pull down to refresh
I don't think just being a popularizer would count
ah fuck. Here I was hoping that shitposting on a money-is-the-moderator online forum was enough to consider me an economist.
Dreams shattered.
reply
I count you in the club. Phrasing that part more precisely, "being an unoriginal popularizer wouldn't count".
reply
YEEE-HAAAA! Also, I have huuundreds of articles published for The Daily Economy... surely that weighs in my favor too?! (Maybe my stack of Mises pieces count heavier in Undisc's book...?)
reply
Sort of, but not in the way you’re probably thinking.
Being willing and able to call out the errors of your own side and point out other work that’s being overlooked is legitimately additive.
reply
I don't think many people would seriously contend that you need a PhD in economics. David Friedman has no degree in economics, while having written extensively in economics and worked as a professor of economics for decades.
My view is that there are many sufficient conditions to qualify as an economist and few necessary ones. I'd say either having a PhD in economics or being employed as an economist both count. For someone who meets neither of those conditions, they would need to somehow have contributed to the field and have deep knowledge. I don't think just being a popularizer would count.
These criteria conveniently exclude Robert Reich, who I refuse to acknowledge as an economist.