Dayuhan,
Plate tectonics, as a theory, is well enough established that almost all geologists subscribe to it. Same with evolution and biologists. Economics, on the other hand, seems to be a neverending series of fads. There isn't a dominant theoretical framework that most economists subscribe to, although many economists are strongly partisan regarding whatever theory they personally subscribe to (Keynes, Chicago, Austrian, etc.).
This is a problem for two reasons. First, the track record for any of these theories in terms of predictive ability is pretty poor. Secondly, policymakers and the general public are constantly getting conflicting advice about what to do to about economic problems by proponents of the various schools. Who is right? Who should be listened to?
I should add that this problem isn't just about prediction - it's also about understanding what's already happened. There isn't even agreement on historical cause and effect between proponents of the various economic theories.
Bookmarks