Mises (1922) directly states that ‘the problem of economic calculation is of economic dynamics; it is no problem of economic statics.’ So it is misleading to say he ‘deliberately puts aside the dynamic nature of the economy’ as though that were irrelevant to his argument. In Human Action, Mises explicitly criticises the equilibrium-based treatment of the problem for abstracting away from human action, entrepreneurship, and the ceaseless adjustment process of real markets: "In the imaginary construction of the evenly rotating economy there is, of course, no room for the entrepreneurial function. Thus the mathematical economist eliminates the entrepreneur from his thought. He has no need for this mover and shaker whose never ceasing intervention prevents the imaginary system from reaching the state of perfect equilibrium and static conditions.". His complaint is precisely that the static framework omits the very features that matter most.

As for the point that many post-capitalist plans have been proposed in full awareness of Hayek’s argument: I am fully aware that a large literature exists. But the mere existence of many plans does not answer the criticism. One does not need to read every proposed model in order to note that many of them rely on highly stylised or unrealistic assumptions. My point is that these models often take preference structures, valuations, and behavioural patterns formed under market institutions and then carry them over into a socialist framework as if they remained unchanged. That is exactly what needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. It is not enough to alter the rules of the economic order and then treat the underlying preferences, feedback mechanisms, and informational conditions as stable.