Cosma Shalizi offers his take, which I have been looking forward to for quite sometime (over a year, actually). And it is Cosma at his best -- full of incisive arguments (with tons of links) as well as provocative insights. Here he is on the physicists' blind spot in econophysics:
If econophysics is dignified enough to have a tragic flaw, it is this. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard other statistical physicists insist, or explain, or just assume, that ecology, or evolution, or neuroscience, or, social networks, or, yes, economics, "is, after all, just another many-body problem", so of course it must yield to the insights of statistical mechanics. This is why our conquistador spirit leads us to make assaults on these disciplines, and not, say, classical philology. I don't even think that this is wrong. I think the problem is that we have a drastically impoverished notion of bodies, and how they might interact.
Here he is about neo-classical economics:
... [M]ainstream economics is clearly false. I don't say this just because perfectly competitive markets aren't the only economic institution in this world; the neo-classical framework now includes very sophisticated theories of imperfect competition, imperfect information and non-market institutions, and these developments are mainstream enough to result in Nobel Prizes (in, e.g., 1993, 1994 and 2001). The foundation on which the neo-classical framework is raised, though, is an idea about rational agents: rationality means maximizing expected utility, where expectations come from maintaining a coherent subjective probability distribution, updated through Bayes's rule; moreover, the utility function is strictly self-regarding. ... Alas, experimental psychology, and still more experimental economics, amply demonstrate that empirically it's just wrong. We are boundedly rational, and, for good or for ill, we give a damn about others. Moreover, there are very general reasons, having to do with the computational intractability of optimization problems, and the severe limitations on computable Bayesian learners, to think that no creature could ever be a "rational agent" in the neo-classical sense. Bounded rationality is the only kind we encounter, and the only kind we are going to encounter. ... But, as I said, all the rest of the neo-classical framework rests on this conception of individual decision-making; remove it and all the models are standing on air. So: neo-classical economics is false.