Sort of. I've taken a more scientific approach to economics in my theories of wealth, which are on the whole inviolable; I handwave away market dynamics a lot, since market dynamics tend to converge on correctness in the same way pressure systems converge on correctness--raising the pressure or temperature in one area of a pressure system doesn't instantly make the whole container follow the ideal gas law and experience the same pressure, but rather causes a lot of shifting. The difference is markets are *always* shifting, never static (the same can be said of pressure vessels, though).
Most economists are shopkeepers. Land theory of value, labor theory of value, subjective theory of value, what is all that shit? It's a bunch of talk about "blah blah labor blah blah work done blah blah THUS THE PRICE TAG IS THIS MANY DOLLARS". That's all they want to talk about: how many dollars something sells for. It's idiotic.
I started writing an economics theory of wealth, talking about productivity, labor time investment, how all that changes, and what it does to a society. It's about as valid as evolutionary biology, as a theory; obviously, my theories will be superseded by other theories, which will themselves be superseded, and extended, and otherwise adjusted or built upon. Still, I work on bare truths only violated by human effort, in the same way you can violate survival of the fittest--that is, survival of the biological variations and mutations which out-breed the others--by intent and animal husbandry (which we routinely do, redefining "fitness" as "useful to human purposes, but not particularly likely to survive in the wild").
The most basic, fundamental concept is simple: labor costs drop. Everything--fuel production, transportation, material production, equipment operation, work done--is labor-driven. A 100% self-maintaining, self-fueling, self-operating system uses zero labor; we don't have any of those yet. Thus we find ways to produce fuel and materials cheaply, to use cheaper fuels and materials, or to use less fuel and materials; and we find ways to directly employ less labor.
Hunter-gatherers worked 15-20 hours per week to feed every 1 person. Modern agricultural workers spend something like 27 hours per year (actually less) to feed every 1 person. That's a lot of free labor time to build rockets and send Buzz Aldrin to the moon.
Hunter-gatherers could also produce enough food for 135 million humans, total, in theory. As food became scarce, they'd have had to spend more time foraging to scrounge up enough food: instead of 20 hours for 1 person, those last people now require 30 hours to find enough food, then 40, then 60. That's what scarcity is: to produce more units of output, you need more than a proportional increase in labor--10% more output requires more than 10% more labor. Sometimes the labor is impossible: we can fly to the stars, but do we have the labor-hours to produce the materials, fuel, and food to operate a space mining initiative?
I've explained why we have welfare, why welfare systems became possible, what wealth is, what determines buying power and inflation and so forth, and even produced the theory of supply-and-demand and the theory of scarcity as mere consequences and observations of the economic theories I've developed--the most fundamental economic ideals of merchant-economists, that they can sell you crap for more money if you want it badly enough, are mere consequences to my mind. I can even tell you why diamonds are expensive.
Merchant-economists should be mindful of real economics; the problem is nobody has written a real theory of economics by this point in history. Economists are all wandering around in loincloths wearing body paint.