Do economists really claim that? Or do they study economic behavior and try to make predictive models to better their understanding? It seems like the general public misunderstands what economists do, and the misunderstanding is due to ideological/political reasons.

Economists definitely claim to know how things work. I vividly remember reading neo-liberal gospel (the economic theory, not political leaning) in the NYT opinion section written by Paul Krugman 10 years ago. Allowing completely free trade will be great he said. Prices will be lowered and the economy will run more efficiently. Maybe that’s true, but it also hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing base and consequently the middle class. You don’t see articles like that anymore.

Paul Krugman actually changed his tune about this… moreover, you can find critiques of free trade being bad for workers everywhere if you look. And these critiques aren’t new: https://m.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/sanders-why-i-oppose-nafta...

Well, the problem isn't free trade. It's that some countries work more than they need to. If every country had balanced trade there wouldn't be many arguments against it.

> I vividly remember reading neo-liberal gospel written by Paul Krugman

Krugman is the perfect proof of the fact that the entire field of economics is populated by charlatans.

His track record on predictions is worse than flipping a coin.

> Economists definitely claim to know how things work.

Some do, most don't. Most economists are just trying to publish their work in peer reviewed journals. The one that have time to talk on mass media every weeks are not regular economist. Krugman had some great papers, but he is definitely not considered as a researcher anymore by the profession.

> Allowing completely free trade will be great he said. Prices will be lowered and the economy will run more efficiently. Maybe that’s true, but it also hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing base and consequently the middle class. You don’t see articles like that anymore.

The HOS model, commonly accepted in the trade literature that Krugman knows well, is very clear about the effect of free trade (even if the model could be regared as too simplistic): it lowers the prices and increases total production, however, it creates unequal gains (or even loss) within countries. The standard policy recommandation among trade economists is public polices should be aimed to losers using a fraction of gains from trade.

It was the same in Europe and things have changed, it's true, nowadays you have the US officials close to the president quoted with:

> Biden official says protecting US steel a national security issue [1]

on the front page of the Financial Times.

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/e1f33362-2c36-4f99-9b11-7dcd82ee7...

> Maybe that’s true, but it also hollowed out the U.S. manufacturing base and consequently the middle class.

Citation needed.

Edit: Just as a counter point consider reading this article: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-schiller-shrinki...

[1] China really is to blame for millions of lost U.S. manufacturing jobs, new study finds

[1] https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/china-really-is-to-bla...

I encourage everyone who cares about this space to watch the 1994 Charlie Rose episode with Sir James Goldsmith[0]. He nailed it.

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwmOkaKh3-s

The middle class in cities is probably doing fine. Rural areas not so much, and that's where the manufacturing base was gutted. Offshoring has had a large negative impact there and also made our supply chains more fragile as we found out during COVID. These facts are a big reason why Trump's anti-China message really resonated in those areas.

Cities had pretty substantial manufacturing bases before deindustrialization.

Middle class in cities is shrinking, and most American cities of any notable size are split between knowledge workers and a service worker underclass. That’s why so many American cities are split between very nice neighborhoods aNd those that resemble 80s Detroit.

If economists did their work without ever leaving academia, you certainly could argue that they're simply "trying to make predictive models to better their understanding". But as soon as they begin advising governments on policy, they abdicate that argument.

The problem of staying in academia is getting a tenured position ...

Its the poor record of predictive ability that damns economics and economists.

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. -- Galbraith

Yes, but my point goes further than that.

Indeed, the thing we call economy is changing all the time. Economics try to explain how the economy works that's not the same as being 100% sure.