John Medaille wrote:  
  
> I certainly agree that Mises rejected   
> equilibrium  
  
although he used a model of equilibrium in his concept  
of the "evenly rotating economy" where there is no  
change.  The real-world economy moves towards the  
evenly rotating economy, but as conditions always  
change, it is a moving and uncertain target.  
  
>... if equilibrium   
> (and hence equity) is not possible even in   
> principle  
  
It is not clear how "equity" is linked to equilibrium.  
  
> what rationale remains for the system?  
  
Do you mean a moral rationale?  
  
> the basic assumptions of   
> neoclassicism, namely the self-interest   
> maximizing, autonomous individual.  
  
"Neoclassicism" as in the predominant models, where  
narrow self-interest is a premise for the purpose of  
the model, or in its vision of reality where sympathy  
for others (in the Smithian sense, i.e. Moral  
Sentiments) is recognized as also a motivation?  
  
"Autonomous" means only that an individual thinks and  
feels as an independent being, not that he is socially  
or economically autonomous.  
  
> Now, the   
> existence of such an individual is doubtful  
  
in what sense?  
  
> and   
> cannot be confirmed from psychology, from   
> anthropology, or from introspection.  
  
Well, I introspect that my thinking and feeling goes  
on only in my mind, and not shared by mutual telepathy  
with other minds.  Is that wrong?  
  
> Hence it   
> must be, logically, a pure a priori without any   
> empirical foundation.  
  
Can we not empirically verify individual thought and  
feeling?  
  
> He had the courage to treat them   
> as a priori  
  
It is a priori to any specific economic history, but  
not a priori to empirical observation, since the  
proposition can only come from induction from reality.  
  
> I do believe that Mises is absolutely right about   
> capitalist equilibrium; the system cannot (and   
> certainly has not) delivered what it promises.  
  
How can an economic system "promise" anything?  
Only individual persons can promise.  
  
>  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.  
  
In my judgment, equity is orthogonal to equilibrium.  
Equity is a moral concept, and any meaningful  
judgments about the equity of distribution presumes an  
ethic that is universal to humanity, thus independent  
of culture, thus eternal and unchanging.  
This universal ethic applies to economic dyanamics as  
well as to equilibrium concepts.    
  
> Neoclassicism therefore   
> promises what it cannot deliver  
  
Where does this promise come from?  
Who makes it?  What is the ontology?  
  
Fred Foldvary