> To people who wonder why don't we have good economy simulators that would reflect a real world. Well, I think the answer is pretty simple - rich people don't want that.
The comment above is an example of an explanatory theory [1]
> An explanatory analysis will try not only to describe the information but also to provide causal relationships between the various data presented.
Simple, yes, but also too simplistic. It isn't very persuasive. For the theory to be useful, then "rich people not wanting that" would have to be causally relevant. The comment above only provides an implied incentive (e.g. rich people would benefit by preventing knowledge dissemination that undermines their status). However, there is no convincing argumentation showing how such incentives play out, much less that they are significant enough to be causally important.
I don't want to reject the entirety of what the commentor above might be trying to say. There are probably aspects that are interesting, surprising, or maybe even troubling. Perhaps there have been documented cases of influential elites shaping economic theories and how they get communicated. Maybe; I haven't studied the history of bias in the field of economics per se. I know of many biases, but so far I've tended to think about them as being largely intellectual oversimplifications rather than designed misdirections.
Let's look to some other 'simple' explanations. One competing theory would be that economists and modelers want to earn status and earn a living. There doesn't have to be any malicious nor coordinated action to explain such behavior. There are many levels of systemic behavior that align with powerful interests without any causal chain. This is sometimes referred to as co-evolution or co-adaptation.
I do want to reject the whole family of (not so good) explanatory theories that fail to give sufficient argumentation for causality.
[1] https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/30827/what-is...