Economics' 'Elegant' Theories

One more thing regarding the last post. Modern orthodox neoclassical economics also needs to go beyond the construction of 'elegant' mathematical theories or models of a perfectly competitive market economy, from which it derives its questionable predictions about a real momentary market economy like capitalism - if it's to be of any use. That is to say, mathematical elegance is not enough to either justify or validate a 'scientific' theory, which is not to say that mathematics, as demonstrated in the hard natural sciences like physics and chemistry, is a dispensable tool (see Eugene Wigner's paper and A.C. Grayling's discussion of it in The Frontiers of Knowledge). A 'scientific' theory, as I've already pointed out in previous posts, needs to be of empirical substance. Anyway, the GFC is a recent case in point. As critics from Steve Keen through to Bill Mitchell, Michael Roberts and Anwar Shaikh have all pointed out, against the dismay of such 'Nobel' Laureates as Robert Lucas, it failed to predict it; indeed, it believed that such economic crises were things of the past. Therefore, it needs to properly think about how it goes about constructing a more realistic and accurate model/theory of a real market economy like capitalism. One obvious place to start is to fully take note of the theoretical and ideological critiques of both its core economic theory (the Walrasian or general equilibrium theory) and its underlying methodological approach (a la Milton Friedman). Also, it needs to properly consider the alternative theories within economics, especially its heterodox schools like post-Keynesianism and modern classical political economy based on the works of Smith, Ricardo and, especially, Marx  (as articulated by Anwar Shaikh). Of course, in doing all this, it will cease to be what it presently is; it would consequently have transformed itself into something that's non-orthodox and non-neoclassical.

By the way, the 'Nobel' prizes given in economics are not real Nobel Prizes; they're just the Swedish Bank Memorial Prizes in Honour of Alfred Nobel. It's a smart marketing exercise by the Swedish Bank to give some sort of scientific legitimacy to the field of economics by associating it with the real Nobel Prizes. Furthermore, most of these so-called prizes have been given to modern orthodox neoclassical economists (eg, Friedman and Lucas). Thus, it could be claimed (as it in fact is) they're mostly given to those types of economists who reflect the capitalist economic system as 'the best of all possible economic worlds'.