Aren't you already "ratonalising" when you say that it is a
discipline full of potholes and therefore not good to study? If
economics had to account for every single variable you can think
of, why do we have geography (not the sec sch geog), sociology,
psychology, political science (I personally think its bull-sh*t,
but pol sci people are passionate about it so....)? Going by your
logic, Physics is the most fundamental of the sciences, so why do
we have chemistry and biology?
Anyway, everyone's pretty much entitled to their own views, but
I would point out that even classical economics prove interesting
although like any "discovery", "application", such stuff should be
taken with a pinch of salt.
Using mathematics to try to formulate behaviour may seem
terribly unrealistic but by controlling variables you'll see
intriguing results. The Diamond-Dybvig model is an interesting
example that shows how one's rationality => group irrationality
with bank runs.
Instead of just lampooning a discipline, why not take the
initiative to just learn it with caution to what it may teach?
Learn the models that have been criticised. Learn the caveats
deemed to be too important to ignore.
You don't learn anything by hearing people say that its useless
and then conclude that it is useless without fully understanding
why application of such knowledge can fail despite best
intentions!
Perhaps you should also understand that "well-meaning" policies
can fail not because those who formulate it were wrong but because
it can be intentional. Conspiracy theories are abound that by
making domestic banks fail, it would be even easier for global
banks to gain footholds in the Asian Financial Crisis with the
"bungling of IMF". It's not an entirely implausible theory, however
far-fetched it might seem.
