This is an absurd conclusion. Computer science concerns itself with closed systems with known and predictable behavior. Economics must deal with the the human brain with all of its wants and needs, and the interaction of all of the people and resources on the earth. We can't even begin to understand the brain in the same way we understand a CPU. We can absolutely control the inputs and outputs of computational processes. The real world is messy and orders of magnitude more complex.
Except mainstream economics doesn't do that. It makes dramatically unrealistic and sometimes contradictory simplifying assumptions. For details see Steve Keen's Debunking Economics.
Economics concerns subject matter that is far too complex to analyze without making simplifying assumptions. If you want to argue that they make the wrong simplifying assumptions, fine, but what evidence do you have that Computer Scientists are going to do a better job of it just because they have proved the asymptotic bounds of sorting algorithms?
I made no claims about computer scientists. Keen argues that the assumptions made by mainstream economics are in fact terribly wrong.
He also suggests that people outside the field are making better contributions, but I haven't gotten to the part in the book where he argues that in detail.
