I was delighted to read Hans Visser's excellent response to Prof. Lilia Costabile. I do not have Lilia's original communication in front of me but = my thought at the time I read it was that von Mises insisted on holding to an i= dea that had become unpopular in the profession. Of course, the 18th century thought less in terms of comparative statics and more in terms of sequential= processes and as Hans Visser correctly points out Mises was "merely" carryin= g forward an older tradition. I know Hayek thought highly of Cantillon's contribution= and Mises praised Senior on one or two occasions. But to "merely" carry forward a tradition in the 1950s. 1960s and early 1970= s was no easy task. Aggregative economics seemed to plow forward with the utmost contempt for microfoundations. When the "microfoundations of macro" movement came of age, Mises's pioneering efforts were ignored by historians. Mises's importance is that he kept repeating that idea about the importance of understanding "where in the economy" the new money gets injected "first,"= in order to understand the consequences of such an increase. He and later Austrians believed that when it was injected through the loanable funds mark= et it would mislead entrepreneurs about what types of projects should be undertake= n and which projects left untouched. Mises insisted on this when it became unfashionable to think in any terms except aggregates and averages. Since I= had the pleasure of auditing von Mises's graduate classes a few years before he stopped teaching, I remember how much we debated that idea before and after = the seminar. I even asked Milton Friedman in the 1970s why (in his Monetary History and other places) he (and Dr. A. Schwartz) did not pay any attention to "the pla= ce" where the new money entered the economy. His answer was a good one. To paraphrase M.F. "Show where that assumption is needed in order to exp= lain any empirical regularities and I'll use the idea." Von Mises and his students kept this particular line-of-argument about "non-neutrality" alive throughout most of the 20th century! It also was con= nected to Mises's stubborn insistence that "inflation" means an increase in the quantity of money which may or may not result in a rise in some measure (ind= ex number) of average prices or their changes. I understand that modern Austrians have made some progress in responding to Milton Friedman's challenge. Laurence Moss