Your comparison is ridiculous, mostly because its so vague it doesnt really say anything. There are many aspects of the national and global economy that are predicted with high accuracy. You are asking for economist to predict every aspect of the economy as if they can see the future. Everything about your perspective is just based in over simplifications and vagueness. You would be wrong again to say the market corrected itself, the economy was bailed out, by the federal government. But you seem to be so far disconnected with reality, I understand if you missed it.
"I just take into account that academic studies can be and have been fabricated to suit the agendas of certain people, especially in the "sciences" you are following. Psychology, Economics, Sociology, all those seem to start with the result they want to come up with and they go around looking for the specific cases that validate their thesis only. This is why I consider the likes of Economics next to worthless, they seem to have been based more on ideological biases than actual observations of reality, and unfortunately Reality can correct those mistakes only when a country is ruined or an economic crash happens (and then people proceed to ignore the lessons from those crisis and just repeat the same mistakes because of their ideology, see everything after the 2008 crisis)."
Absolutely, there are many bad academic studies, they can absolutely be used to create a false narrative. But many of the ones used by true experts in a field have been peer reviewed to check for discrepancies. There are many good studies that are based in fact, evidence, data, analysis and reason. It is not enough that you generally dont trust studies because they can be manipulated. You have to actually read them and provide logically sound evidence for why the study is flawed. You seem to have very little understanding of the process for which good studies are done, there is a process and those who are considered credible within their fields try very hard to make their studies as credible as possible. Science is not about dupping people, its about finding truths with in the world. Further more, what caused the 2008 crisis, was deregulation and fiscal conservatism. The following 8 years were dramatically better than the previous 4 before it.
"I'm sure you are aware that effect is about people with very very bad skills." What?
"See, I know what you are doing here using that study, and it's actually pretty smart. You associate my confidence with retardation, and expect that I will choose to discard my confidence to avoid being linked with retardation." It has nothing to do with retardation, it has to do with the fact that you continue to be overly confident on your views about things you know very little about. The problem is you don't know what you don't know and you dont know it because you dont take the time to. You're caught in a loop.
"I will take the other option. I'm confident because Life showed me plenty of times that what I have came up with is right. Either in Philosophy, Economics, Tech, or Social Life. I will trust that a thousand times over someone who ironically fail to see his own, evident, self-projection." But as of yet you have offered to prove your knowledge in any of these areas, I get the feeling you havent take then time to truly study any of these fields and are actually unqualified to make large assertions about entire fields. I would like you to watch a few videos. They are unrelated to what we have been talk about, I am just curious about your thoughts on them.
All of these are from leading experts with in the field of psychology.
The Republican Brain interview with Jonathan Haidt and Chris Hayes
Jonathan Haidt: The moral roots of liberals and conservatives