No.

The kernel of the argument I agree with is that economics, in the United States, is accorded more of a hard science reputation than anthropology, sociology, psychology etc. in no small part because economics uses more equations. It makes sense if you think about it - economics is the only soft science whose basis is numerical (money).

However, it remains a social science that largely attempts to quantify behavior. That there are more numerical inputs for economics than there are for anthropology does increase the number of equations thrown about when comparing economics and anthropology. The author's argument is that the easy availability of numbers and equations causes the "soft science" of economics to consider itself a "hard science" like physics or chemistry.

But I didn't use the term "pseudoscience" and I wasn't bitching about the remuneration of college economics departments. As far as I'm concerned, if you want the guy who ran Vanguard for 28 years to teach at your school you're bloody well going to pay him better than anyone in the dept of Divinity - when you've got four trillion dollars under management your incentive structure is a little different than when your high water mark is cardinal at some diocese.

I agree with the author that economics should not be considered alongside other branches of science that are numerically-driven. I disagree with the author that terms like "pseudoscience" and "astrology" can be casually thrown around - economics isn't as rigorous as physics, but anybody comparing anthropology to astrology would be driven out of academia.