Economists rarely agree, so by definition are rarely correct.

As economics is the study of human behaviour primarily, it is very hard to predict what will and will not happen.

You have to think that any economist that actually knew with any certainty what was going to happen would be rich and sunning on the beach with a cocktail.

Historically scientists rarely agree either but you can't say that by definition they are rarely correct. Most economists probably agree on more core concepts than they disagree on.

I have no horse in this race, just thought it's a funny reason to dismiss an entire field.

I think you can say they are rarely correct. Scientific Papers that truly advance our understanding are rare indeed. The rest are either failed hypothesis or of little predictive value.

Note that this is not at all a value judgement. Incorrect hypothesis are important steps in the way of learning new things, and papers of little predictive value can in volume lead us to new solutions.

The explanations they give as to why it won’t succeed are like 12 years old reading anything about bitcoin for the first time. Duh!!

He might be right, but if he said anything different would he be allowed in Davos at the table with the lords of the world?