But there was, I think, a basic consensus among serious academics that, for example, the Bush tax cuts would send the budget plunging back into deficit.  That was the line among Keynesians (generally opposed the cuts), Neoclassicalists (supported), Austrians (supported), and even the few serious Supply-Siders (obviously supported), with a few exceptions.

It would, obviously, be absurd to expect the average person to read academic journals.  Most people wouldn't understand what the hell was being explained.  They have to work and feed their kids.  They don't have time to read this stuff.

Even economists who say they reject (say) Keynesian expansionist policies during recessions will tell you that the Fed's policy of cutting and raising rates is critical to keeping the economy on track -- essentially admitting that the theories do work.  The Supply-Siders do the same thing on fiscal policy.  They'll say, "Keynesian fiscal policy doesn't work, but let's cut taxes on the rich and stimulate the economy," apparently oblivious to the fact that, by saying this, they've conceded the main point.  It's the same idea.  It's just directed towards a different class of individuals.

There's more of a consensus than people are sometimes led to believe.  It's when, for example, Wall Street financial analysts with a strong interest in the outcome -- again, Larry Kudlow -- get involved that we run into a problem, because the media take them seriously on macroeconomic theory.  You don't ask a dentist to give you advice on cardiology.  Sure, both are related to medicine, but I'm not going to call my dentist someday if, God forbid, I have a heart attack.

That's the real problem, as I see it.  And, again, that's more of a political problem, but you're right that it's not wholly divorced from economics.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

If the Fed had a way of solving these sorts of moral problems, I'd say, "Well, then let the Fed handle it instead of Congress."  Because I'd much rather have our little gang of elite economists and bankers deal with it than politicians.  But, then again, that would open the door to making the Fed a highly-politicized organization, which would, unquestionably, be dangerous for the American economy.

The Fed only works because we trust it to simply do its job, and, while the chairman and board do give their opinions on policy issues from time to time, they generally won't whole-heartedly endorse anything, precisely because of a fear of losing confidence.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?

But just because these methods are abused, or that some of their users make claims to universality that cannot be substantiated is no excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's just as big a mistake to throw out economic theory as "useless" as it is to proclaim it as the sole path to a proper understanding of the social world.

But it seems to me, TG, that you are in a minority in the economics world. All too many economists are happy to proclaim (and indeed teach students) that they are "value-free" or "value-neutral" (and/or universal) and all too many other economists are happy to let those statements go unchallenged.

You challenge them here, and presumably in other places, but you are a rarity.

The whole externalities debate is probably the best place to understand this problem. It's true in the abstract to say that most of the theory works, it's just that too many economists don't take proper account of the externalities.

But why don't they? And how can it be fixed?

There are answers to these questions, but it seems there is very little effort in the economics establishment to even take the problem on. It is hard then not to have the suspicion that the ideology of economics is dominating and distorting the practice of the discipline.

Yes, lots of other people are responsible in this mess.

But economists have a responsibility, just as scientists do, not just to do research, but to communicate the results.

My view is that "good economists" have entered a comfortable zone where they say stuff like "Laffer is a joke, no-one believes that stuff any more" whilst ignoring all the professionals who are still spouting (and worse, teaching) it.

Those professionals may too be a joke, but the joke is on the rest of us as the "good economists" have not worked out a useful way to begin tagging the "jokes" for the rest of us.

I realise I place a heavy burden on economists to try and save a gullible public from itself, but that's what happens when you are the expert. An expert has the responsibility to do what they can to help the non-experts out.

And what exactly are economists supposed to do about all this?

If your point is really true - and I'm not completely convinced - then the ethical thing to do would be to make a public stand.

Richard Dawkins and others seem happy to launch crusades against religion, ID and parapsychology. And there's a small but significant trend in science to popularise abstruse subjects like string theory and cosmology. So public campaigning in science isn't alien to the mainstream.

Is it too much to ask that economists speak up and say 'No, this is wrong' when the ideas are misused in the media?

Otherwise, how can you explain why the Economist, the WSJ, FT and the Fed all seem to have a strong ideological unanimity? If there's a groundswell of dissent among mainstream academic economists, shouldn't we be hearing more about it?

Your example of the chipped arrowhead is not very different from economics, which had traditionally relied on observation, until the ability to properly collect and use data arrived.

Micro-economics when it overlaps things like game theory is also a science. There are experiments conducted, and data is used to predict what will happen in similar situations.

The same processes are used in macroeconomics.  (Game theory is also used in macroeconomics.)  Models of behavior are built, and they're used to predict outcomes.  They're then compared with similar situations.

Macro-economics might be an observational science if it was possible to determine which factors in society caused which economic result. But under present conditions saying that a specific tax policy caused a certain type of economic activity is reaching beyond what the data yields.

This, again, is done quite often.  You're working with the assumption that microeconomics and macroeconomics are two easily-separated fields.  They're not.  Macroeconomics is built upon microeconomics.  It always has been.  We know how factors, such as interest rates, affect firms, and can, therefore, estimate the impact of changes in policy.

The parallel between religion, astrology, and economics is that political leaders used the advice and/or justifications from the practitioners of these disciplines to justify their political choices. In all cases an appeal to an unverifiable outside cause is used as "proof".

And, again, you haven't addressed the issue of evidence.  There is no evidence to support the existence of a god.  There is evidence to support economic theories.  What you're essentially saying is that economics provides an avenue for politicians to misuse theories for their own political gain, as they do with religion, but this is no different from any other field.  The same thing happens in the hard sciences on issues like global warming.  Does this disqualify climatology?  Of course not.  But, for some reason, you seem to believe that it disqualifies economics.

I already provided an example of being able to verify the false nature of current Republican claims about Supply-Side economic policy.

If you can't do an experiment, or repetitive observations of similar conditions, it's not science. There are no soft sciences.

You can observe similar conditions repeatedly in economics.  I, again, refer you to my above comment.  By "soft vs. hard sciences," I'm refering to the confidence levels different fields use.

You will find that if you read Galbraith, for example, that he also has a low opinion of the pronouncements of those who prostitute themselves to the political powers.

Speaking of media whores!  I'm not aware of Galbraith having ever contributed anything of long-lasting value to the field of economics.  Galbraith wrote political books.  Period.  The poor guy never got his shot at being the next John Maynard Keynes, because he was never capable of thinking on the same level.

As I said above, we should switch from the pointless debates of economic theories, to the observational data as to whether political policies are working for the greater good. If you have problems with defining the "greater good" read someone like John Rawls.

You can't develop an understanding of whether the "greater good" is being served without an understanding of the economics behind the issues, and the understanding of those economic issues comes from the testing of economic theories against data.  You, therefore, cannot even begin to address issues pertaining to the "greater good" through policy without theories that explain the data well, enable you to bring up options, and choose a policy.

I read Rawls when I was working on my political science degree.  I didn't find his arguments to be at all strong.  But when it comes to political philosophy, there is Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau, and then there is everyone else, in my opinion.

Where's your motherf*%&ing flag pin?