Greg, 
 
I don't want to recycle old debates on a new list, but you happen to  
be right and I am not interested in preserving old myths.  But, Hayek  
does say that Mises was the scholar who influenced him more than any  
other scholar and was his "teacher" in this sense ... though he does  
deviate from Mises on certain fundamental issues as you suggest and  
as you are articulating in your thesis work.  See, Hayek's essay on  
"Coping with Ignorance" which was his Hillsdale College lecture I  
believe to celebrate Mises' 100 birthday. 
 
On the technical issue of economics and social theory, I don't has  
any vested interest in whether Hayek is a Misesian or a Mengerian in  
pedigree (or whether Mises is a Mengerian for that matter [as you  
know Mises was fond of saying that it was reading Menger that made  
him an economist as well, though Bohm-Bawerk was his teacher]). 
 
The point makes my earlier point for me, I think, this is a very  
complex project.  I think your (Greg's attempt at a tree with  
connections, etc.) tree on Hayek was excellent (of course, I'd have  
to see the content of your various entries on the connectees, :)). 
 
Perhaps this is not of interest to this board, but Greg's posts on  
the family tree and the difficulty in defining Hayek's or the  
Austrian approach in general might suggest something about the  
futility of discussions of "schools of thought" -- yet obviously  
these labels serve some useful sociological and intellectual purpose.  
 What is the purpose of the concept of "school" of thought in  
economics?  Is there such a thing as a viable concept of school when  
members of the school necessarily draw from other schools to grow  
intellectually? 
 
Pete 
  
__________________________________________________________ 
 
Peter J. Boettke 
Assistant Professor 
Department of Economics 
New York University 
269 Mercer Street 
New York, NY 10003 
phone: (212) 998-8959 
fax: (212) 995-4186 
email: [log in to unmask] 
__________________________________________________________