Free exchange probably began when Man began. People have always exchanged goods and trade is part of the productive process. So, if one wishes to view economic Man, it must begin with his predilection to exchange goods to improve his condition. I am not a Misean (shades of Nixon) but it seems to me that he adopted the proper path to understanding. Any interference with this natural propensity to exchange is political and/or coercive. So, economic discussion of tariffs, quotas, anti-dumping duties, and the rest, might be considered political rather than economic science. Of course economists can analyze the consequences of interference, but surely that's a technical job, using skills to produce a result - not really part of economic science, except as a footnote. It's a pity we find ourselves in 'schools' when it is unlikely that any particular brand of economics has completely surrounded the truth. Out of the 19th century came two insights that modern economists - particularly Miseans - might note. First, Misean value theory seems to float in air. Perhaps it should be drawn back to earth. Marx's labor theory of value has been properly beaten into the ground. Yet, there is a sensible 'labor theory of value' which ties value to labor and should be looked at. Second, is the belief that the land market is price mechanism controlled and should mixed in with commodity markets. Not really true. I am enjoying the Misean controversy. I hope the moderator allows it to continue. Harry Pollard