Will someone teach me the basics of economics?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm not sure why the old bromide that economics is just "common sense" continues to be used when that's clearly not the case considering the inordinate math demands placed upon aspiring economists. To the laymen who has taken econ 101, this statement makes a great degree of sense but it makes no sense to me because I've encountered graduate-level econ, which is totally detached from what they teach you at the undergraduate level.

If I have pointers, they are as follows:
1. recognize that outside of banal and straightforward theories that are understood by 3rd graders (higher prices -> less quantity of a good demanded by a consumer) that economic theory consists of a series of interpretative devices that help you make sense of the world. they do not describe the world, they help you understand it. do not try to cite economic theories when arguing for or against something. do not do this: micro/macro theorists know nothing about the world, they simply know how to make models that could prove to be useful in understanding the world. if you recognize this, you will have taken away what i see as the purpose of the field. economics at the undergraduate level can provide students with a set of tools/mindset that allow them to "think like an economist".
2. if you want to understand recessions, do not take economics courses. the average person thinks that economists can explain why recessions occur or can predict them and can give a great deal of insight into how they should be addressed. the former is nonsense, economists tend to treat recessions as short-run fluctuations rather than as events that are part of some cycle. the latter is true but it's critical to recognize that short-run macroeconomic policymaking can be based on, as stated above, many different lenses. if you take an international macroeconomics or international economics course, you'll learn that the flow of capital and goods between countries can explain recessions and ought to guide the response to recessions and this might point in the direction of pursuing deflationary policies that would never be prescribed in the classroom by a professor teaching an undergraduate macro course, which deals with closed economies.

Of course, the above post relates to the field of economics, which is, without question, a social scientific field of study that has practitioners in high places and powerful methodologies/tools. The above post bears little relation to the economy. If you want to understand "the Wealth of Nations", and the traditionally outsized questions of political economy, I recommend reading a lot of economic history books, history books in general, anthropological studies of trade etc. The economy is a subject studied by many fields and there are many authors who write about the economy who aren't economists. Some of these authors have more profound things to say about the economy than the vast majority of economists.

Some examples of topics that are poorly understood/researched by economists:
-the role of the household/"household economics". Much of economic life is governed by non-market forces of the family/kinship groups. In the past, the household was the economy(hence the term, which is derived from the term "oikos", greek for household). Economists lack the tools to discuss or research household management, deliberation etc. Becker did a fine job at proposing an Econ-type way of studying these issues and his "shadow price of children" model of fertility is excellent but, look, there's a lot to be desired here.
-more generally, economics are good at fashioning terms that describe causal factors + variables that govern how we marshal our resources and make choices as individuals but they don't even pretend to be able to explain why these factors/variables matter. as an example, economists will use the term "moving costs" to describe both the intangible/tangible factors that prevent people from seamlessly moving from one place to another in search of better living standards + jobs. that's fine when constructing a model but it doesn't really help us understand immigration/migration.

I've probably made a fool out of myself here but ag isn't around anymore so w/e.