Also, Economics is more like evolutionary biology and ecology and an evolutionary discipline cannot be predictive except in the short term. In this case, the rate of economic innovation is much faster than the rate of speciation which makes "the short term" really short.

I agree that explanatory is much more likely than predictive.  Predictions in emergent systems are always precarious.  With so many of those able to deal with these questions "in it for the money," for themselves and/or their backers or employers, it would seem that there are massive perverse incentives to keep the discipline as arcane as possible.  These folks would not welcome clarity any more than casinos would welcome a ban on scantily clad women plying gamblers with liquor.  The last thing they want is a level playing field.  The capital markets, especially of the USA and Great Britain, have become the by-product of the activities of casinos we call stock, bond and futures exchanges.  The question is how to build support for a restructuring of this socially destructive system.  

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."

I suspect such (explanatory, I don't know about predictive) models could already exist, based mostly on Leontieff's Input/Output analysis. Also things like the model developed by the Club of Rome for the Limits to Growth.

I would think such formulations would be most likely to be embedded in the source code of economic models, proprietary and inaccessible to all but those who maintain the model.

What I was getting at was the question of whether there might be some competitive advantage to a better theory that might facilitate adoption of said theory.  If so, this might be a disruptive technology that could be exploited towards beneficial ends.  More likely is that it would immediately be employed to build more profitable casinos.

The current Neo-Classical Economic Mythology seems to be the bastard offspring of Loki and Fortuna.

"It is not necessary to have hope in order to persevere."