Politicians listen to Morgan and Morgan's work works. See below. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/p/success.html What is Morganist Economics? http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/p/what-is-morganist-economics.html I have achieved my Mission Statement. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/p/mission-statement.html
Until Pension Pumping was invented! http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/2019/03/pension-pumping.html?q=pension+pumping
Should we, I wonder, allow for the fact that you are a little bit nuts? You seem to not have kept up, but are still relying on what you learned in school...
If one is forced to answer such a useless question, then I don't see how there can be any other choice but Keynes. He invented Macroeconomics! That not only dispensed with Hayek's problem -- he never succeeded in unraveling the complications of his micro approach to economics -- but it led the way forward. Keynes realized that the only way you could get anywhere was to look on a complicated economy in terms of what is true in aggregate. He correctly forecast the disastrous situation to come from the punitive Treaty of Versaille. And, as a young man, he was so distraught over the negotiations, he took to his quarters near the Bois de Boulogne outside Paris, rather then participate further. (Lloyd George led the British delegation). At Bretton Woods he correctly foresaw the difficulties that would come from choosing a single commodity based currency, the U.S. Dollar, as a reserve currency. He advocated instead, to no avail, for a reserve currency based on a basket of sovereign currencies. Were he alive today he would, I am quite sure, align himself with the MMT economists. He had the quality of most great statesmen, economists and scientists of being so sure he was right that he could be insufferable; yet, unlike not a few of these brilliant minds, he avoided tarnishing his reputation with a single great blunder. I am resolute here. I simply don't see how, if one is forced to choose only one economist, one cannot settle on Keynes.
Why do you keep saying I am nuts even though there is clear evidence my work has been used and has worked. You just seem to reject this, why? You say I am relying on something I learned in school, the whole body of work I have developed is new. I could not have learnt it at school I had to develop it. I would want to know why there were so many problems controlling the economy in history until pension saving became managed. No one else had appreciated the impact pension saving has on the economy until my work.
His book 'The Wealth of Nations' is seen as the first work that put forward the format for modern macroeconomics.
It is true that Adam Smith was a progenitor of modern economics in that he was among the first to put into plain language the workings of economies in terms of supply and demand. But he is very far from the most influential economist with respect to modern capitalist economies. There can be no question that Keynes holds that position.
That's a real stretch. Any resemblance of Adam Smith's simplistic economics with modern macro economics is incidental. These views of yours are one of the reasons I view your economics as a wee bit nutty.