanding that they be derived from things that we know are imaginary, namely intertemporal utility maximisation, is a dead-end).


Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi