An economist commenter on my writings says he thinks that economics is as rigorous as quantum mechanics. So there’s a counterexample. Obviously, economics isn’t identical to physics (as you badly put it). That’s not the issue. The question is whether economics is a natural, exact science or a social science. Economists give the impression, with their Nobel prizes and their use of arcane math that their discipline is as precise and solid as physics. And that’s what I’m questioning in this series. (There are three more to come.)

Where do I state or assume here that centrally planned economies work better than free markets? Where do I take that “leap”? I criticize all centralizations of power in my writings, for the obvious reasons. But this is a strawman or a red herring of yours.

What I say about moving jobs overseas is just that that’s a real-world problem that’s ignored by economists’ abstract models of equilibrium. Again, I don’t say or imply that companies shouldn’t seek to maximize their profits. That’s the capitalist logic, so capitalism has that downside, including the populist backlashes (Hitler, Trump, Brexit, etc) and all the other political and sociological consequences that are ignored by orthodox economics to make that discipline seem as detached and neutral as physics.

Orthodox economists have a hand in sustaining the laissez-faire mindset, and that mindset evidently has its advantages and its disadvantages. I’m not making overall judgments about whether there’s a better system than capitalism. I’m talking here about the nature of orthodox economics.