The entire topic of economics should be entirely re-written. The history of the subject field is something to study. I have a long history of running through many books on the subject. There is a pervasive mentality in the subject field that I would not touch. I actually studied it, in the eighties. I got through two courses, micro-economics and development economics. I got a 'D' and a 'C' and dropped it. Then later, I got some original ideas. But, as far as your general take on the subject field: Yes, I do agree! There are few well-informed books. Most people have drunk the Kool-Aid to some degree. Still, it is a fascinating discipline to me and I always find new stuff. You can try to follow my posts on this matter. I don't tell you it is easy!
Economics, the environment, and now science are all being used for government propaganda. The banks write the rules, and they usually involve the best way to steal everything from everyone!
So it is a matter of whether you, or anyone I mean, wants to study the details of what went wrong or dispense with all those details. Sometimes it is good to read about just "how" they went down the rabbit-hole. Generally, I like your (writing) style. You tend to sweep a lot up into a few words, and I also recognize myself there. For looking into the details of things, here is a book: I recommend ---
From Economics Imperialism to Freakonomics
The Shifting Boundaries Between Economics and Other Social Sciences
By Ben Fine, Dimitris Milonakis
Here one may follow step-by-step how the economics discipline was developed. I had already seen the "neoclassical" economics as being simply wrong, completely unacceptable (all other students in the class had no such problems!), but this book taught me that even those persons were thinking men and women to a surprising degree and each step that these neoclassical theories went through was thought out! There were actually all sorts of trials and tribulations along the way. I still think it is wrong but I have more respect for these men and thinking persons. I never knew such persons were so deeply engaged. I also have some pieces trying to point out that in general: "reasoning is hard (difficult)," and our powers are really so limited.
I have studied the history of the subject field and I have the rudiments to an approach to writing a whole new study field called Economics. I was plotting it out about two weeks ago. Have not actually thought about it since. Economics, for your information, was established as propaganda fifty years earlier as compared to today, when the sciences and all other things are corrupted. No: Economics was the first demonstration that people are NOT rational and given the correct stimuli will literally believe anything you tell them. It is the same as the "Woke" madness or the Gender Ideology or the news media going sour and turning into propaganda. There is the same basic intellectual failure, but it happened in Economics fully fity, sixty years ago. After 1950 (McCloskey), economics becomes excessively mathematical ("formal mathematical").
The entire topic of economics should be entirely re-written. The history of the subject field is something to study. I have a long history of running through many books on the subject. There is a pervasive mentality in the subject field that I would not touch. I actually studied it, in the eighties. I got through two courses, micro-economics and development economics. I got a 'D' and a 'C' and dropped it. Then later, I got some original ideas. But, as far as your general take on the subject field: Yes, I do agree! There are few well-informed books. Most people have drunk the Kool-Aid to some degree. Still, it is a fascinating discipline to me and I always find new stuff. You can try to follow my posts on this matter. I don't tell you it is easy!
Economics, the environment, and now science are all being used for government propaganda. The banks write the rules, and they usually involve the best way to steal everything from everyone!
So it is a matter of whether you, or anyone I mean, wants to study the details of what went wrong or dispense with all those details. Sometimes it is good to read about just "how" they went down the rabbit-hole. Generally, I like your (writing) style. You tend to sweep a lot up into a few words, and I also recognize myself there. For looking into the details of things, here is a book: I recommend ---
From Economics Imperialism to Freakonomics
The Shifting Boundaries Between Economics and Other Social Sciences
By Ben Fine, Dimitris Milonakis
Here one may follow step-by-step how the economics discipline was developed. I had already seen the "neoclassical" economics as being simply wrong, completely unacceptable (all other students in the class had no such problems!), but this book taught me that even those persons were thinking men and women to a surprising degree and each step that these neoclassical theories went through was thought out! There were actually all sorts of trials and tribulations along the way. I still think it is wrong but I have more respect for these men and thinking persons. I never knew such persons were so deeply engaged. I also have some pieces trying to point out that in general: "reasoning is hard (difficult)," and our powers are really so limited.
Follow the money and you will find the truth. Not sure who first said that but it says it all in 9 words!
I have studied the history of the subject field and I have the rudiments to an approach to writing a whole new study field called Economics. I was plotting it out about two weeks ago. Have not actually thought about it since. Economics, for your information, was established as propaganda fifty years earlier as compared to today, when the sciences and all other things are corrupted. No: Economics was the first demonstration that people are NOT rational and given the correct stimuli will literally believe anything you tell them. It is the same as the "Woke" madness or the Gender Ideology or the news media going sour and turning into propaganda. There is the same basic intellectual failure, but it happened in Economics fully fity, sixty years ago. After 1950 (McCloskey), economics becomes excessively mathematical ("formal mathematical").