At least, a substantial majority of them do. I wonder whether these Keynesians will become a bit curious once their prognosis is again proven wrong. That is, curious about the theories that those who saw this mess coming subscribe to.
Robert Murphy addresses Australian economist John Quiggin's recent critique of the Austrian theory of the business cycle on the Mises Daily blog, explaining the problems with the objections coming from Quiggin, who writes:
To sum up, although the Austrian School was at the forefront of business cycle theory in the 1920s, it hasn’t developed in any positive way since then.
Several days ago I reposted one of Tom Woods's articles from LewRockwell.com and mentioned that I rather wished he would address older financial crises like the various Panics of the 1800s (mainly because I never know what to say about them when people with whom I'm attempting to argue economics bring them up). As I should have known, he has already done just that, and very obligingly left a comment on my post linking to this video from January:
Social Networks for YAL