So dumb. Psst: liars have to know that what they're saying is false. If I'm not persuaded by your strawmen and ad hominem arguments or by your bean-counting quibbles, I can accept my view of economics even if it's not based on Ph.D.-level knowledge of the issues. Thus, your comment here amounts to a non sequitur.

And no, comment sections are hardly the place for rigorous discussion. Academic journals are the places for that.

Do you deny that the neoclassical paradigm still sets the agenda, even in 2023, of economic orthodoxy, or that there still is such an orthodoxy? Or do you deny that the neoclassical framework entails much of neoliberal ideology, about how we should trust in market efficiencies across the board?

Whether economists explicitly say any of this is neither here nor there, because part of my thesis is that scientistic economists (like psychiatrists) obfuscate their philosophical commitments, and they do so largely with mathematical formulations.

My economic articles are about the philosophy and the sociology behind the economics. To argue with what I'm saying, then, is to leave economics proper and to talk about things in broader terms.