I am presently developing a post-doctoral research on credit and retail banking, with fieldwork done in two portuguese banking institutions. My interest in this topic (and in economic anthropology in general) has to do with the impression that a good part of our lives depend upon the functioning of complex financial systems of which little is known once we step out of the realm of proficient economic agents. In fact, contrary to XIX century social science which consisted basically of a reflection and critique of the industrial economy, I think that current sociological and anthropological perspectives are somewhat dettached from such topics (with the exception of economic anthropology as a sub-discipline; and, even so, there are perhaps certain phenomena that could deserve more ethnographic attention in this field, like financialization processes).
I expect that, through etnhography and other empirical methods, economic anthropology may prompt alternative ways of looking at money, sources of value and other economic subjects, contributing to make them more mundane and discussable, since their influence is already so overwhelming. (Sorry for the lack of photo, I'll post one soon...)
I feel, just as Keith has expressed above, "appalled by the way the economists have abused the public's trust." My impression is that everyone is caught like deer in the headlights, at a complete loss for words and actions. There is a general feeling of vertigo, as the sand-built foundations of economics crumble and dissolve in a rising ocean of debt, with unprecedented insolvency on all of our human, social, cultural, spiritual and ecological system accounts. Is economic anthropology constrained by the same box within which economists define economics? I sincerely hope not, because then it could be only a study of the arrangements of deck-chairs on various sinking ships. What I am hoping to see in economic anthropology is leadership in redefining the role of economics from this day forward, to turn it around and prevent it from driving us further into insolvency. The economists are not going to redefine their own role, I think. I want to see economics redefined as the study of right-livelihood and right-relationship within all of nature's systems. I think E. F. Schumacher was on the right track with his "Buddhist Economics." I realize that as a field of anthropology, economic anthropology might be constrained to consider mainly the social and cultural systems. However, I think it is crucial to study these in the context of the larger natural systems within which they are embedded.
Starting with Hulya's and Lily's most recent comments, I would say that the dialogue and cooperation between anthropologists and economists, in the terms you propose, serves to illustrate that economists are not all alike, as one would tend to think bearing in mind certain hegemonic (and very discussable) economic views. .