...as a major in another math-intensive field (astronomy) talking shop with econ majors at social gatherings.
They'd describe some part of their theory, like how the market would act in a self-correcting rational fashion, and I would ask "OK, I understand that as the theoretical ideal, but how do you factor in real-world complications?" The answer was invariably "no, no, you don't understand. That's how it works!" Sometimes I pushed on and got what sounded to me like circular arguments and assumptions that seemed more like assertions than something developed from data.
I used to just chalk it up to them being eager undergrads who hadn't had to deal with real work in their field yet (and, ultimately, at these gatherings I was more interested in looking for dates than getting into the nitty-gritty with people who set off my arrogantprick-o-meter), but over time, I've wondered if those bad first impressions were a symptom of something more than overconfident self-proclaimed know-it-alls. If economics wasn't being affected by a form of Lysenkoism.
In his blog over the past few months, Paul Krugman has written of how in some economics circles appear to be completely ignorant of old work on some of the questions faced today because it was never taught to them -- it was too Keynesian for the people running the curricula.
It's one of those areas that I know I don't know it with enough depth to have confidence in my perceptions, but what I've perceived so far doesn't speak well of the sort of economics accepted in circles of power.