I read your comment with great interest as it reflects a lot of my reactions when I took economics, particularly from the way Mankiw teaches it; much like this blog post, he starts with roughly 10 "assumptions" that the course will make comprising general consensus opinions that most economists use to make their theories. These are such broad assumptions like "people always make rational decisions", "people always think at the margin", "the market is comprised of many different roughly equal players that can freely enter and exit", etc. which I found hard to swallow and made me wonder if there was going to be anything valuable in the conclusions. Once I got over that hump, I did find that economists have come up with some interesting ideas in their dabblings with logical purity; sure they only work correctly within the artificial sandbox, but once in a while things line up well enough with the real world that you can make fair comparisons. I'm sure that the more you delve into economics, though, the less overlap you will find between any "simple" model and the behavior of societies, since economies in the real world almost always act on a societal if not global scale, incorporating causality in a way that definitely evokes "the butterfly effect" or chaos theory more than a few silly equations...

Among your many colorful examples, I'm going to call out your transistor and grain market examples, because they seem to be a misrepresentation of supply and demand. S&D doesn't say that "if we buy more transistors the price will go up", that's a misrepresentation of the theory. The whole point of S&D is that there is a relationship between the two and you can only predict price shifts (and quantities purchased) by seeing how both behave, not just one, and certainly not by just looking at quantity purchased. So demand for transistors has picked up over the decades, but the supply side has responded at an even greater magnitude, owing to improved technologies bringing the cost of supplying transistors down. This is the reason price has shifted down while quantities have risen. If anything is pretty unassailable in micro, it's S&D in a fair market with commodified goods. The numbers there actually match reality fairly well, once you have data on the shape of each curve (ah, econometrics). And it is totally legit for either curve to evolve over time; that's part of how you assess how people will react to taxes, supply shocks, etc. I would fix your examples for this point, the others seemed more legit.

Silly ASCII diagram for the transistor market:

P P
|\ /S -->+4 | \ S
| \ / | \ /
| X ==time=> | \ /
| / \ | X
|/ \D -->+2 | / \D
---------Q ---------Q

++demand, ++++supply
=> quantity purchased increases
=> price goes down

As for how economics treats technology, one of the more interesting conclusions of Mankiw's macro syllabus is that in the long run, only greater efficiency can increase the rate of growth of GDP. Simply increasing the growth of labor supply, growth of money supply, or capital investments, or decreasing rate of aggregate consumption has no long-term effect. Efficiency is essentially output per worker, so things like education and research are apparently the best effectors for accelerating GDP (and therefore the most important to preserve long-term). I can't argue with the sensibility of that result ;-)