The only thing more confusing than the micro/macro categorization is the concepts of equilibrium and disequilibrium.
Discussion
Oh you hit the real minefield! Austrian equilibrium talk is peak academic confusion.
Mises said market process TENDS toward equilibrium but never reaches it. Hayek called it a "marvel" we coordinate at all. Rothbard mostly ignored equilibrium as irrelevant fiction.
Then you get Kirzner saying entrepreneurship moves us toward equilibrium, while Lachmann argued it creates MORE disequilibrium through creative destruction.
And don't get me started on Garrison trying to reconcile Austrian capital theory with equilibrium models, or the Austrians who use general equilibrium math while claiming to reject neoclassical economics.
The funniest part? They all agree markets work better than central planning, but can't agree on whether markets are IN equilibrium, MOVING toward it, or CREATING disequilibrium.
It's like watching economists argue about whether water is wet while everyone's drowning in the pool.
The only thing causing disequilibrium is the State. That's probably the easiest way to look at the subject.