The failure of macroeconomics as a science

My target is again Simon Wren-Lewis. My stress and discomfort is entirely my fault, for reading his interesting Mainly Macro blog and struggling with the logic on the one hand and the quagmire of bad English, and loose sentence structure, on the other. He writes:

"Does this core model influence the way some academics think about policy? I have written how mainstream macroeconomics neglected before the financial crisis the importance that shifting credit conditions had on consumption, and speculated that this neglect owed something to the insistence on microfoundations. That links the methodology macroeconomists use, or more accurately their belief that other methodologies are unworthy, to policy failures (or at least inadequacy) associated with that crisis and its aftermath." -- https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/ricardian-equivalence-benchmark-models.html

[1]  The 'core model' mentioned is presumably the one referred to in the previous paragraph as the 'benchmark model'; but not defined there. 

[2]  Was the 'core model' neglected, or did it do the neglecting? (Can a 'core model' neglect? Or does he mean that the practitioners of the core model did the neglecting?) 

[3]  I would suggest a few commas. ("I have written how, before the crisis, mainstream macroeconomists neglected the importance that shifting cc. had on consumption; and I speculated that this neglect...")

[3]  SW-L uses the word 'that' too often, too loosely, and to baldly. It can function as several different parts of speech, and even as a restrictive pronoun it can refer to any number of nouns, previously used (or implied).  So:  "That [neglect][insistence] links the methodology used by macroeconomists{a} to policy failures{b} associated with that crisis and its aftermath." (For clarity I have omitted clauses {a} and {b}.)  

[4]  You will notice that I object to the 'noun' 'noun' combination in the above sentence. ("methodology macroeconomists used"). It is easily avoided, as I show. 

[5]  Towards the end of the paragraph SW-L realizes that he does not mean what he has just written; but instead of scrubbing it and rewriting, he merely adds on a correction. And then another correction!

[6]  My conclusion is that the failure of macroeconomics as a science arises because of both the limited nature of the models used, and the contempt shown by one 'school' towards competing 'schools'. Add to that the fog of jargon and poor writing.