You’d be wrong. I’m not all that impressed with macroeconomics and it’s far from a mud moat. Microeconomics is making more progress and is on much sounder footing, hardly surprising given how many more empirical observations there are.

If you’re only going to read one microeconomics textbook read Varian’s Intermediate Microeconomics if you can do calculus. If you can’t Cowen and Tabarrok’s Principles is pretty good and has a load of wonderful accompanying videos.

Comparative Advantage

https://www.mruniversity.com/courses/development-economics/c...

Here's Smith's definition of a mud moat:

And in the world of intellectual debate, this vast literature can function as a mud moat. That is a term I just made up, sticking with the metaphor of political arguments as medieval castles requiring a defense. A mud moat is just a big pit of mud surrounding your castle, causing an attacking army to get trapped in the mud while you pepper them with arrows.

https://leaders.economicblogs.org/noah-smith/2017/smith-lite...

I was only half-serious in my original comment. What mud moat exists today is maintained less by economists and more by politicians and businesspeople, who find certain "classical" economic conclusions convenient. "Free markets are good - just read the economics literature!"

Economics is several separate sciences, awkwardly placed in the same department.

Most departments are heterogeneous, with mutually unintelligible subfields. CS encompasses both information theory and robotics. Cultural anthropology has little in common with medical anthropology.

Just like cognitive science has a much higher replication rate than social psychology, you will get different results with different subfields.