WY asks what school of economic thought I support. The answer in a nutshell is...whatever works.
Here's the story - strike that, here's my summary of the history of economic thought:
The classical school - Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Hume, Bentham, Marx, Marshall and many others - really set the foundations of economic thought. They gave rise to many competing ideologies which didn't necessarily agreed with each other. For instance libertarianism and the Austrian school take freedom as the sole guiding principle of economic organisation, while Marx suggests the diametric opposite. Both are considered on the lunatic fringe in modern economics.
The classical school eventually gave way to the neo-classical school, which attempted to describe economics within a mathematical framework. The Great Depression and the rise of the Keynesian revolution derailed this movement momentarily, but it revived and assimilated Keynesian thought under the neo-classical synthesis starting with John Hicks (the ever popular and still relevant IS-LM model).
The 1970s brought stagflation and the breakdown of heretofore established macro-relationships, bringing about a resurgence of classical ideas, with an emphasis on micro-foundations for macro analysis - the new classical school.
The 1960s-70s also coincided with the rise of monetarism, which combined some of the ideas of the Austrian school with the neo-classical synthesis. Also known as the Chicago School from its identification with Milton Friedman, monetarism reduced economic policy management to essentially one tool: "2% money supply growth" (see Goodhart's law to see why this failed).
The new keynesian school essentially takes a cue from the new classical school by applying micro-foundations to keynesian macro analysis. These two competing schools of thought comprise mainstream economics today.
Then there is the heterodox school. Well not really a school per se, but rather a loose term covering economists who don't fall under a convenient label. These include people like Joseph Schumpeter and JK Galbraith.
The reason why you see economists disagree in the current crisis on seemingly basic questions like the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus or its structure, or whether it will work at all, goes back to their basic ideologies:
1. New classicals believe in complete markets and rational agents, and that government is less efficient in allocating resources. As such fiscal stimulus is less likely to be effective, and if stimulus has to be done, tax cuts are preferred.
2. New keynesians believe that markets can fail and prices are sticky, in which case there is a strong case for government to step in. Inefficient allocation of resources is better than no use of resources at all.
3. Monetarists don't believe fiscal stimulus works. All we need is 2% money supply growth.
4. Austrians and libertarians don't believe in government. All we need to do is go back to the gold standard and abolish all the central banks.
5. Marxists believe capitalism is doomed to fail. All we need is...never mind.
Where do I stand in this milieu? I admit I began my career a monetarist, with some leanings toward libertarianism. Age and (hopefully) some wisdom now puts me somewhat left of centre - markets do fail, frequently in fact. I also have some sympathy for some of Galbraith's and Schumpeter's ideas, which while often in conflict, do a better job of describing the real world then either mainstream school. It's hard to accept the efficiency of price signals, when competitors are essentially oligopolistic.
Having said that, I think my approach to economics is purely pragmatic. Some ideas work at some times, but not at others. It is a mistake to take a one-size-fits-all approach, especially when contemplating a developing country with immature markets and institutions. Just as important, I lean on empirical evidence rather than relying purely on the dictates of theory.
Theory only provides a framework for thinking, and it pays to listen a little to all the schools of thoughts - even Marxists and Austrians occasionally have something worthwhile to say.