I'd definitely agree with that. I took a-level economics, later graduated with a first in industrial economics, and later still took a masters in crit. theory. When I was studying for my undergrad, everything at A-level economics suddenly looked hopelessly simplistic, neoclassical Ricardian bollocks in thrall to the mystical force of 'supply' and 'demand' and 'the free market' as if such things actually existed! So I thought I was pretty sussed. Then when i took my masters I suddenly realised that my undergrad degree was only marginally less a simplification than my A-levels. In fact that was all bollocks too.

My conclusion is thus: economics is generally bollocks regardless of the level it is taught at. Teach politics, history and continental critical theory to kids instead - all of which involve economics, but as part of a broader sweep. I think even treating 'economics' as a subject in its own right is to fall some way into the hands of those who treat the figure of 'homo economicus' as the very heart of society.