OK, I am going to make one more post- sorry for this  
Bruce, but this WILL be my last one.   
  
   
> But he doesn't deal with it; he merely asserts   
> that his method can, but he doesn't attempt to   
> account for the fact that individual attitudes   
> are already socially formed before anyone acts.   
  
That is, socially formed by the interaction of  
individuals in past time periods. Mises does deal with  
these things, for instance with his regression theorem  
on money (which actually applies to more than money).  
Mises did admit to there being some ultimate givens,  
which are assumed not explained. But the ultimate  
givens in Mises involve things like psychology, the  
existence of god, and other things that baffle human  
reason, or at least are beyond economics. Mises does  
trace the origin of money back to individual action-  
interaction that is, and this reasoning applies to all  
market institutions. This addresses the chicken and  
egg remarks below.   
  
> The social plays no  part in his axioms of   
> action. What you have in the relationship between   
> the individual and society is a chicken-and-egg   
> problem, and such problems are never solved by   
> asserting either chicken OR egg; they can only be   
> resolved by finding a way to assert BOTH chicken   
> AND egg. By asserting the chicken (the   
> individual), Mises assumes that the egg (a social   
> product) will take care of itself. It won't.   
> Mises pays lip service to the social, but his   
> solution is in no way different from those who  
> don't, from pure individualists.  
  
Well this simply is not true. Mises does not assume  
that social products care for themselves, but rather  
that individual action does. I think you need to  
re-read Mises, or look at Hayek's non sequitur of the  
dependence effect.   
  
> >Please explain exactly how exactly  
> >Misesean economics fails.  
>   
> Isn't the prior question, "show a case in which   
> Misesean economics has succeeded"?  
  
Misesean economics succeeded in predicting that 20th  
century socialists states would mismanage capital  
investment on a massive scale (see the paper I sent  
you). Mises was right on target in the interwar debate  
over socialism- and the rest of the profession at that  
time said he was wrong. Mises was right and his  
neocolassical opponents were wrong. Mises derived this  
conclusion by sticking to Menger and ignoring the  
Walrasian paradigm.   
  
I don't think this discussion is likely going anywhere  
with additional posts. Lets bag this discussion.   
  
DW MacKenzie