Hey there, Nostradamus, I was talking about macroeconomics (and specifically the dominant brand, which is the neoclassical framework), the kind that's most relevant to the national issues that crop up in the need for political propaganda and for rationalizing the plutocratic regressions of runaway capitalistic societies like the US.
I never claimed to be an expert in economics, so I dismiss your bluster. The case against economics as a true social science is so common that it shows up in Investopedia's guide to economics:
"Economics is generally regarded as a social science, although some critics of the field argue that economics falls short of the definition of a science for a number of reasons, including a lack of testable hypotheses, lack of consensus, and inherent political overtones."
Thus, this criticism can hardly be due to my personal ignorance, especially when even a highly-motivated, vehement defender of economics like you admits that macroeconomics may be dubious.
The issue isn't just that economists have made some bad predictions. Obviously, a scientist's model may need to be adjusted to take into account new information. The problem is that because economists can't run experiments on whole nations, but can only make inductions from history, and because their field is flush with money from politically interested parties, at least in the US and UK, macroeconomics is skewed towards preferring a form of capitalism that works mainly for those who are writing the big cheques.
Remember how it turned out that Arthur Anderson, the accountant firm was captured by big business in the Enron scandal? Remember how the same thing happened to the SEC, to the regulators, and to the revolving door American government? Remember how the Democratic Party sold out the working class and lost its progressive bona fides under the Clintons and Obama? Remember how the neoclassical economists were evidently captured too, which led to their failure to predict the financial market collapse in 2008? Remember how Alan Greenspan was so ideological he was literally a fanboy for Ayn Rand?
Yeah, it's the social context that supplies the reason for economists' big failed predictions, which casts doubt on this field's scientific status. The neoclassical framework, at least, is more like a theological creed than a scientific theory.
The NY Times points out another big failure in this respect:
'However, nowhere is the discipline’s failure more apparent than in the area of development economics. In fact, the only countries that have effectively transformed from the “Third” to the “First World” since World War II violated the main principles of current and previous economic orthodoxies: China plus the “East Asian Tigers” of Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and South Korea, whose policies entailed extensive state intervention into the economy, institutional reforms and the manipulation of prices and markets. Only recently have economists come to accept the primacy of institutions in explaining and promoting economic growth, a position long held by sociologists and political scientists.'
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/030315/economics-science.asp
