It is better phrased, can populists be progressive. On the surface, progressives embrace change and conservatives resist change and populists are in the middle. The progressives are thinkers and they are not afraid to re-visit history for answers. While conservatives prefer the status quo, if the train is off the tracks, they will listen to reasonable.solutions. Concepts like a strong and well managed money supply is found in both camps. Financial capitalism is despised by both camps. The concept of an inwardly looking national economy is appreciated by both camps. The importance of jobs with respect to a stable economic environment is appreciated by both camps. That self-interest and greed trumps national interest is despised by both camps. So these camps share many similar values and the progressives have been working very hard on solutions that are simplistically obvious.

Ron Paul's wishes for the gold standard and the progressives want of a People's bank and a Real Bills Doctrine are hardly polar opposites. They differ only in technical details but not vision. Progressives support Unions, but not self-serving Unions. Unions need to become part of the productivity solution initiated by workers. Both camps would support 100% employment at the expense of corporate profits, with a stronger economy and lower taxes as a result. The conservatives must now realize the importance of progressive social safety nets and the importance of affordable health care.

I can envision a meeting of the conservatives and progressives as a populist movement. Both acknowledge that the founding fathers were visionaries and that currently, America is off the rails and far from their vision.

For every economic theory there is a social outcome. The older economists were aware of this. It was the monetarists that attempted to ignore that fact, disassociating monetary policy from everything else as everything else would be self-correcting although not necessarily pleasant as some undergo creative destruction.

As far as the winners, I will need to study their theories. My theory of corporations is more in line with the Peter Principle. They clearly don't become better as they grow, they often become more inefficient because of the profit theory of patchwork cutting of costs rather than systemic continuous improvement. Bigness allows regulatory capture and political capture. Bigness can fund many more politicians than smallness. Bigness also creates asymmetric advantages which can replace effectiveness and efficiency. Bigness also sometimes diversifies into areas which they know nothing about. Between the winners we almost have opposing theories, but that needs more study.

I have worked in corporations all my life and battled the silo-like internal city state formations that resist integration. If I were to create a theory, it would investigate the perfect size and structure of a business. A large corporate failure managed top down (Lehman) is disruptive and socially and economically not healthy for a local or national economy. Look at the Amish, they have learned that 80 acres and a few horses is the correct size to raise a family, buy your sons farms and prosper. This implies that businesses of mere mortals have an ideal size, all things considered. Bigness (Microsoft) requires an exceptional leader or an exceptional structure or an exceptional monopoly.

If I were a dean of a college I would teach history, economics, political science and social science as one course for four years. Pick important historical periods and have four perspectives.