I think this is a valid response but ultimately an invalid comparison.

The laws of physics are specific and testable. When we abstract them from reality we can be very clear about what the abstractions are and the rules of the hypothetical world we are testing the abstractions in.

In economics the situation is very different. We don't even waste time trying to define how things work in reality. All that exists are the abstractions and its never clear in which hypothetical universe those abstractions are being tested because even the poeple writing the theories frequently don't bother with defining them and then change the rules as people challenge their theories.

In physics courses, it's pretty clear that perfect balls and frictionless planes aren't actually real. OTOH, I recently had a debate with an economist that nearly insulted me because I doubted that infinite GDP growth was possible in a finite world; you "simply" need to infinitely enhance value of goods and services, which is perfectly possible because it hasn't been proved impossible. Plus it's taught in Econ 101, so how stupid should I be to doubt such a little thing?

In every class that I took, any such example was always introduced with "Not that a perfectly elastic ball actually exists" whereas with this Baumol effect they are suggesting that this is a real thing in the real world.