“As a theorist, however, he doesn’t offer much. I like Bastiat, but overtime I find myself more and more in agreement with Schumpeter’s assessment, which some consider harsh.”
As far as I’m aware Mark Thornton and Guido Hulsmann have challenged this view. I do have some sympathy for the view that those that write clearly and understandably are often dismissed unfairly as “shallow,” or unsophisticated, with Bastiat and Sennholz being two case examples.
I was actually going to add Turgot, but he’s from the 18th century, so he doesn’t count.
Bohm-Bawerk and Say are on the top of my list.
Ricardo > Menger > Bastiat
I have encountered these two arguments, but remain unconvinced. Hulsmann’s is the better of the two.
I see that someone mentioned Turgot, the fascinating eighteenth-century economist. He was my absolute favorite economist from that era until I read Condillac. In my opinion, Condillac remained unsurpassed until the Marginal Revolution. Menger cited him a number of times in his treatise, and always favorably. Although off topic, my favorites from that century are: (1) Condillac, (2) Turgot, and (3) Smith (Theory of Moral Sentiments). Cantillon is also required reading. I still find it interesting that he (Cantillon) used the term “bubbles” to describe boom-bust cycles. That would make it one of the oldest economic terms. Before these guys, there is the amazing monetary work by Juan de Mariana. There’s actually an English version floating on the internet somewhere. I’ll try to find it again.
I want to read Oresme, but always forget to do so. Has anyone studied his monetary writings?