A second quote of the day, if you will,

There is nothing “normal” in profits and there can never be an “equilibrium” with regard to them. Profit and loss are, on the contrary, always a phenomenon of a deviation from “normalcy,” of changes unforeseen by the majority, and of a “disequilibrium.” They have no place in an imaginary world of normalcy and equilibrium. In a changing economy there prevails always an inherent tendency for profits and losses to disappear. It is only the emergence of new changes which revives them again.

— Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Auburn: Mises Institute, 1998), p. 295

What does Mises mean here?

Mises invokes the classical theory of uniformity of profits when he writes that there is “an inherent tendency for profits and losses to disappear. Does this mean that he believes in a tendency towards equilibrium? No, it only means that he recognizes that entrepreneurs chase profits, and that changes in the data will induce changes in the patterns of investment. If you were to separate changes in the data from changes in patterns of investment you see a tendency for divergences in equilibrium to be squashed. But, it is further change in the data that disallows this from occurring. All of this happens simultaneously, and since profits and losses always exist the world is never in equilibrium. Further, since Mises recognizes that profits and losses always change in various directions, the world is never tending towards equilibrium.

However, I will re-iterate the main difference between Lachmann and Mises, where the former is more radical than the latter. Lachmann recognizes that entrepreneurial action also causes changes in the data, and that entrepreneurs are influenced by their own expectations. So, any action by the entrepreneur might also cause disequilibrium. It is true, Mises here is deficient. However, Lachmann’s main intention is not to claim that forces of discoordination are stronger than forces of coordination — and, of course, sometimes Lachmann fails to mention that these forces of discoordination also serve to coordinate (i.e. loss) —, but simply to suggest that we do not need to think of “tendencies” to understand the market process.

But, Mises is looking at what causes profits and losses in the first place, and these are divergences in price. Price ranges, of course, are dictated by the consumer and not by the entrepreneur. Therefore, Mises would be correct that the main process of disequilibrium are changes amongst the consumers, and not entrepreneurial actions. He uses an incredibly abstract ideal type to show that entrepreneurs take advantage of price discrepancies to profit (or lose). But, this is not to say that he believes that the economy is ever moving towards some equilibrium, when Mises routinely emphasizes the role of change.