Now imagine that science had the answer all along.   Wouldn't that fit the above criteria? If they had the solution, it would be drowned out in the din of competing bullhorns.   But it gets even more difficult.   Downsizing, underemployment, crime and decaying family values are not scientific issues, -- scientists are not paid to study that, -- and to comment on them would be "unscientific" and a source of ridicule in the scientific community. Scientists are very over-cautious, for example, it has not been proven that if you let go of a hammer; it will drop.   They actually think this way! For example, if a scientist says; "It has not been scientifically proven....", they may have 1,000 time more evidence than it would take to hang a man in a court of law.   Needless to say, scientists rarely make a good press interview, nor say anything quotable.   And worse, such timid statements are likely to be misunderstood by lay people used to a world of Rush Limbaughs and hyperbole from every direction.

Science is big on "prediction".   A hypothesis gains credence if it can make predictions as well as tie up loose ends. There is only one economic model that predicts all of the above problems, and more.   But the problem is, it is not an economic model, it is a scientific one drawn from well known biologisms.   The problem is, biologists are not likely to draw conclusions about human society from the natural world.   Certainly care is needed.   But our species is not magic, and a biologism is a biologism.   It would do our mainstream economists well to learn a few of these.   The Earth is no longer infinite.   Economists have no mechanism to see nor deal with global scarcity, only local or relative scarcity.   In fact, the economy hides such things.   If all things become equally scarce, the price will not change, the only symptom is; we work longer for less, even with vast new technology to help us.   Two of the most powerful functions of the economy are described as "Pareto optimallity" and "resource substitution".   It seemingly has not occurred to most economists that these would eventually cause all things to become equally scarce!