Why is it that you accept as argument one from a long dead theorist. One originally from 1848 over one say from 2007. The 2007 gains credibility, utility if it is based upon … actually if it just quotes the 1848. An example — Bastiat and Mises are wed in a recent paper by SJSU and GMU thinkalikes. Their committed assumption is that THE economy is a positive sum and that anyone unable to see that has been blinded. This is supported by QUOTES from the masters… Odd that quotations are science. Oh, and throw in a table and an illustration. This will confirm your dedication.
I doubt that the authors would see that a crucifix and incense are also held in equal esteem. See if this makes sense (I use Bastiat as my bastion)

It is an error to apply to trade, as is but too often done, phrases which are applicable to war. In war the stronger overcomes the weaker. In industry the stronger imparts force to the weaker. This entirely does away with the analogy. –Bastiat “Fallacies Of Protection”

We can call quotes all year. It’s been going on for 2500 years — and a reference is only that. It supports the move on the board of the bead game. Not evidence, only confidence that you are traveling along someone else’s path.
Of course we have the advantage over Bastiat. His view didn’t prevail over the daily actions of a misinformed public. Instead we have the advantage of not carrying coal from the pit. And we didn’t get here on his trail, nor Mises’ instead we arrived here, in fact they arrived along with us, without benefit of the perfect world. Maybe they have the luxury of an academic world because of our imperfect understanding of Choice, Economic Theory — otherwise we all could be chopin’ wood instead of sharpening pencils at the ink tank.

Technorati Tags:
econo