This short article argued that economics is a wonderful dynamic subject which has undergone a metamorphosis in its themes and method of inquiry. But presently, it has come under attack for its failure to satisfactorily explain the financial crises episodes that have now become a rule rather than an exception. The article tried to provide an intellectual wall of defense against the disgrace it faces from the public. It traced a very brief evolution of economics from classical political economy to the highly mathematical form it has taken today. It contended that the subject has done quite well to respond to the changing realities, but at the same time, suggested that a lot needs to be changed and adopted if Economics is to justify its title of ‘Queen of Social Sciences’ both in spirit and letter. In this direction, some suggestions were forwarded in the paper.

1. Bernanke, B., Gertler, M., & Gilchrist, S. (1996). The financial accelerator and the flight to quality. Review of Economics and Statistics, 78 (1), 1 - 15.
2. Dimand, R. W. (2007). Keynes, IS-LM, and the Marshallian tradition. History of Political Economy, 39 (1), 81 - 95. doi:10.1215/00182702-2006-024
3. Fisher, I. (1933). The debt-deflation theory of great depressions. Retrieved from <a href=https://phare.univ-paris1.fr/fileadmin/PHARE/Irving_Fisher_1933.pdf target="_blank">https://phare.univ-paris1.fr/fileadmin/PHARE/Irving_Fisher_1933.pdf</a>
4. Giles, C. (2008, November 25). The economic forecasters’ failing vision. Financial Times. Retrieved from <a href=https://www.ft.com/content/50007754-ca35-11dd-93e5-000077b07658 target="_blank">https://www.ft.com/content/50007754-ca35-11dd-93e5-000077b07658</a>
5. Keen, S. (1995). Finance and economic breakdown: Modelling Minsky’s "Financial Instability Hypothesis". Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 17 (4), 607 - 635.