Professor Palma seems to suggest (certainly in his article) that there should be (must be) laudatory work done on contemporary mainstream economics. Just because contemporary mainstream economics dominates, it does not necessarily mean that it is impervious to criticism or that it is coherent--just because it exists does not make it right, good, or reasonable. If laudatory work is desired then Professor Palma needs to find/support/train/incentivize economists to do it. However, I think it may be somewhat difficult to write the desired laudatory histories of contemporary mainstream economics and still retain the critical faculties HET economist bring to their trade. If the price of acceptance by mainstream economists is speaking their language and writing favorable histories, then it is a price too high for HET economists to accept. Fred Lee