The Neoconomy. I don't talk much about macroecon here because it's become a science in which one can find evidence to support almost any position one wishes to take on any macro issue (within reason).
But of course, it's not only a science - it's also a technique powering a global machine, and this is how the Street keeps making it's money these days, an ever increasing proportion of which comes from trading profits. So the question becomes an epistomological one: how do you study phenomena that are the results of techniques that are the result of a science? How do you remove the observer from a system in which his disembodied form is always around? Is a science legitimate which exists purely as the basis for technique?
(Most) sociologists will argue that every science exists always and everywhere purely for technical manipulation - I believe in the weak form of this hypothesis; that sciences become politicized and capitalized as the gains to technique increase, as (if) the science matures. So that's my problem, essentially, with macro: it's politicized, capitalized, and too many (viz ibanks, your pension fund) have too much to lose for scienctific macro to happen anymore. Sorry, Dad!!