Economic models are often proved wrong

This isn't generally emphasized in financial media, 90+ percent of which is just the plutocrats' whimpering, simpering, groveling propagandist curs. And of course motivated reasoning, as opposed to rational objectivity, is what drives the development of a lot of models in the first place.

Most of the models that economists currently use ignore the role of market power in today’s economy. And in the gizzards of the models are a variety of other assumptions that affect how the consequences of any policy are calculated, including the macroeconomic consequences that determine the size of the pie and the nature of the trade-offs. The estimated responses to any policy change are claimed to be the most reliable estimates of what will happen, based on past data, using the “best” models and best statistical techniques. Typically, these estimates are not robust—with large variations in the estimates depending on how they are done and the sample period over which they are done. The sample period is in fact critical: The current situation may be markedly different from the one in which the studies were conducted. Applying those results to today leads to faulty conclusions...

Often, simple reasoning can beat out seemingly complex and sophisticated econometric modeling. In 2017, then-President Donald Trump proposed, and Congress adopted, a massive cut in the corporate income tax. The claim was made, supposedly based on models, that it would massively stimulate investment. It did not. It simply stimulated increases in share buybacks and dividends, funneling money to investors. It was, in effect, a big gift to rich corporations and their shareholders. - The American Prospect