What kind of scrutiny, though? We act as if economics is a science, rather than the entrail-scrivening it is. Certainly there are trends but there's no more probability or certainty in economics than there is in roulette.
More than that we're dealing with a system of such complexity and unprecedented mechanics that the only thing modeling gives you is overconfidence. I just did a quick googling on "six sigma events" in finance and we've had four or five since 2008... and statistically, the odds of one are two in a billion.
An economist would call these unprecedented times. A statistician would call them poorly modeled. So whose scrutiny shall we use? 'cuz all the "experts?" they're the ones calling the shots. And the proletariat? They're the ones who want to build a wall on the Mexican border and leave the EU.
Well every time you change the rules you have a "six sigma event" and we have had a lot of rule changes as of late to keep this bubble going. Logically you look at our economic hand and its really shit but its hard to apply logic when at any point the rules can change so drastically that you may not even be playing the same game anymore. Bailouts, Tarp, ZIRP, NIRP all these are changes in the way the financial game is scored. Investments and hedges that were winners under the old rules are total loosers under the new ones.