I went to a PhD program at one university. The university faculty all ascribed to one faction (no surprise they hire each other). I 'learned' that the other dominant faction was full of shit and held laughable views. I was never formally taught what those laughable views were. They were just irrelevant. This is typical of economics PhD programs. There is a war over who gets to be orthodox. It is like a religion.
Reminds me of something Max Keiser was complaining about. He argued that economics if full of voodoo mumbo jumbo.
I am coming from a physics education background. I think the best way to analyze economics is to think in terms of game theory, since economics is created by the interaction of people with different strategies and belief sets. The role of macroeconomics is then to lay the ground rules (incentive systems).
This is what explains why I think bitcoin is disruptive and revolutionary: In bitcoin the ground rules of the economy are generated by a consensus of the players. In centralized money systems, a privileged group of players is allowed to determine and manipulate the incentive system, thus corrupting the whole game and giving themselves a huge advantage over the average player.