John Womack wrote, among others:"It is odd, however, that all of a sudden we seem to have returned without a memory of it to a discussion that ended a couple of years ago, on language and economics. As I remember, most discussants then seemed to conclude, happily (at least for them), that since 'English [I paraphrase] is now the language of economics around the world,' that's the only language an economist need know, or that a historian of economics need know. I wonder what we will now (tentatively) conclude." I don't think the slant in the current discussion requires changing the "conclusion" we reached earlier. The generalized claims about the utility of multiple foreign languages as a prerequisite to doing good economics or the history of economic thought are being made outside the context in which I made the remark: "In an effort to rescue some useful meaning from Keynes's famous quip 'In the long run we are all dead,' Nicholas J. Theocarakis first posts a text in French which I would not trouble myself to try and read or understand. It's been a rather long time since I took lessons in reading French. (Why wouldn't he translate the text, anyhow?)" There might have been a need to change the previous conclusion on multiple foreign languages (at least on my part) had anyone shown how my reading the quoted French piece would have made a difference to my argument that Keynes was quite capable of saying inconsistent things at different times, and sometimes in the same text. Thus, he could write "The Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren" and also argue short-term monetary actions that would hurt the future generations, besides those of the present since the long run in monetary analysis does not take a generation to arrive. No one also contradicted my claim that Keynes's ability to function in French did not rescue him from his misrepresentations of J.-B. Say's Law of Markets. Besomi talks about the difficulties of interpreting Marx from German. That may well be so. However, one has to point out, for example, that Marx really was not claiming to contradict Smith's theory of value when he is quoted as having written that Smith "sometimes confuses, and at other times substitutes, the determination of the value of *commodities* by the quantity of labour required for their production, with its determination by the quantity of living labour with which commodities can be bought ..." (1975, 70; emphasis original). Otherwise, a reader of English who understands Smith can legitimately dismiss Marx as the one who failed to understand Smith's theory of value, without having to bother him- or herself with first learning to read German and then reading Marx. The same applies to Austrian criticisms of classical capital and interest theories. A reader of English who understands the classics in English could point out the errors of Bohm-Bawerk's and his followers' criticisms (translated into English) without reading them in German. A reader of German who thinks the German translations are faulty may then rescue the Austrians from their subsequent criticisms. Before then, one need not handicap oneself with the burden of learning German before writing the criticism. Besomi also says "in reality [Say's Law] was widely discussed and rejected, or at least explicitly set aside, in the non-English literature, out of which grew some of the most interesting business cycle theories in the two decades before WW1 (in the German-speaking area) or where the premises of economic dynamics were laid (Italy)." But anyone who understands Say's Law as elaborated by James Mill, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill, and Alfred Marshall loses little by not knowing that writers in the non-English literature didn't think much of it. It was their mistake not to have fully understood the Smithian market principles Say had reformulated. Why unprofitably spend one's precious time worrying about "the wrong ideas of dead men/women"? Historians of economics should not forget economic principles themselves, particularly, the "felicific calculus" or benefit-cost analysis! Besides, what are called business cycle theories are merely variations or a renaming of the classical forced-saving doctrine that can be traced to David Hume through Fisher, (Wicksell) Marshall, J.S. Mill, Malthus, Ricardo, Bentham, Thornton, and Smith, in reverse order. Finally, I'm at loss making meaning of Womack's last point: "And I wonder what will be the effect on the economic thought of US-based economists, speaking and reading only English, when massive outsourcing of economics jobs starts to India, Pakistan, or (why not?) China, where if not already, then soon, there will be more English-speaking and -reading economists than in the 'West,' and working for much less." If they are already speaking English, what's the problem? James Ahiakpor