Economists on the other hand works for institutions that are largely government-funded, and that means that money flows in regardless of the quality of their work (and that's an understatement).
It's not a matter of quality as it is a matter of not understanding the actual job of economists.
The job of economist is to produce convincing ex post facto justifications for government policies. This is what they get paid for, and that's what they do.
The public's incorrect assumption that their job has anything to do with objective truth makes their job easier, so it's not a mistake they are interested in correcting.
Once upon a time there was a strain of thinking in economics which thought of the job of an economist to be just an observer of the complex social phenomenon we call "economy" while trying to figure out if there are any regularities. That line of thinking is all but dead today, killed by Keynesians insisting that economists need to centrally plan and control the economy.
I think these conclusions are a bit unfair. I have an econ degree from a top school, so I'm one counterexample at the very least. Further, I'd argue that many of my peers were mainly attracted to the elegance of the math and really believe that monetary and fiscal policy can optimally tune an economy for the betterment of all.
And to the extent that their assumptions and inputs are right, their conclusions are indeed right. What I think they miss is two-fold:
1) The models cannot possibly incorporate all variables. Economics tries to model the sum of human interaction. That's literally a chaotic system. Such modeling work great until all of a sudden it doesn't work at all.
2) The human element. Political incentives, individuals' career and legacy incentives, etc, are extremely dangerous motivators if you've allowed a system to exist whereby a small number of people have tremendous control over key variables. Unfortunately that's what we have, and it's proving to be a problem. A fairly obvious problem if you take a high-level long-term view and have some appreciation for the muddiness of it all, but that doesn't fit elegantly with the pretty equations economists love.
tl;dr: Most of them really do mean well. But what's that saying about a certain road and good intentions?
Look, I went to study economics at a university as well. After a couple of semesters (more of them than I'd care to admit...) I had to quit because the bullshit they were teaching there was just too infuriating. I could feel myself growing dumber at that school.
Where I am from a degree, ANY degree, is the holy grail of the generation equivalent to the Baby Boomers in the US. A degree, because that is supposed to guarantee you a "secure job". This mentality is much worse in the countries which used to be to the east of the iron curtain, than in those to the west - there people have generations long memories of people making it through entrepreneurship and hard/clever work with or without a degree.
Anyway, most people studying at that school were there for one reason only: they wanted a degree and this was supposed to be one of the easiest schools to finish and get one. And it's true, it was easy. I was there for the reason that I am actually interested in economics. But all their microeconomic modelling of demand and supply functions and macroeconomic keynesian statist propaganda was just too ridiculous for me so I figured I'd learn more on my own and quit.
I went to work in financial consulting and by Eris I swear the last people to get any sort of concept I explained to them were people with a degree in economics. Closely followed by lawyers and psychologists. What they thought they knew just interfered too heavily with what was being explained.
George Carlin knew that the state sponsored school system is all about creating obedient workers, interchangeable and redundant parts of a machine. In few areas of study is this more painfully obvious than in economics.
I am ranting about this because I feel sad about all the bright minds I have seen corrupted and turned into humorless zombies at that school
EDIT: about the well-meaning economists: I place such individuals a step above the pragmatic cheat/thief and below the full blown sociopath on a scale of destructiveness in public functions.
