> I have made my objections to Mises's work clear, and I don't think 
> I have received anything responsive to these points in return.

> I have done extensive reading in Austrian economics ... Nothing I have 
> read persuades me, and much repels me. 

This is a rather strong claim. Having come in late on this discussion, I do not know all the details, but it seems that it has centered on the very broad theme of praexeology. I am not clear on what it is, exactly, that JC Medaille finds so repellent and unpersuasive in AE. Perhaps it would help to list the main contributions of Mises (and Hayek). 


1. The application of marginal utility theory to money (Mises 1912). We can tack on the 'regression theorem' and Austrian cycle theory here. Mises did not win over professional opinion with his full theory of money, but even his critics should recognize his work on money and cycles as a sophisticated intellectual construct. 


2. expanding the domain of economics to human action. Pat is right in pointing out Kirzner's book. Mises did focus on action rather than economizing. While most economists have not understood the differences between action and economizing, this is an important distinction, and the recent comments from JCM seem ungenerous. Mises made a great contribution by breaking artificial barriers to extending economic analysis, even if Robbins and Becker took it in the wrong direction. 


3. Putting equilibrium into perspective. Mises constructed a sound critique of the use of equilibrium models by Neoclssicals. Exclusive focus on competitive or Walrasian equilibrium has led economics down an odd path, and Mises did resist it. Mises and Hayek developed several concepts of equilibrium (final state of rest, plain states of rest, the ERE...) and applied them. Mises and Hayek were able to get past the simplistic notion of competitive equilibrium, and focus on true dynamics- evolution in the sense that Schumpeter wrote about in his Development book. Hayek's 1937 article Economics and KNowledge is a particularly important contribution to understanding equilibrium. Is there something unpersuasive or repellent about the idea that full equilibrium requires an impossible level of knowledge and plan coordination? What is wrong with the idea that the price system works as an imperfect and incomplete (but impressive)communications network? How is this
 repellent?


4. Costs and subjectivity/uncertainty. Aside from the general points about subjectivity and ordinal measurement, we can add in the Calculation Critique of socialism. Mises and Hayek specifically predicted that socialism would lead to bureaucratic rigidity and gross errors in capital investment. The calculation argument falls out of the application of marginal utility theory to money. It is the calculation of monetary profit, not just retrospectively, but also the calculation of expected profit, that guides capital investment in a more rational manner. While a full explanation of the theoretical explanation would take too long to discuss, the record of state socialism, and even social democracy, bears out the Mises/Hayek critique. Bureaucratic rigidity is all too obvious, and there are many examples of excessively large and long lived public projects. I see nothing repellent here, just good analysis. 
 

5. Political Economy. JCM claims to find nothing persuasive in The Road to Serfdom. Is the idea that the worst rise to the top really not persuasive? IF not, why? This is not just a matter of Stalin and Hitler rising to the top of centralized states back then. There are recent examples of socialist acting in less than democratic ways- have H Chavez and R Mugabe shown respect for democratic freedoms in Venezuela and Zimbabwe? There is much more to get into here, but this one point will due, at least for now.  


6. Entrepreneurship exists only in dynamic conditions, because there is no need for entrepreneurial appraisal of profit in static conditions. Kirzner hit on the 'alterness' angle too. Is there nothing persuasive or something repellent about the idea that entrepreneurs deal with unertainty and make profit from previously unexploited opportunities? 


JC Medaille's tone seems to imply that Mises and other Austrians have contributed nothing worthwhile. I do not see how such an extreme position can be defended. On the contrary Mises and Hayek made many important theoretical contributions that have fitted better with experience than many of their critics are willing to admit. I can see someone finding parts of AE questionable or controversial, but to say that none of it is persuasive and much of it is repellent seems more a product of ideology than reason.

Doug MacKenzie