> 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.

> And other approaches are significantly more useful? They yield massively more predictive power? They are more tested and less theoretic?

Steve Keen's own theories (well, he builds on Minsky, mostly) can predict how great moderation suddenly bursted into debt deflation, explain high empirical correlation between debt acceleration and unemployment, show that quantitative easing works better than austerity in debt deflation (and predicts that helicopter money would work even better, although nobody tested that) - this was empirically proven comparing strategies of Japan, U.S. and EU in crisis. He can also explain other things that leave most macroeconomists puzzled.

to be able to criticize modern economics, you need to first have a sound technical understanding of the subject. steve keen doesn't.[1]

[1] http://chrisauld.com/2012/12/06/steve-keen-still-butchering-...

Where's the counterproofs for the 17 other chapters? Many of his criticisms originate from "own goals" made by those same modern economists he apparently doesn't understand.

Is Perfect Competition is an even remotely realistic approximation?

The argument as stated does not apply in all generality. For instance, you don't need a deep knowledge of numerology to criticize numerology.

And you can get your daily dose of economic sense directly from Bill Mitchell's blog.

He's just done a two day debunking of the usual nonsense that has now found its way into literature.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=36850

Bill is hardly a great person to learn economics from: an interesting perspective but also someone who's decided the best way to avoid criticisms of the practical problems posed by his preferred fiscal expansion strategy is to make as many outrageous claims as possible and then deliberately elide terminology and concepts to show how actually the establishment just don't understand how the world works.

To add, I like https://larspsyll.wordpress.com/

This book is great. The chapter on the theory of the firm is particularly damning.