I will agree that it is extremely logical and extremely internally consistent - but it doesn't describe the real world (in a macro sense) at all. Much of the problem is that it tries to reason about the behaviour of individuals or individual companies and extrapolate it into a macroeconomic theory - classic fallacy of composition.
The austrian economists in turn don't pretend to know that macroeconomics work this or that way, they can make assumptions of effects that can happen due to policies, but don't attempt to quantify them.
I think the austrian school is largely ignored for two reasons:
- from it derives a very libertarian view of the world, which many people reject because of political views. after the WW2 libertarian views were not popular, so Hayek and Mises where largely forgotten. - because its philosophical approach is exhaustively researched and you cannot add more fundamentals, leaving economists with the problem of not having much to work on.
I think some of the most promising macroeconomic modelling I've seen has been Steve Keen's complex dynamic systems work, which is all derived from actual definitions and identities, rather than trying to scale up individual behaviour. It's all stock-flow consistent too, which means it ensures everything actually follows the laws of accounting (strangely this isn't necessarily the case in mainstream models).