The relationship between HET and the mainstream is tenuous but crucial. On this I will make two brief points. The attempt by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to relegate HET to the history of the sciences caused an astonishing reaction by historians of economics across Australia because once the question had been put, it was clear that any answer that left us outside of economics itself would have led to the almost instantaneous death of this subject within our university system both conceptually and in fact. Moreover, the only answer to the ABS in getting its decision reversed was to demonstrate unequivocally that economics requires HET if it is to be a complete and rounded study of how economies actually work. Anyone interested in a fuller understanding of the issues at stake and the way it which these issues were resolved, see, firstly, ?The History Wars of Economics? in the Winter 2008 (No 47) issue of the History of Economics Review. Then secondly, see the forthcoming issue of the journal History of Economic Ideas where there is a symposium: A Canary in the Coalmine: the Near Death Experience of History of Economics in Australia. In both there is a full scale defence of HET as economics and not as some peripheral study of no consequence to economists. The sad reality, however, is that most economists of the present generation do not understand this, although I do think the tide is slowly turning. The second matter I would raise is that I have spent quite a bit of effort trying to use HET to persuade my fellow economists that something went seriously wrong in 1936. Like others who have posted, I have tried to use HET for contemporary purposes, in my case to demonstrate that the loss of Say?s Law with the publication of the General Theory introduced into the mainstream what virtually every classical economist of the time understood was an economic fallacy, that being the possibility of aggregate demand failure. Till 1936, close on every introductory textbook warned against using overproduction as an explanation for recession. Now it is at the core of macroeconomics. I have tried to use HET to point this out under the assumption that someone else might actually recognise ? based on this historical account ? how damaged macroeconomic theory has become because of the Keynesian Revolution. I now see that this is a forlorn hope since historians of economics seldom deal with mainstream issues while mainstream economists seldom pay attention to historians of economics. Nevertheless, HET does have quite a bit to offer mainstream economics. Making sure this is understood by both sides of this divide is something we ought to take seriously and try to do something about. Steven Kates