The skills both of them have are of course truly amazing and they are without a doubt far better skilled than I am.
But the thing is, they work in a totally screwed academic environment. They brought their neoclassical-keynesian-empiristic approach to perfection, but their model seems to be more and more irrelevant as it doesn't fit with reallity. They are mathematicians, not economists. “The kind of work we do, that real economists do, will never catch on with the public” - I serously despise this notion. "Real economists"? Again: A guy who can't even explain economic crises, the business cycle or basic economic behavior spontaneously (I was aware of the Peter Schiff Video) and who does nothing else than econometrics and empirical analysis is not an economist, but a mathematician.
I seriously think there are only to options right now for the entire profession: Either the Austrians can provoke a new dispute over method and win it outright (which I seriously doubt, they are weak in some areas too - and I consider myself an Austrian in every meaning of the word =D), or the guys at the Mises Institute and others stop to be stubborn as hell, go the way of guys like Israel Kirzner and try to merge their approach with the mainstream, if the other side becomes more open minded too. And a keynesian, democratic econometrician speaking positively about the gold standard seems to indicate this. The worse the economy gets, the higher the chances that they question their own belief system.
Maybe slightly off topic. =D