The economist’s fundamental assumptions are wrong. The free market rational actor model is wholly incompatible with the ability of a finance or marketing industry to exist because marketing could never inform or convince anyone of anything and contracts can provide anything financialisation does without giving 10% of your income to someone who did nkthing.

This is either an intentional strawman of economic theory (which seems likely from your post history), or a naive understanding based off a single Intro to Economics class in undergrad.

It's like arguing that physics' fundamental assumptions are wrong because most undergrad physics problems assume that cows are spheres with no air resistance.

Psychology and physics are founded in empiricism

A significant amount of modern economic research is empiricist, but even if it weren't, empiricism and rationalism go hand-in-hand in scientific inquiry. Rationalism is what allowed Mendel to posit "units of inheritance" over a century before the existence of DNA was empirically verified, and Schwarzschild to posit the existence of black holes almost a century before gravitational waves were measured. Decades of productive research were had in advance of these empirical discoveries thanks to models built on rationalist inquiry, so "it's not empiricist" isn't quite the insult you seem to think it is.