Roy Weintraub has asked:

"I'm confused. What does this have to do with the history of
economics? Why would an historian of science care about which kind of
reserve requirement is 'best'?"

Interestingly, this takes this discussion back to the original point I
was trying to make which is the role of HET in contemporary debates. The
mainstream thinks there is no role for HET in the development of
economic theory and policy, but that we have known for a long time. But
what Roy's question does is essentially agree with the mainstream but
in the reverse direction, by asking what role does a discussion of
contemporary issues have in HET?

My answer is that HET has a very great deal to offer as this quite
interesting and high level series of postings has shown. There are many
ideas embedded in historical discussions of economic issues that are
relevant in the current economic climate that the mainstream would have
no access to but for the efforts of historians of economics. And what I
feel is worse, for the most part the mainstream would not even think of
looking in this direction for guidance. This is where they need to be
educated by us.

Just to go back to the debate that took place on The Economist website,
there were over 300 replies, and in spite of the specific reference to
Say's Law by Brad DeLong (good for him), only three of the subsequent
postings made any reference to what really ought to be one of the main
areas of interest in trying to think through whether Keynesian theory
gives us any assistance in dealing with our present economic problems.

HET is part of economics proper or it is part of the history and
philosophy of science. I think it is the first. If, however, trying to
use HET to think about modern economic problems is not part and parcel
of what specialists in HET would be expected to do, then we really ought
to just pack up shop right now.

Steven Kates