In the papers by Clower and Colander, which capture the mood of many of the critics of mainstream economics, there is a sense that our profession is marked by utter confusion and loss of confidence and bearings. I do not share that feeling, not at all, nor do most of the functioning economists I hang out with. There are obviously lots of important things I don't know and know I (we) don't know. I think that's inevitable, because I think economic truth is history-bound. There are very few permanent economic truths. So the questions keep changing and the answers to even old questions keep changing as society evolves. That doesn't mean that we don't know quite a bit that is useful, at any given moment. At any time there are bound to be some economists who think it's all a mess. Skeptic though I am, I find the hand-wringing and concern expressed in these papers grossly overdone. Most of the professional economists in the United States are out there doing normal science. They are about as happy in their work as any analogous group. Their research ranges from very bad to excellent, with a median somewhere near O.K. If Clower thinks that economists do not have much to say about the world, he should listen to what other people say. For example, I would argue that anyone who understands the contents of a standard macro text and has a grasp of the main economic magnitudes and the reliable econometric parameters knows vastly more than anyone who doesn't.