You have a very low bar for classifying someone as an ‘economist’. I see why that’s the case as it does help your narrative but does not really lend much strength to your argument in my view.
What then is an economist or a physicist or a mathematician etc. when graduating with a degree in the respective field isn't it? What additional thing needs to be there?
Just saying it doesn't count is a bit weak because that is saying training in a certain discipline and graduating in it has no meaning or skill transfer of relevance.
How about holding that title professionally? Or maybe just having him call himself an economist at some point? But your opinions are just that, and my opinion is your arguments are without merit.
I find it interesting that you know that the people on the list never ever referred to themselves as an economist.
But I guess your point is to make sure that economists don't have any successes, not some deeper introspection into whether the study of economics can help in being successful.
Yup, that did it. I am now convinced that some classes Ken took 45 years ago make him a modern day, professional economist. Guess I’m an economist too! I’m sure Paul Krugman would love the comparison.
Yup, just like there few that would consider themselves philosophers just because they took some philosophy classes in undergrad. Glad we have found some consensus on this.
