1956 preface to RTS (1994 edition, p.xxxviii) we have a reference to the "inherent logic" of Labour's policies. p.117 of same edition - is that not the logic of intervention? if hayek rejected the silly misesian logic then that is all for the good. if the dreadful misesian argument about the instability of the mixed economy is not in Hayek's RTS then I need to reconsider my take on the book how to square Bruce's claim with Hayek's truly embarassing 1983 paper 'muddle of the middle'? also, how is the argument in Mises's socialism (or parts of it anyhow) different from Mises's book on intervention? I think Robbins & Stigler are on the right track: Stigler (1988, p.141) reads Hayek as claiming that "separate governmental interventions in various industries are inherently inconsistent and unstable and must lead to comprehensive, centralized control of the economy � [Hayek] denied that piecemeal regulations of a hundred different industries and callings could survive. The conflicts and inconsistencies would force the adoption of a single, centralized all-comprehensive plan." Stigler notes, however, that just such a "multitude of inconsistent, partial interventions by the state in economic life is exactly what we have" (Stigler 1988, p.147). Stigler's judgment echoes Robbins: " any absolute skepticism regarding the stability of all mixed economies seems to me to have little basis in either logic or history" (Robbins 1961, p.80). Andrew Farrant