The person quoting the review thinks it is a great refutation of Rothbard; I’d love to take it apart and I know there are a lot of economists here who might have something to say.
The first problem is that he misunderstands the Austrian emphasis on a priori ratiocination. Rothbard doesn’t avoid examples of the consequences of malinvestment; he just doesn’t use them to justify the logic of the argument.
The reviewer sounds like a classic case of econ professor - move with the herd, get published with the herd, everything’s fine. Don’t actually produce anything meaningful or genuinely controversial or - Heaven forfend - readable and understandable to anyone outside academia.