I just wanted to echo both Warren's view that such a family tree 
project would be very useful and Pete's view that doing such a project 
is extremely complex.  I think Greg's lengthy examples involving Hayek 
point that out.  One more layer of complexity aside from Pete's point 
about official "teachers" versus de facto influences:  one would also 
need to look at whether the "students" were genuinely influenced by 
the "teacher" or whether they had an insight original to themselves 
which they later understood (perhaps incorrectly) to be derived from 
the supposed "teacher." 
 
I don't want to rehash a running debate that Pete, Greg, and I have 
been engaged in on the AustrianEcon list, but if some of the folks that 
Greg claims are influenced by Hayek have really misunderstood his 
point, do we still count that as an "influence"?  The ongoing debate 
on the Austrian lineage of Lucas's macroeconomics is a case in point. 
On Greg's conception of it, Lucas should have a branch on the Hayek 
tree.  Personally, I'm not convinced. 
 
At some point, when the tree has branches going everywhere, the project 
loses some of its value. 
 
Steven Horwitz 
Eggleston Associate Professor of Economics 
St. Lawrence University 
Canton, NY 13617 
TEL (315) 379-5731 
FAX (315) 379-5819 
EMAIL [log in to unmask]