This family tree is just objectively bad. Huge omissions and most of the modern characters included are known more for their pop-econ than real developments in theory.

I mean, say what you will about the moral and structural claims of Marxism but there was actually a tradition of economic thought there that was at least as coherent as whatever nonsense the Rothbard/Mises fetishists like to indulge in. There aren't even any of the more mainstream, Marxist adjacent theorists like the Georgists.

Also, everything past Keynes just looks like pop-economists or broad categories and just misses most of the early to mid 20th century. There is no Galbraith, the architect of the New Deal? There aren't any notable Behavioral Economists mentioned, which is one of the most interesting expansions of the field in a generation and will probably have far reaching influence in how the discipline develops in the future. No Piketty, who wrote one of the most influential works of the past decade? NOTHING at all about development economists like Stiglitz, Easterly, or Sachs even though they've had a huge role in shaping how we understand emerging markets and will be even more important as we start trying to figure out how to deal with climate change?