Doug Mackenzie wrote:  
>Modern orthodoxy is Walrasian and Mises, as a true  
>evolutionary thinker, was absolutely opposed to such  
>static equilibrium theorizing.  
  
  
I certainly agree that Mises rejected   
equilibrium, and many other particular doctrines   
as well. Of course, one can ask, if equilibrium   
(and hence equity) is not possible even in   
principle, than what rationale remains for the   
system? But laying that question aside, the   
reason for regarding Mises as the purest form of   
neoclassicism involves the basic assumptions of   
neoclassicism, namely the self-interest   
maximizing, autonomous individual. Now, the   
existence of such an individual is doubtful, and   
cannot be confirmed from psychology, from   
anthropology, or from introspection. Hence it   
must be, logically, a pure a priori without any   
empirical foundation. While this is implicit in   
all of neoclassicism, it is explicit in Mises,   
and therein lies both Mises's greatness and his   
greatest error. He had the courage to treat them   
as a priori and to reject the fiction that they   
are based on empirical data. That is a courageous   
act and deserves to be recognized as such.  
  
I do believe that Mises is absolutely right about   
capitalist equilibrium; the system cannot (and   
certainly has not) delivered what it promises. In   
order to reach any semblance of equilibrium,   
distributional issues will have to be taken into   
account, and distribution not merely of incomes   
but of wealth-producing assets, such as land,   
tools and education. Neoclassicism therefore   
promises what it cannot deliver, and the   
steroidal neoclassicism of Mises honestly   
discards the promise. And while I disagree with   
the system, I must admire the honesty.  
  
  
John C. Medaille