I'm normally a fan of generalizations to make conversation flow easier. No need to get stuck in the weeds of all the exceptions. However, you've made some assertions that go a bit too far for my comfort.
It was not and has not been my experience that the majority or even plurality of economists support "Reaganomics" or "oligarchical capitalism". There are some famous and outspoken economists that are often quoted by politicians, but the rank and file are generally ignored.
Of politically powerful people, it seems to me that most are lawyers. The second largest cohort is perhaps businesspeople as a general category. I'm not sure where economists would rank, but they're not common in politics outside of the Federal Reserve.
I'm not sure why an academic discipline being "up to snuff" would make much difference for policy. I've never known politicians (as a whole) to appreciate science, except for military applications. The economists have been saying we should put a tax on carbon for decades. There are entire departments dedicated to "environmental economics", studying how to coordinate fisheries to avoid population collapse, how to manage forests, etc. Their policy recommendations are largely ignored. An economic system is an outcome of a socio-political system, not some exogenous phenomenon.
> if it isn't going to run out in three months or kill you in three months, it doesn't matter and is ignored by economic study
This is false. I'm not sure what else to say. I suppose the recent years of truthiness and fake news have worn away my resistance.
> those two points are slight exaggerations, but ... apparent
More than slight, and not apparent to me.
> if you can't measure it, it doesn't ... exist
Much of econometric literature concerns how to measure things that are difficult to measure. This includes ineffable things like "freedom" or "happiness".