As an engineer you should therefore understand the importance of taking into account the laws of physics:) (which economic theories essentially never do, unless we are talking about Georgescu-Roegen and a few others).

I remember being particularly shocked by Krugman (whom I otherwise like as an editorial writer) when he said that Ricardo's law of comparative advantage was "the most established theorem in economics". When a stupid thing like this "law" is considered by a "Nobel Prize winner" as a "solidly established theorem", we are in trouble.

I do not deny the existence of comparative advantages, I argue that Ricardo's law of comparative advantages is essentially bullshit, even if some convenient simplifications (namely the total fungibility of capital and labour) are set aside, That is, one assumes that one can instantly transform a meadow covered with sheep and wool weaving looms into vineyards and presses, and shepherds into winegrowers), one must note that the law assumes the free movement of goods, but tacitly implies that capital and labour, on the other hand, remain absolutely in the same place. That is to say that free trade is purely a joke and ideology, but that is not the subject of this discussion.

On a more serious note, I would also remind you that the economic models in force in the major international institutions assume that there is no money, which implies a number of absurdities (for example, that savings precede investment, which is false in a fiduciary money environment). Also, that it is still commonly assumed that "the market tends to balance" when real life experience shows repeatedly enough that this is not the case, but why bother with the lessons of the vile experience when one can be satisfied with theorizing in a vacuum to obtain prestigious prizes and academic positions? :)

Then you mentioned the question of value. Value theory is a vast and complex field, and in general when we talk about GDP growth we rarely immerse ourselves in detailed considerations on it (or we can immerse ourselves in Harribey's recent book, "value, wealth and the priceless"). However, you will grant me I think that if I instantly divide the value of the currency by two, and multiply all prices and incomes the same way, although the nominal GDP is doubled it will not change anything: what we measure in GDP is the exchange of material goods and services or not, regardless of the world's relative value, utility or anything else -- we know that paying someone to dig a hole and then fill it creates GDP, but no value; just as a disaster such as an earthquake or war often has a stimulating effect on GDP, without any consideration yet for value, utility, human wants, etc. In short, let us stick to definitions....