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!