Why Economists Never Agree on Anything?
In response to the video "Why Economists Never Agree on Anything?" by Economics Explained
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6UXRZ2XwgU)

It is a decent overview video for entry level students, offering nothing to intermediates, and unintentionally delivering some interesting META-message for those who dig really deep.

At 15:03 he builds and argument of a titanium automobile: imagine we replace steel with titanium in every part of a car that benefits from such replacement, the manufacturing of such a car will be an order of magnitude more expensive, and this car will be some percents better in every regard, lighter, more durable etc. It is objectively a better car, with a 10 times inflated price tag. And here I quote him verbatim: "... but those subjectively worse cars don't make it to the marketplace because nobody is willing to pay $300K for a titanium edition of Toyota Camry".

The best answer to the topic question is: "Because economists do not have any meaningful theory of value at all.".
Case closed? No!
From the quotation above we can see how exactly they are lacking it, what is going on in the mental mess called "economics".

They were discussing value... "marginal utility", "subjective estimation"... building some mental model with logical arguments... and then all of a sudden the said notion of value becomes dependent on a new variable "the price tag" -- BOOM! -- nobody even twitched an eye. You can parade an army of elephants in front of those people for no effect.

The discussed value of an item in a mid-sentence became a value of a transaction, and the professional economist keeps talking as if nothing happened. The notion of value jumps around the space of mental models sticking to vastly different things -- labour, goods, then transactions -- adding spice to the verbal exchange of people pretending to be researchers.

So we add the second best answer to the topic question: "Economists are incapable of decomposition.".

They pile everything in a single heap, building incoherent verbal weapons instead of a well-structured mental representation of the phenomenon in question. Keeping track of labeled objects and their links and properties? Nah! That's boring.

This is yet another Why professional economists can not agree on anything -- one more property of their non-understading.