I'm not sure I understand your argument, the Mises Institute could make valid contributions to the field of economics without being a distinctive school of thou

I'm not sure I understand your argument, the Mises Institute could make valid contributions to the field of economics without being a distinctive school of thought. I mean the paragraph you've quoted says exactly as much, in full: >I conclude that while self-labeled Austrian economists have some valid contributions to make to economics, these are simply not distinctive enough to sustain a school of thought. The task of developing an alternate Austrian paradigm has largely failed, producing an abundance of meta-economics (philosophy, methodology, and history of thought), but few substantive results. Whatever Austrian economists have that is worth saying should be simply be addressed to the broader economics profession, which (in spite of itself) remains eager for original, true, and substantive ideas. He doesn't say that Austrian economists are always wrong, he says that even when they're right their works do not justify a completely different economic paradigm. The fact that anecdotally you saved some money by following their advice doesn't really contradict that IMO.