The only economics paper that I have ever seen that uses mathematics correctly is the Black-Scholes model of options. However, it wasn't very difficult for them to get that right, because it is essentially a diffusion equation which Fourier solved 150 years prior. Economists make horrible, shitty mathematicians partly because they are in such haste to get a result, that they hardly ever examine their assumptions and axioms. Many of their "proofs" involve restating a given, which they trumpet as a great result. A few of them have learned to use MATLAB or some other crank-turning algorithm, oblivious to the caveat of the programmer: garbage in, garbage out.

The way economics is taught is not scientific at all. The appeals to the "rational economic man", the assumptions of monotonicity, the poorly defined variables. Economics of today is as scientific as the astrology of 10 centuries ago. Just as economists have lots of "data" so too did the astrologers. They could predict when Mars would go into retrograde with great accuracy. But just as Mars going into retrograde did not correlate with the propensity of war on Earth, so too does a lot of economic "data" fail to correlate with some fundamental principle of theirs.

Economists need to quit flinging bullshit around and do much more observing before they try to draw conclusions. Biology is not as advanced mathematically as some of the other sciences, partly because there was a whole lot of stuff to observe before taking pen to paper to write an equation. Economics is just about as complex as biology when one tries to describe an economic transaction. Their simplification about price being where sellers and buyers come into equilibrium in the "market" is about as vapid as a biologist explaining evolution as "two organisms mate and then they have offspring". However, biologists, unlike economists, have a lot more stories to tell along the way, full of detailed observations.

Since economics is a "social" science, politics plays a great part in the desired outcome. They aren't afforded the luxury of examining an economic system and positing a relationship between two variables and then testing it. Their hypotheses already start out loaded with a viewpoint, be it "price is determined by supply and demand" or some similar schlock. Where are their studies that examine the nature of the function that maps the two variables supply and demand onto price? There aren't any, because they don't understand the topology involved in that last sentence, or why it would be necessary to investigate it.

I don't see any improvement in the situation any time soon. People inclined to study economics only learn enough mathematics to get by and are not the Hardy or Russell type of deep thinkers. Mathematicians who can analyze a subject in that level of detail shy away from mathematics partly because it is a swamp full of fetid axioms and ridiculous assumptions.