She's not an economist. She's an engineer who taught herself economics. You can tell because she gets a lot of things wrong.
That puts her in good company with pretty much all of the world's most respected economists.
Relevant example: They were surprised by non-transitory inflation, she was not. That's a huge miss by other economists.
Reasoning from first principles (applying a priori dogma) and being bound by reality (responding to empirical cues) are generally opposed, the exception is when the dogmas are laid down by people who are bound by reality.
Much (but not all) engineering work is bounded by reality inherently because there is quick and non-murky feedback when it is wrong; this is a feature of the work, not the worker. Engineers working in economics (and even moreso in economic punditry than actual policy, though it's true either way) don't get that. And the available “first principle” dogmas they can choose to apply are either intentional pedagogical simplifications, poorly tested against reality by comparison to anything in most domains of engineering, or flatly falsified, often ideologically motivated, ideas.
I'll stop here.
She puts the money where her mouth is and outperforms the average professional by a considerable margin. Gotta respect that.
An economist placing bets on the market puts money where their mouth is, so should just write whatever they think is true.