An interesting demonstration of this approach's high level of generality, is its ability to evaluate the central tenet of Keynes's "General Theory ...".
What he calls a "psychological law", or the propensity of individuals in a community to proportionally save more than consume out of any marginal increase in income; is to be compensated for, by increasing entrepreneurial investment in order to maintain full employment. Sidestepping for a moment, how far away from ourselves we can push the philosophical need for exogeneity to impart sense a priori, there is no apparent conflict; if the population is axiomatically taken to be endogenous, its quantified activities are determinate by definition. But his recognition that consumption is the sole end and object of all economic activity, with unemployment being [a] necessary [evil?] to keep investment at a level not to exceed the provision of future consumptive demand, (the latter being hinted at on p.105 of the GT) depicts a systematic situation in dynamic equilibrium over time; with an exogenous population, just as in the proposed new paradigm.
So even though Keynes professes "to state the obvious", I don't think he fully grasped all its implications. That first part of the assertion comprises a fair bit of data, and if we parse it further it means that consumption determines value, and anterior to consumption, values are indeterminate. Because means of production investment occurs prior to consumption; in Keynes's model this is both indeterminate over time (as in the "obvious" first sentence), and determinate with an endogenous population in time, as he takes it to be in the bulk of the GT. Hence the internal contradiction and resulting overdetermination of economic assets in Keynes's GT.
All exogenous impulses (propensities, investment decisions, CB interventions and the like) are indeterminate by definition and cannot produce determinate effects; they neither, by themselves, can be equilibrating, nor depended upon to restore an existing disequilibrium. In Keynes's overdetermined model they effect paradoxes, or a "riddle" as he calls it; which in and of itself is already proof of erroneous, and/or too many, axioms. Endogenous population economic theories are most problematic, as objectivity has to fall by the wayside; and even if 'subjective quantification' is no utter self-contradiction in terms, its rationalization is tautological at best.
Meanwhile, the "novel expedient" he is looking for is not so novel at all; it finds its cradle with Adam Smith and the classical separate determinants (resolves) of wages, rents, and profits. Keynes's obligation to Marshall simply proved too great an obstacle, leading to an internally contradictory half-way measure to tackle the unemployment problem; for not full employment but neutral money, through the time it takes to fully resolve economic costs and profits, is the condition whereby the (neo)classical edification would come into its own again. The marginalists' approach to economics, apparently oblivious that exogeneity is imperative to prevent a degeneration into meaningless circular reasoning, while charting a make-belief course as if  the economy is a determinate structure, can never comprise reality either; so it is a dead end for the very same reason. And any socio-economic order, although able to confer rights upon abstractions (capital, interest, income) as if these are real, is yet altogether powerless to prevent the occurrence of crises and/or burst economic bubbles, that arise from not having heeded to the very difference between abstraction and reality. The only option to get to the bottom of all of this, is to go back as far as Sismondi's first hints about determination, and endogenous values being abstract, and take it from there.