> Anyone who thinks the simplified and unrealistic models "are still useful" does not understand just how bad these approaches are. And other approaches are si

> Anyone who thinks the simplified and unrealistic models "are still useful" does not understand just how bad these approaches are. And other approaches are significantly more useful? They yield massively more predictive power? They are more tested and less theoretic? Are these other models comparable to say the difference between classical mechanics and Aristotle's view of physics, because that's what you seem to be implying. The best approach would obviously be to test the economic theories under various system constraints instead of using a historical based approach where it is virtually impossible to control for any of the massive array of factors that influence any particular economic policy. Most of us could care less whether Marxian, Keynesian, or Austrian Theory helps us build economic systems that maximize human flourishing and minimize suffering, but we really need to iteratively test/apply/evaluate the theories in a controlled environment if we want to make progress on a small enough time scale.