Economic "science"

I've seen first year Econ questions, it was such basic maths I genuinely thought it was fake

I understand that, and that it's from your personal experience so I'm definitely not trying to minimise or invalidate your experience.
However I feel obligated to ask if that was a business econ or scientific economics course. My Macro 1 and Micro 1 courses were brutal in the first year. The math was not easy. So much so that about 20% only passed the first year macro 1 course, we had to start a petition to adjust people's grades because of how brutal that pass rate had been...
I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm saying you might be thinking of a different discipline.
Business Econ is a joke, it is where people go if they want managerial skills and to enter the rat race. Econ as a science is all about policymaking, behavioural economics empirical studies, data science methods, econometrics, maximisation and minimisation... Even linear algebra was included.
- It was as a science, but I think it's probably a difference in perspective. I studied maths so saying linear algebra as the most difficult part kinda proves my point in my mind.
  
  Okay. That's slightly skewed for sure...
Undergrad Econ is a bit of a joke.
Post graduate Econ is considered one of the hardest degrees, and used to have one of the highest salaries upon graduation.
Those cancerous recommendation algorithms that are the result of optimising millions of live A/B tests? Designed and constructed by Econ PhDs.

I wouldn't last a year into a homeopathy BSc, does that mean water has memory?

if water has memory, and I'm 70% water, why the fuck do I forget everything all the time?
- It's the 30% that isn't water fucking things up, that's the toxins
  
  Doctor, this man is dying! Put him in the reverse osmosis machine, stat!
There is no homeopathy BSc as it is not a science. Science actively denies homeopathy as a medical field because of its unproven claims and lack of foundation in reality.
Meanwhile there are entire fields of economics that literally use quantifiable and empirical data to come to conclusions.
The fact that you've never opened an Economics book or studied it beyond "business 101" or something does not in any way prove any of what you're claiming about the scientific field of economics.
- I'm sure there are entire studies about why homeopathy works. What's your point? That economists are better liars than homeopaths?
  Economics should be viewed like history: as an after-the-fact study, not some form of prediction model. Meaning, not a science, as it is by definition non reproducible (until we invent a time machine). Seen from this angle, I think economics is a quite interesting topic, yes.
  But most "economists" from last century just spew things about how capitalism is great, because suggesting otherwise would be a (career) suicide in most of the west during the cold war, and things have been slow to evolve. Also, empirical data is not what defines science. It's only used to support theories. Otherwise, I can tell you that 99% of the people who take homeopathy for their flue are cured within the week. See how useless "empirical" data can be on their own?
  Economists who view themselves as anything more than historians are basically gurus pushing whatever ideology is trending. Even the more mathematical aspects of economics rely on vague theoretical models that cannot be used for anything but filling up a thesis. But if one of those models can predict when ww3 starts, when Putin dies, or who will win the next election in my city, then I'll admit, maybe they are good for something.
  Makes me wonder who, between you and I, needs to learn more about economics.

just because something is BS, doesn't mean it's easy. no was I can get a chiropractic license, but that doesn't mean it isn't BS.

look at all the nuances and complexities in astrology, it's still made up thing that brings comfort to some, but it isn't "easy".

however the biggest objection to economics, is that it's a self fulfilling profecy for the rich, they invest in the economical ideas they like, make them popular and into a "science" even with fake Nobel prizes. then those theories get applied because it's "science" now. only to benefit those who financed those institutions. basically Lobbying with extra steps.

Did you seriously compare a science that uses quantitative and qualitative methodology to astrology?
You're out of your mind.
BSc stands for Bachelor of Science. Something you would know if you knew what you were talking about.
- using "sciency" terms doesn't make you a science. look at chiropractors, or Scientology.
  
  What the fuck do you mean.
  You don't even know what economics as a science is, yet you're comparing it to Scientology, you're just a troll at this point.
  
  did I say something wrong?
  even if there was a crumb of truth in that whole field. it's far too diluted by bullshit from rich people trying to pass their idiotic ideas on how society should run as fact. they are basically giant lobbying think-tanks.
  that's like trusting climate science sponsored by Shell
  
  That's not what learning economics is like. Unless you live in a dictatorship I guess.
  Economics gives you knowledge and tools, it does not prescribe political or lobby-run ideologies.
  It explains them, for the political stances at the very least, such that an economist is equipped with the tools to understand those stances and what an economic agent would choose as part of their decision process following those schools of thought.
  But it does not force anything on anyone.
  I studied in Europe though, maybe that's too foreign a thought for you.
  Edit: Just so you don't confuse my description of what is taught for the entirety of what is taught. Political science was only broached upon in the tiniest of ways. It also was part of the game theory courses mostly (where decision making and prediction based on logic and outcomes is the entire point).
  
  Europe is a dictatorship of the owning class, so, according to your logic, Albert is right.
- I have a big, mostly tongue-in-cheek, interest in old spiritualism - Crowley, Rider-Waite, Golden Dawn, alchemy, Eteilla... - i don't think any of it is "real" but boy howdy can they write screeds on the relationship of quartz to the smell of petrichor, or exactly why going "shh" is a sacred act of the Egyptian diety Hoor-pa-Kraat
  
  Alright. But you're equating complexity to veracity. That's just incredibly untrue.
  Economics might seem like bollocks if you have a surface-level understanding of it. But the study itself uses the scientific method all the way through.
  It doesn't start from assumptions, and doesn't treat its hypotheses as tenets.
  It's all just experimental through quantitative/qualitative data, as well as empirical.
  
  no I'm equating complexity of apparatus to individual effort of understanding the complexity.
  Understanding a complex system has no bearing on the application of the complex system.
  Understanding how the Linux kernel works would be no help in beet farming, that doesn't mean either endeavor is entirely worthless in context.