I'm not a big fan of communism, but I believe Karl Marx was correct on many things. His "historical materialism" is especially pertinent in today's world where governments are constantly privatizing profits and socializing losses, thereby redistributing wealth from the middle and lower class to the wealthy. This will only exacerbate the class divide further.
What do you actually know about my work? I am the only economist so far who has appreciated the impact pension saving has on the economy. Until my work 'The Pension Problem and the Current Pension Rebate' was produced in 2006 pension saving and investment was not managed at all, this lack of management led to distorted economic outcomes like high inflation, high interest rates, high default rates and the loss of insurance policies and pension pots. Since my work has been applied the set economic targets have been adhered to closer than any other period of time I am aware of. In the United Kingdom the economy is getting straight line results or not far from it, just managing the annual pension saving allowance control rates of consumption and economic growth rates.
There is another group of economists which as far as I am aware of have not been commented on in this thread. The main attention has gone to the demand side economists, who attempt to control money supply or the demand for goods as opposed to the supply side economists. There is a huge movement in supply side economics, which aims to increase the level of output and concentrates on enabling the means of production and services rather than controlling money supply or the demand for goods. Jean Baptiste Say stated in Say's Law that supply generates its own demand so money supply and demand are irrelevant, just concentrate on increasing the quantity of goods available. There is also the Quantity Theory of Money movement, which supports the supply side economic philosophy. They claim an increase in money supply only increases the price you have to pay for goods and creates inflation. The big name economists in this area are Ricardo, Barro and Phillips.
Ah, yes, faith-based economics. https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Supply_side_economics Now I know you're the real deal.
I think the link at wiki is not very accurate. It seems very negative against the movement. I would rephrase how the movement is described in the wiki link to the following. Supply side economics emphasises the importance of increasing the production of goods and services. Money is seen as a medium of exchange which is not involved in the process of producing goods and services, but as a method of helping to make transactions to obtain the goods and services. Rather than attempting to control economic factors through altering money supply, the ability of the economy to produce more goods and services is the objective of policy makers and achieved through initiatives to improve business output. Money supply in itself is seen as secondary or irrelevant altogether as it is merely a medium of exchanged and can be replaced in function by using other commodities such and gold or silver and the simple of exchange of one good for another (Barter).
I don't think that is the correct wiki page for supply side economics. The page below is the one I found with a search for supply side economics. It is closer to what I thought it would be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics
Both monetary and fiscal policy are constrained in most countries due to the high government and private sector debts. I have produced new work that can generate economic growth through new techniques. If you are interested in new economic work that operates outside of the mainstream economic view points and that can offer an alternative way out of the current economic problems my website offers many articles putting forward these new ideas, many of which have been used by the government in the United Kingdom. Search for Morganist Economics.
You'll be pleased to know that these most recent posts of yours have cleared up any doubts I had with regard to whether you are "a wee bit nuts"; you are. May I suggest some reading for you that will bring you up to date on supply side economics: "Zombie Economics", by John Quiggin, the Australian economist and Academic. Ricardo is long dead, Barro isn't. Ricardo was obviously not totally nuts, because he had enough sense to be suspicious of the validity of Ricardian equivalence. Is Barro nuts, probably not, but why then did he bother with Ricardian Equivalence? You, however, at least for me, have removed all doubt.