In response to Roy's original entry: I have wondered the same in more general way. Why are historians of Economics "inattentive" to current, even recent developments in Economics? It is because they are historians, not commentators on current events. There are any number of reasons why anyone would not attend a paper I gave at the recent meeting of HES in Toronto: "The Passing of Naive Neoclassical Economics". It was about the current (the past thirty years) state of the discipline. With one exception the session was attended only by those presenting and the designated other participants. Perhaps the message was not news. Perhaps the message was thought unimportant. Perhaps, of course, I had done such a bad job of it that the members turned to more scholarly scholarship. Perhaps my want of standing in the field made it easy, if not imperative, to be "inattentive" to what I had to say. And perhaps there are other reasons. The paper was scheduled late in the program, and had more exciting competition. However, I do think that there is an occupational hazard in being a historian of thought. One becomes immersed in the past and, indeed, attached to it. New developments appear as disturbances to habits of mind. They clutter the field from which conclusions have been and might be drawn. They make intellectual work. They can be so easily dismissed as one more passing fad. Robin Neill