Bourgeois economist basically admits that neo-classical economics is pseudoscience.

[Jester]

I would like to see more work done on questions like:
-how can we let pay people the real cost of objects and services?
-why is a cyclic economy so bad and can we do something about it?*

(I am not an economist and don't read much literature so it might be that some nice work has been done on this)

Practically the entire discipline is work on those two questions. The first is the fundamental question of Microeconomics, and the second, the fundamental question of Macro.

-Jester

---

Nothing went wrong - booms and busts are an INHERENT feature of the capitalist system, as Marx accurately observed some 150 years ago. But of course, they would never admit this for the obvious political implications, despite it being proved as empirical fact throughout capitalisms' entire history, because it would shatter the fragile ideological framework which NCE stands upon.

The problem of booms and busts has been central to the work of every major macro theorist since Keynes and the Austrians. The key question is not admitting their existence, which is glaringly obvious. The problems are three:

1) What causes the boom and bust cycle? ("Inherent to capitalism" is unsatisfactory - We need to know why is it inherent? What happens, and when?)

2) How do we best prevent booms and busts?

3) What do we do after a bust?

Keynes said that the booms and busts were inherent, but that demand management could solve the 3rd problem. Milton Friedman said "monetary policy, monetary policy, and monetary policy." The Austrians make booze/hangover metaphors, and blame fractional reserve banking. Real Business Cycle theorists say that we can't do anything about it, because all shocks are supply-side shocks, and money is neutral.

To say that economists can't acknowledge this problem because it would be ideologically uncomfortable is not even at square one.

-Jester