This is a Hollywood narrative. In truth, there is not *enough* division in the profession; there is one dominant paradigm, and talk of Keynes is only for policy circles. Anticipating crises… well by definition a crisis is what you did not anticipate, so that’s nonsensical. Comprehend, well, 20 years of Great Moderation (Olivier Blanchard himself a few years ago: “The State of macro is good.”) gave researchers no incentives to look deep into crises. Friedman’s and Bernanke’s work on the Great Depression seemed pretty thorough. And as for “truthful, intuitive and useful”, have they read Blanchard’s papers? How are they different? It’s the same MIT model approach. Usefulness is hard to gauge in macroeconomics–maybe impossible because we don’t have an experimental setting (Dr. Kling writes about a high causal density). So yes, he’s a smart and hardworking fellow, but the rest is Hollywood make-believe.