My beef with miscellaneous literatures:

Experimental/Behavioral Economics

• Outmoded and frequently trivial: the main point is already proven, the good parts of it are now just a part of regular economics
• Not economics: division of labor suggests we should just read the psych and cognitive science literatures instead
• Establishing behavioral effects as a deviation from a rational baseline has no sensible justification, reduces interprability and external validity of results

Environmental Economics

• Enviro health studies over-focus on an easy to measure but ultimately 2nd order effect of pollution; baby birthweight effects are focused on statistical significance rather than economic significance
• Estimates of social costs of carbon are ludicrously poor low balls, founded on terrible assumptions made in an effort to get some sort of empirically grounded result but which ignore the more unprecedented projected effects of climate change

Development Economics

• Growth papers ignore other social sciences' work and yet have weak enough identification strategies that they really can't claim to blow those other lits out of the water
• Randomistas are too aggressive about it, ignoring interesting questions that crop up within their studies just because the source of identifying variation isn't an RCT
• Randomistas make Kenya a silly silly place, what with the weekly RCT

Macroeconomics

• Self-evidently ludicrous models: insensible assumptions and inappropriate numerical methods can only be justified by really good results
• Results aren't really good

Industrial Organization

• That demand estimation isn't identified and you know it
• At least you're figuring out a bunch of computational issues so macro will have a ready made solution by the time they realize they have a problem

---- Meanwhile -----

Literatures that are Perfect:

Labor

• Disagree and I tell on you to Heckman