I have argued with Pete on this before -- but Hayek is very clear 
is staying that that Carl Menger had more influence on Hayek as an 
economist than anyone else.  Hayek says, among other things, that it 
was reading Menger's _Principles_ that made him an economists.  And 
it is not an incidental fact that Hayek was editing Menger's collected 
works just at the time Hayek achieved his own revolutionary break- 
through in reconceptualizing the explanatory problem of economics, and 
the contingent causal explanation for this empirical explanatory problem -- 
results first announced in Hayek's well-known paper "Economics and 
Knowledge".  And clearly Hayek's capital theory, and his monetary economics 
is in the tradition of Knut Wicksell, owing much more to Wicksell in its 
conceptions, tasks, and constructions than to Bohm-Bawerk or Mises. 
 
A Web site family tree of economic relationships won't diffinitively 
answer as a fact of the matter who owes what to whom, and why the current 
academic economic situation looks as it does today, but it would spark 
questions about this issue -- and would help challange old myths, like the 
one I would argue Peter tells about Hayek and his having been influenced 
by Mises more than by any other scholar.  Mises open up Hayek's eyes to 
two or three of the central problems that Hayek worked on in economics, but 
in working on these problems, Hayek did so from a Menger/Wieser/Wicksell 
perspective, and his challenge was how to provide adequate answers for 
questions/problems sharply posed by Mises, but not adequately answered by 
him, and often these Mises questions had their roots elsewhere, e.g. in 
the work of Wicksell, Mises, Wieser, Bohm-Bawerk, and Menger (i.e. the 
knowledge problem, the relation of equilibrium time constructs to monetary 
economics and the trade cycle, the problem of socialist calculation, etc.) 
 
Greg Ransom 
Dept. of Philosophy 
UC-Riverside 
[log in to unmask] 
 
edu, that should be!