No, the problem is that you perceive only two degrees of evidence: dissertation-level, in-the-weeds delving by specialists, on the one hand, and nothing at all on the other. There's no in-between for you. So if a critic doesn't meet the specialist's standards, you dismiss the critic on elitist grounds. Thus, only professional economists are qualified to criticize your field. That's how you insulate economics in the Scholastic fashion. You had to learn Latin to criticize the Catholic corruption that was plain even to illiterate peasants.

But I'm not writing for professional economists. I'm writing for an educated general audience. Then you showed up and you castigate me for your failure to tell apples apart from oranges.

Certainly, we can overgeneralize, and I sometimes talk loosely about "economics," even though there are different kinds of economics that don't all have the same problems. So technically those generalizations might be false or weak. But roughly speaking they can still be on the right track. It depends what standard of evidence the reader brings to bear.

You're reading these articles as a specialist, which I appreciate. But you're playing only for a Pyrrhic victory if you insist on holding critics to your insider's standards of evidence and argument.