Worthless beyond all comprehension.
The concepts studied are very good, but that constitutes around 1% of what economics majors actually study.
The remaining 99% is a lot of monkey math that obscures the real significance of those concepts.
And when economists are actually given power—which, thankfully, is almost never—they use their economics-knowledge to rationalize politically driven positions, to the extreme detriment of the economies they are tasked with fixing.
There are ‘libertarian’ economists who blither on about how ‘efficient monopolies do more to keep prices down than inefficient oligopolies…’—which, though true if taken as a purely theoretical proposition, is always used to rationalize the existence of some ghastly, nation-destroying cartel.
And then there are ‘socialist’ economists who gas on and on about the perils of under-regulation—which, though true in and of itself, is invariably being used to justify an enlargement of some already bloated government bureaucracy.
Take the case of Jeffrey Sachs. When he advocates ‘capitalism’, he ends up wrecking the country whose government he is advising, and he does the same thing when he advocates ‘socialism.’
Every idea he tries out leads to mass wreckage, even though half of the ideas he tries out are negations of other failed proposals of his.
His economics-knowledge—for lack of a better word—has two functions: (i) to come up with ideas that are supposed to help economies but, when implemented, destroy them, and (ii) to come up with whiny denials of culpability for said failures.
The idea that society benefits in some way or other from the existence of formally trained economists is just a lie.
But can you make money as an economics major?
But only because companies think that having a mannequin-‘economist’ on staff makes them look good.