[fluentmundo]

"rarely includes any alternative model"? Did you read the piece?

Here is the alternative model proposed by Skidelsky:

"These deep methodological issues do not render economic knowledge utterly useless, Skidelsky suggests. But they do mean economics as we know it may have to be thrown out. [...] We should instead take a more provisional, open, and flexible attitude toward economic phenomena and treat economics as (just) another social science, rather than one supposedly purified of uncertainty by its logical prowess. Concretely, this means we should abandon dreams of an immaculate science of economic life—and stop deferring to those who claim to speak in its name. More abstractly, in place of a discipline that neglects the 'mesoeconomic' level—the institutions, firms, unions, banking systems, social movements, digital platforms, states, and other social entities that shape our behavior—Skidelsky proposes an approach 'which is more modest in its epistemology and richer in its ontology.'"

[SantalBlush]

That's not an alternative model. And by that, I don't mean it doesn't have enough math, what I mean is that it doesn't offer any different methodology for improving our knowledge of the economy. All of the things listed here can be included in the current framework of economic theory. There's no alternative being put forth here.