Greg, I don't want to recycle old debates on a new list, but you happen to be right and I am not interested in preserving old myths. But, Hayek does say that Mises was the scholar who influenced him more than any other scholar and was his "teacher" in this sense ... though he does deviate from Mises on certain fundamental issues as you suggest and as you are articulating in your thesis work. See, Hayek's essay on "Coping with Ignorance" which was his Hillsdale College lecture I believe to celebrate Mises' 100 birthday. On the technical issue of economics and social theory, I don't has any vested interest in whether Hayek is a Misesian or a Mengerian in pedigree (or whether Mises is a Mengerian for that matter [as you know Mises was fond of saying that it was reading Menger that made him an economist as well, though Bohm-Bawerk was his teacher]). The point makes my earlier point for me, I think, this is a very complex project. I think your (Greg's attempt at a tree with connections, etc.) tree on Hayek was excellent (of course, I'd have to see the content of your various entries on the connectees, :)). Perhaps this is not of interest to this board, but Greg's posts on the family tree and the difficulty in defining Hayek's or the Austrian approach in general might suggest something about the futility of discussions of "schools of thought" -- yet obviously these labels serve some useful sociological and intellectual purpose. What is the purpose of the concept of "school" of thought in economics? Is there such a thing as a viable concept of school when members of the school necessarily draw from other schools to grow intellectually? Pete __________________________________________________________ Peter J. Boettke Assistant Professor Department of Economics New York University 269 Mercer Street New York, NY 10003 phone: (212) 998-8959 fax: (212) 995-4186 email: [log in to unmask] __________________________________________________________