> Economics is the worst social science, an economist is never considered wrong, only of a different “school of economics”. Economists speak as if they have authority and as if their field is objective, but at the same time have those “schools”. Is there such a thing as an unideological economist?

Economics is falsifiable.

For example, a bunch of folks made a prediction ("currency debasement and inflation") when the US Federal reserve started QE:

> We believe the Federal Reserve’s large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called “quantitative easing”) should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed’s objective of promoting employment.

* https://www.hoover.org/research/open-letter-ben-bernanke

A bunch of other folks (e.g., Keynesians like Krugman) made a bunch of prediction as well. One group turned out right, another did not. Another experiment where one group predicted tax cuts would spur growth:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

Others predicted it would not, and were right. There was also sorts of folks talking that cutting government spending would spur growth, i.e., "expansionary austerity":

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansionary_fiscal_contractio...

Others predicted it would not, and turned out correct:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Da...

Amsterdam ended up running a bit of an 'experiment' on what happens when you tried banning houses owned by investors:

* https://frw.studenttheses.ub.rug.nl/3913/1/Master%20Thesis%2...

* https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4480261

* Via: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRqZBuu_Ers

There are "schools" that put forward various models that get it right more than wrong. The fact that some people ignore things for ideological purposes is not the fault of the field in general, or of those that actually try to get their models to match reality.

In fact a lot of the time people know that what they're putting forward is wrong:

> Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 campaign for the presidency on a platform advocating for supply-side economics. During the 1980 Republican Party presidential primaries, George H. W. Bush had derided Reagan's economic approach as "voodoo economics".[23][24] Following Reagan's election, the "trickle-down" reached wide circulation with the publication of "The Education of David Stockman" a December 1981 interview of Reagan's incoming Office of Management and Budget director David Stockman, in the magazine Atlantic Monthly. In the interview, Stockman expressed doubts about supply side economics, telling journalist William Greider that the Kemp–Roth Tax Cut was a way to rebrand a tax cut for the top income bracket to make it easier to pass into law.[25] Stockman said that "It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down,' so the supply-side formula was the only way to get a tax policy that was really 'trickle down.' Supply-side is 'trickle-down' theory."[25][26][27]

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Reagan_...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply-side_economics