If you look at von Bawerk himself, what does he say about Menger?
He doesn't say that Menger doesn't believe in a rate of interest.
He says that Menger believes in a rate of interest, but it's incorrect.
So, by the way, I recommend von Bawerk highly.
He's probably the great polemicist in the history of economic thought.
He sits down with different economists and very patiently, paragraph by paragraph, paid by page,
demolishes them in a very polite manner.
They're left as rubble.
What he does with Menger, he's very respectful of Menger.
Menger is a great guy. He has a separate, great insight.
However, unfortunately, he's got an incorrect theory of interest.
This theory refers to the so-called use theory, that somehow, and explains it in a very, very usual lucid, brilliant, lucid manner,
that menger somehow believe that when you buy capital goods, when you buy factors of production, you also pay a price for them, as Roger said today.
But you're also doing something else, you're also paying an extra surplus for the use of the factors of production, for the disposing of the factors of production.
And Boehm-Bawerk very carefully page after page says, look, there's no difference between the use of something and the thing itself.
You buy something, you buy the uses of it. That's the whole point. You buy a machine, you buy only uses of the machine.
There's no extra use payment in addition to the payment of the machine.
So as I said, Brady, you're beautifully and lucidly and carefully demolishes Menger.
Obviously, Menger doesn't like to be demolished. There's very few people in the history of social thought who love being demolished.
There might be one or two here and there, but I don't know of them.
And I think that's it. I don't think the argument is over equilibration. I think the argument is over use theory.
And by ball breakfast brings in the time preference theory of interest.