The problem, as this article suggests, is the dogmatic adherence to models. Economics must realise that it is a social science and that attempts to mathematize it, while useful for analytical purposes, do not mean that it is a definitively stable area of study governed by mechanistic rules.
The discipline must be self-reflexive regarding its desire to describe human behaviour in a such a way as humans are inherently un-mechanistic.
The fact that we still cling to dogmatic stand points is demonstrative of the fact that the death of metaphysics, at the hand of Heidegger and Nietzsche, is yet to be taken seriously.
This article does a wonderful job at demonstrating the temporal nature of our models of knowledge.
In short, we need to move beyond our dogmatic stand points in science, religion, economics and politics. We need to embrace the notion that we will never discover the finite truth of an event, we will simply move from model to model.
Simon, I feel that you are confusing the cause and the effect. Rather than banks pushing economists in the direction of this kind of behaviour, economists, through their policy recommendations and ideas about the market, allowed banks to begin acting like this.
Global trade liberalisation should not be seen as an end in itself. Economies are not one stop fixes and, as such, we should be wary of providing shared diagnoses for different countries with differing economies.
Post financial crisis, we should be moving away from liberalisation as the only prerequisite for a prosperous economy. Therefore, countries should only enter into these sorts of international agreements if they are malleable to differing social needs.