Of course even arbitrary human constructs (as in games) can be studied objectively. My claim is that the economic analyses of capitalism have been riddled with normative insinuations, presuppositions, and agendas. The models have been ideological in more or less the Marxian sense. All great civilizations have their ideologies and their priesthoods. Modern secularism is no different. That's my cynical, late-modern take on the secular establishment which I write about in various contexts. Economics is only one of them.

So it's one thing to say, "Here's the best way to play Tic Tac Toe." But it's another to insinuate that Tic Tac Toe is the best game ever devised, that we should go to war with everyone who prefers to play an alternative game, and that Tic Tac Toe is the most sustainable game because it adapts to our inherent selfish animality (the presumption being sheer social Darwinism).

Obviously, economists don't all openly make such statements, but they're part of a system that doesn't just indifferently analyze how capitalism works. American society has been the primary celebrator of free market capitalism. If economists have a problem with that, they should have spoken up big time rather than just burying their misgivings in the small print of their unreadable tomes.