As I prepared a speech on the future of economists, I was very interested by the posting around the thread "Nber and HET". I guess that the content of economics during the next decades is largely shaped by the topics, methodology, etc. included in the Phd of the newly recruited economists by the best universities.. I found very interesting the research done by Andrew J Oswald and Hilda Ralsmark "Some Evidence on the Future of Economics" No 841 WARWICK ECONOMIC RESEARCH PAPERS DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. I can scrutinise such process in my university where a department (Toulouse school of economics) competes and boasts to be among the bests but it is not so easy to discover trends or "lines of force" (I mean on the theoretical level). Clearly the department has been involved in the post general equilibrium epiphenomenon whereas it always despised macroeconomics (and history or applied (micro)economics as well ) but what are the contours of the new paradigm (if any) now? It seems to me that the general equilibrium theory is still the canon but its light is rapidly fading as more and more of its features are removed. Now just to come back to the way historians write history, let me mention that the seventh edition of Gide & Rist "A History of Economic Doctrines" included some developments on Keynes' General Theory. It was published in 1947 - Keynes was not at this time a "long-dead economist". In a nutshell, during the last decades, HET has been put aside from mainstream curriculum, but conversely HET has hardly come to grips with the mainstream economics. Alain Alcouffe