I’m certainly no expert in Austrian economics; I’m also not an expert in astrology. I know enough to distrust both. (Of course, you obviously disagree.)
If money isn’t even neutral in the long run, then that seems to suggest that there are no equilibriating tendencies in the market. This is all clearly off-topic, but if you could explain how money can be forever non-neutral, I’d appreciate it. I can easily understand non-neutrality while an economy adjusts to an increased money supply, but I can’t easily conceive of long-term non-neutrality, so I wouldn’t mind a quick rundown.
P.S. To claim I don’t know “diddly-squat” is patent nonsense: clearly, the most common criticism from Mises and his followers is that taking a buck out of the private sector to let government-meddlers “stimulate” the economy is an absurdity. I wouldn’t mind a little acknowledgment on that.
P.S.S. Playing the “you don’t know diddly-squat” game is easy, by the way: here you claim that mainstream economists don’t believe unanticipated changes in the money stock matter, when even Robert Lucas (one of the godfathers of rational expectations) even concedes that.