Joe Salerno's SDAE Presidential Address was excellent. In it he developed his argument about the Mengerian causal realist tradition, and the role that Mises and then Rothbard played in the further development and refinement of that tradition. Mises used the term "modern subjectivist economics" to capture this tradition. Joe pointed out that in essays in the 1930s to the late 1960s, Mises actually argued that the label "Austrian" was only useful for an episode of intellectual history. Similarly, Hayek in his Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences essay on The Austrian School implies that it is a useful historical label that does not have contemporary relevance.

What was most fascinating about Joe's talk was his discussion of Rothbard. Relying on Rothbard's letters and notes concerning the writing of Man, Economy and State, Joe was able to demonstrate that Rothbard shared this assessment with Mises and Hayek, and was thoroughly engaged with the economics profession of his day (1950s).

In the 1970s, however, Rothbard changed his position and began to advocate a more thorough going commitment to the Austrian School of Economics? What changed between the 1950s when Rothbard was starting his career, and the 1970s when Rothbard was engaged in efforts to build a modern Austrian movement?

The simple answer is that the economics profession was transformed between 1950 and 1970 in a way that had lost sight of the central message of what Mises called "modern subjectivist economics." The propositions of the "Austrian School" were ignored so action needed to be taken by Rothbard (and Kirzner) to bring back an apreciation for these core propositions of economic science if economic thought was to advance.

I have recently written a survey article on the Austrian school for David Henderson's Concise Encyclopedia of Economics where I try to stated the 10 propositions that define the Austrian approach.

What do you think sets the Austrian school apart in the discipline of economics and do they warrant viewing the Austrian school as a distinct tradition within economic research and education, with its own schools, journals, conferences, etc., or should contemporary students and faculty simply follow the lead of Rothbard in the 1950s and remain thoroughly engaged with the economics profession?