I took a couple of courses in economics at Uni, because you are forced to do a few electives. The micro economics looked similar to physics applied to money to me, meaning it was mathematical models applied to very simple situations. It was interesting but the world is not simple. They term their attempts to expand it to real world models macro economics. That worked about as well as using physics to predict the weather which is to say not bad, but you wouldn't bet your life on the predictions. The math and logic was pleasingly rigorous, but the models were either too simple or beyond the most powerful computer.

That was Uni. Then I started read pieces by "economists" in the popular press. They written "pop science" style, where the science being discussed is economics. But where pop science is often a genuine attempt to educate, these articles by "economists" were invariably little better than opinion pieces. To this engineer they often read like near pure bullshit. Worse, after a while, it because obvious it was paid by the word bullshit. As in, if you look at the job description for "Chief Economist" at a bank it reads like a PR position, not someone paid to predict economic outcomes.

I do feel sorry for the academic discipline. The tarnish painted by the brushes held by the colleagues paid by politicians and PR services reeks, which in turn means they go through life wearing the snide comments you see about their efforts here. Balancing that is things like the current interest rate. If I believe what I read, the worlds reserve banks kept interest rates low because the worlds top economists told them the COVID cash bazooka would not lead to inflation. WTF? I have no idea if this was just another case of economists saying what they were paid to say, or it really was the underlying academic consensus. But the independent reserve banks acted on that advice, and if they can't pick the paid bullshitters from the those doing true research then I've got no hope.