One other issue around prices that gets flagged a lot is whether the markets we actually have do or can correctly signal the cost of complicated externalities such as environmental losses and costs, or whether the reaction is too volatile and destroys wealth.

I think the assumption meme is probably the pop culture version of the Post Autistic Economics movement. They are a serious if trendy set of mostly young economists who emphasise the problems you mention above. They lean on the behavioural economics work you mention above pretty hard from my casual reading. I don't know that they have full blown alternative models to neoclassical economics though. Some of them might be threatening to be neo-keynsian.

Trade in goods seems more popular than other forms so far as I can tell. I seem to recall some pretty good empirical backing too.

I think there's been some studies suggesting unrestricted movement of capital can, even over time, be detrimental in economies with simple or flawed financial sectors, ie many developing economies. Anti IMF people are going to say "duh" to that. Even if that turns out to be the case ending FDI - ie turning away money - is hardly necessary, you would just need to add friction.

Unfortunately this whole debate is flavoured in the UK by Thatcher's policy of Fire them all: the Market will know its own.

_{The Political Science Department of the University of Woolloomooloo}