I sincerely apologize to Joe Salerno for misrepresenting his views on economics in a commentary on this blog. It was not my intent to misrepresent Joe's views, nor to even pass a normative judgement in the offending passage. Instead, I was trying to make a very clear "positive" distinction between our relative positions with respect to the economics profession. Instead, I botched the sentence and this botching of the English language has been pointed out to me so I need to correct any misunderstanding.
The offending passage reads: "Read the entire post if you care to --- there is an explicit rejection of the "profession" by Rothbard/Hoppe/Salerno as corrupting and intellectually bankrupt. They are explicitly trying to create an alternative culture of economic learning. Salerno has actually written against viewing economics as a vocation."
As I think the context of the passage makes it clear that I was arguing that Salerno is focused on cultivating an alternative culture of economic learning to the "economics profession", and in contrast my focus is myopically on that "profession". But my last sentence is just blatantly false. Salerno has a very well carved out position on this as evidence from his essay, "Economics: Vocation or Profession." And, to be clear to all readers, his position is much closer to Mises's position than mine. I just disagree with the assessment that working within the profession and focusing on advancement within the profession is at odds with truth seeking and advancing sound economics.
I apologize for any confusion I might have caused with this botched up sentence, and I very sincerely apologize to Joe Salerno for misrepresenting his position.