An article on “Why we should listen to dead economists”, which I do agree with in principle, but it all depends on who you mean and what you mean by dead. I posted this comment just because, not that anyone who has gone through the scientology-based economic-theory teaching framework of the modern day will understand:

In the long run, every economist is dead. But in the meantime, you have to know which amongst those dead economists to choose. The problem, though, with Keynes is that while he has gone to his great reward, his theories are very much alive and continue to plague us still. But if we are going to look back even at the economists of Martin Wolf’s choice, it is Bagehot we should look at. Chapter 6 of his Lombard Street – “Why Lombard Street is Often Very Dull, and Sometimes Extremely Excited” – is a straight up account of the classical theory of the cycle, and incomparably better than anything you will find in a macroeconomics text today.

Choosing Keynes as a dead economist whose views we should examine, as if he were some obscure entity from the distant past, now known only to specialists, is a particular kind of peculiar. Chapter VI of Lombard Street, however, is as modern as the GFC.