Mason Gaffney wrote: "J.B. Clark ... ignored Karl Marx and instead attacked the Austrian anti-Marxist Boehm-Bawerk. Knight followed suit. Clark and Knight both found the idea that capital has a period of production (i.e. turns over) more threatening than they found Marx. I continue to hope that historians of economic thought will make this point more central to their understanding of the origins and evolution of what today we call neo-classical economics." I would suggest that Gaffney read carefully Clark's 1890s criticism of Bohm-Bawerk's criticism of classical capital theory of interest and Knight's 1930s debates with F.A. Hayek over the concept of capital again. He would find that it was Bohm-Bawerk's and Hayek's fixation on "capital" to mean capital goods only that drew the criticisms. The classics and their "faithful" followers understood capital in the theory of interest as funds, not capital goods. And as Knight pointed out to Hayek, "capital" as "funds" comes out of savings from income, it does not take time to create as capital goods do. The problem was one of language, which the Austrians needed to make a greater effort to understand, as the speakers of that language intended it. James Ahiakpor