* Mises's PSR and FSR are based on older concepts developed by Menger and Boehm-Bawerk, and used also by Wicksteed and Arthur Marget; they developed independent of Hicks (who borrowed from Marshall, I assume). It's been a long time since I read Hicks and don't have a copy handy, so I can't provide a point-by-point comparison, though.

* I was a little too glib regarding Marshall. It would be more accurate to say that Marshall's short-run equilibrium is somewhere between Mises's PSR and FSR. The PSR allows traders to have inconsistent beliefs about other trading opportunities; i.e., even without any exogenous changes in the data, including market entry and exit, the price will eventually converge, at the end of Marshall's "market day," to a uniform price as traders adjust their beliefs. Kirzner, in the Cato Journal piece linked above, argues similarly that Mises's PSR is a momentary, ephemeral condition that does not correspond to the intersection of the Marshallian supply and demand curves, which impose stricter informational requirements. (For more gory details, see also Salerno's 1994 "Ludwig von Mises's Monetary Theory in the Light of Modern Monetary Thought.")

Why should management scholars care about any of this? Is it just obscurantist doctrinal trivia? I don't think so. If nothing else, it suggests that management theorists and evolutionary economists and others who worry about disequilibrium, about whether markets tend to equilibrate, etc. should be more precise about what they mean by "equilibrium." Is it Walrasian general equilibrium, Mises's PSR, or something in between? For economists, what concept of equilibrium is sufficient to make general claims about the welfare properties of markets? At one extreme are neoclassical economists who argue that only perfectly competitive, Arrow-Debreu general equilibria are "efficient." At the other extreme is Mises, who argues that consumer welfare is maximized (he would say "consumer sovereignty obtains") every time a PSR obtains, i.e., all the time.

1. You write that “The PSR obtains every day in the real world, each time a buyer and seller agree on a price and make an exchange, momentarily exhausting the gains from trade.” Strictly speaking, any exchange therefore gives rise to PSR prices. This, however, is not how Mises characterizes the PSR. To him, it clearly is a kind of temporary equilibrium construct, akin to what Hicks called “market-day equilibrium.”

2. For this reason, I am not sure that Kirzner really deals with PSR prices.

3. I doubt whether Marshallian prices are really FSR prices. Prices that are established in the Marshallian short-run might be Misesian PSR prices.

4. Maybe I am wrong, but to me Mises simply seems to restate Hicks’ distinction between temporary (PSR) and full intertemporal (FSR) equilibrium. Mises, as widely read as he was, must have read Hicks’ Value and Capital (1939). Some of these distinctions are also central in Hayek’s early work (e.g., the Pure Theory of Capital).