Some nuances and an unsettled question
I've tried to tone down some statements that seemed to me potentially exaggerated.  For example, the lede described EJ as an adviser to Presidents FDR and LBJ, but the main text did not fully support this statement, relating rather that (a) for a time, his work was read with interest by some in the Roosevelt White House, and (b) he informally advised Johnson while he was in Congress. There were also phrases that seemed a bit loosely applied, and/or POV in nature (e.g., describing FDR's fiscal policy as "hyperactive" I think fails the POV test). 

I'm further troubled by the statements about EJ's purported anticipation of the rural S&L; crisis, but not sure I quite know enough on the subject to actually make changes (I've instead requested sourcing).  Two points of concern: (a) I'm not sure how relevant it is to predict in the mid-1970s a credit crunch that does not arrive until a decade later (also, to what extent his line of reasoning was accurate  i.e., did the cruch arrive due to factors that he identified, or for quite different reasons?), (b) the article currently relates that the credit crunch "resulted in the savings and loan industry's troubles throughout farm country".  Is this accurate, or would it be closer to the truth to say that it resulted "from" the S&Ls;' troubles?  Not my field of specialization: maybe someone else can take a lok at this passage?