"They were teaching their students big ideas. But they were ideas about what causes what — not about supply and demand." Because supply and demand doesn't caus

"They were teaching their students big ideas. But they were ideas about what causes what — not about supply and demand." Because supply and demand doesn't cause things? I think there are some citations needed for that claim. Reading between the lines, I think the VOX article makes the "new approach" sound more stupid than it actually is. It is of course a good idea to test economic ideas with rigorous methods. Article makes it sound almost as if the "new economics" was just "grievance studies" - creating statistics about how disadvantaged some people are (as if society and economics have been previously unaware that such people exist). That would be stupid, because it doesn't teach you anything about what you could possibly do about it. But between the lines, the professor seems to conduct experiments to determine actual outcomes of economic measures. That makes sense. But you still need "normal economics" to come up with measures that have a shot at improving things.