Of course, I weighed in on the thread, also in the same drifty component near the end (it drifted to the relevance of mainstream economics):

I have suggested in the past that economic theory as it pertains to entire societies is not well-founded, particularly when it comes to the predictive policy-making component of economic analysis. At best it can analyse historical events. As it stands, we would require thousands of years of data to develop a real predictive theory given the following limitations:

1. Economics necessarily must predict in an ideal, simplified universe.

2. We do not as yet have a general mathematical theory of complex interactions even in ideal worlds, even deterministic interactions.

Consequently, I am inclined to think that economic policy can be and is mostly motivated ideologically, and the ideological basis of a policy (rather than any perceived "science") is the primary determinant of the policy's outcomes.

One day I'll elaborate on this thought right here, as I have also already done extensively on babble. But not now :)

My friend and fellow babbler skdadl also made a more relevant, interesting observation near the top of the thread:

Interestingly, I think that the one group who have swallowed whole the Marxian pyramid -- economy as base, everything else, society and culture, as superstructure -- is big capital. An admittedly vulgar Marxism, at least, has been most successful among capitalists.

The rest of the thread is interesting as well. Most of us pinkos, theorists included, have to some extent Moved On. It's our friends in the opposition benches who haven't.