More strawmen thrown up by your emotions that are wasting my time.

I never said economics is the sole culprit in capitalism. Of course business majors are predisposed to thinking highly of capitalism. My contention is that economics hasn't been helping correct this problem, which is especially galling only because of the pretense that economics is a hard science.

And you keep returning to the cutting edge of economics, as if it's illegitimate to focus on what economics has generally done in the past. If the economics profession is currently liberal (to steer clear of Trumpian populism), that's nice. But I'm afraid that if the historic pattern is for economists to be relatively "conservative," as in libertarian or socially Darwinian in their confidence in the progressive power of free markets, who's to say the current liberalism isn't just a fad, and economics will eventually snap back into historic form?

In any case, we're still living with the damage done by economists over the last century, so why should the focus be only on the cutting edge of research? What you're doing is assuming that economics is a pure, progressive science, so its history can be discarded. But that's the question at issue, isn't it?