Not going to defend a list I made in 2010. Just so it’s clear.
Would you say which names you might remove from the pooplist?
Honestly, I haven’t thought about this at all since I wrote this post 2 years ago. I don’t even remember most of the reasoning behind the picks. I would have to open up textbooks and look at my notes to really defend them. I would probably take Paul Samuelson off the list though after reading “A Summing Up.”
Didn’t Marx explain to us how the capitalist mode of production works 
Anyway Marx is more of an economic sociologist. It’s his materialist reductionist premises that are flawed, hence he can not have a sound value theory that lead to the other flaws.
Alexander Hamilton didn’t make the list.
I’d also add M Friedman because he caused too much damage.
Finally, Art Laffer should make the list for his focus on utility rather than ethics. He was logical, but he’s done a lot of damage.
I just consider the latter two to be right wing Keynesians who fool the uneducated into thinking that what they advocate is free market. Hamilton didn’t try to fool anyone, but he was a Cromwellian mercantilist to the extreme.
Oh, I didn’t realize how old this thread was.
Have you read anything other than his Essay on Population? His Politcal Economy Treatise is very simliar to Ricardo.
He doesn’t say anything like what the modern Malthusians say. In fact, all “Maluthusianism” is, is the fact that the market will limit the level of population to the amount of food produced. He uses the word subsistence to describe the level of food consumption when population has grown to swamp production. We have not reached the capacity yet, and it likely is a far off capacity. Logically, his argument is true.
Malthusianism is simply an observation. Modern Malthusianism is a polemic and a scare tactic.