Free exchange probably began when Man began.  
  
People have always exchanged goods and trade is part of the productive  
process. So, if one wishes to view economic Man, it must begin with his  
predilection to exchange goods to improve his condition.  
  
I am not a Misean (shades of Nixon) but it seems to me that he adopted the  
proper path to understanding.  
  
Any interference with this natural propensity to exchange is political  
and/or coercive. So, economic discussion of tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping  
duties, and the rest, might be considered political rather than economic  
science.  
  
Of course economists can analyze the consequences of interference, but  
surely that's a technical job, using skills to produce a result - not really  
part of economic science, except as a footnote.  
  
It's a pity we find ourselves in 'schools' when it is unlikely that any  
particular brand of economics has completely surrounded the truth. Out of  
the 19th century came two insights that modern economists - particularly  
Miseans - might note.  
  
First, Misean value theory seems to float in air. Perhaps it should be drawn  
back to earth. Marx's labor theory of value has been properly beaten into  
the ground. Yet, there is a sensible 'labor theory of value' which ties  
value to labor and should be looked at.  
  
Second, is the belief that the land market is price mechanism controlled and  
should mixed in with commodity markets.  
  
Not really true.  
  
I am enjoying the Misean controversy. I hope the moderator allows it to  
continue.  
  
Harry Pollard