Economics that voodoo science? I'm surprised the hard sci-fi purists don't turn their noses up in snotty disdain. Of course that could be a useful excuse to mask ignorance of the subject. Easier to focus on the politics rather than the economics which is what most authors tend to do.
I'd like to fancy myself as slightly more well-versed than your average layman on the subject, but let's face it the jargon economics spouts is as bad or worse than what one would find in other fields. I have little idea what pure neoclassicalism is supposed to be other than some vague feeling that it is Adam Smith/David Ricardo laissez-faire classicalism updated to account for stuff like the Great Depression. What separates Adam Smith/David Ricardo laissez-faire classicalism from Austrian School economics anyway? A focus on money supply? Is that then again the only difference with Friedman's monetarism? Then there is Keynesianism, Neo-Keynesianism, New Keynesianism, and Cambridge Keynesianism and stuff named after Keynes that probably wouldn't reflect what he himself believed. Of course there is also econometrics which seems like statistics-lite and would make practitioners of physics guffaw. Hard to follow developments within economics when many terms are not properly and clearly defined and you have ignorant political demagogues and operatives muddling up most conversation further. Is it surprising ideas seem to slip between the cracks as they seem to when even Krugman seems to suggest that pertinent knowledge dealt with by an even well-known economist like Ohlin has been ignored and gathers dust?Unfortunately, modern economists haven't done a very good job of bringing these concepts into the mainstream. People in the general public who think about econ often still think about really old stuff, like the Austrian school or socialism or pure neoclassicalism.
I'm having trouble recommending an economics book on economics. Maybe it is too much to ask of science fiction to provide one on the subject?