Why is a non-economist in charge of the country's economy?

So, what is an economist? What is evidence of being an economist? What constitutes a substantial track record in the field? You’ve posted multiple times about why he isn’t an economist, but I note you still haven’t answered those initial fairly basic questions.

Most of my colleagues hold MSc economics, and certainly at that level it's absolutely not the case that all have quant finance or accounting!

I'm sceptical as to whether PhD economics - necessarily more narrowly specialised - would suddenly pick these up? In any case, IME it's not the norm for professional economists to hold PhDs, although some certainly do. Andy Haldane doesn't, nor did Tom Scholar.

I'm not defending Kwarteng as equivalent to a PhD economist, but if he held BSc economics nobody would be querying his credentials for the role based on his educational background... even though with a few years of distance (ie assuming no career in economics in the meantime) it's probably a comparable knowledge base.

I think it misses the point to attribute the failings of this budget to Kwarteng's understanding or otherwise of economics. It's a budget from Truss' political wishes rather than any sort of economics at all, isn't it?

He and his boss are the most dangerous of creatures, blinkered ideologues.

Agreed. His staff would include career civil servants who are economists. Not to mention the BoE is packed full of economists. All Kwasi would have to do is listen to these experts. But he’s not. Don’t know why he isn’t, but it’s clear he’s creating a cluster fuck situation.

They would if they were at PhD level- which is what that poster is arguing . I agree many at the bachelors level would not have had this training yet. The macro and micro economics are basics, hell they teach the rudimentaries of macro and micro at A level.

I agree Kwartang would need some knowledge of macro to write his PhD thesis, but again that’s why his errors are being called school boy errors by economists, it’s clear his knowledge of economics is that of an A level school boy, no more.
And even the title says it’s “Political thought of the recoinage crisis of 1695-7” clearly states it’s not an analysis of the recoinage crisis or the economy surrounding it. It’s merely trawling through records and summarising what the politicians of the day thought about the crisis. As in reading the parliamentary debates, the PMQs, how the news sheets reported it..the thesis focuses on political thought, not economics.

Doubtful he even sat a single lecture on modern economic policy and the mechanisms by which the economy operates. He may have studied historical trends in GDP, but does he even know how to calculate it? Or the ways in which different countries fiddle with it?

I think you can run things effectively without expert knowledge if you have the humility to recognise how little you know and the sense to listen to and learn from those who are actually experts in the field. Sadly, that doesn't seem to be the case with our cutting government.

This reminds me of when I worked in law and they started appointing MPs with no experience of the courts or judiciary action to the role of secretary of justice. Liz Truss was one of them and her inexperience showed. Her predecessor was Michael Gove who was equally clueless. How do you decide what resources are needed for efficient and effective running of the courts without any knowledge of the law or experience of judicial action? Interestingly, she's appointed an experienced QC to the role herself.

What a snobby attitude!

She left school with nothing and educated herself and went to college, her real world experiences are much more in line with RL than someone who went to Eton and then a family contact job in the 'city.

The secret to being a good minister is to listen and learn to your departments experts, KK didn't because he is tied to far right economic theory, as is Truss for that matter.

To be an economist you need to have taken courses in econometrics, statistics, discrete maths, accounting, and quantitative finance.

This is categorically untrue. Of the many economists I know, very few have training in accounting, and plenty don't have training in quantitative finance.

All economists should have a thorough understanding of how national accounts function, of course, but it would be quite a sleight of hand to call that 'accounting' (the more normal term would be macroeconomics... and I would suggest Kwarteng probably needed a pretty good grounding in macroeconomics to write a thesis with that title, even if it wasn't a formal module of study).

This.

Hopefully the tory backbenchers, whose constituents are all screaming abuse at them, will refuse to vote the changes through. Kwarteng will then be so toothless that he will resign.

And he still has to face the roasting he's going to get at the Tory conference next week. He'll be lucky to survive.

He'll be the shortest-surviving chancellor in history.

I get what you mean. Trouble is, how would you make sure you had an expert that was also elected? The ministers are all elected MPs obviously, as PM you then have to shuffle people about as you see fit.

No, there is absolutely no evidence of him being an economist. It would be unusual for someone without any economics qualifications to be considered an economist, but if they had a substantial track record of actually contributing to the field, then of course, you could argue that they are economists. Kwarteng does not have any track record in the field, so in the absence of any formal qualifications or relevant contribution to the field, he cannot be regarded as an economist.

A PhD in history and a few years working in finance definitely don't count! The fact that you think they do just belies your own lack of understanding about what an economist is.

Being 'an economist' is no guarantee of good policy. There are very differing views within the macroeconomic profession as to how the econoy works. The vast majority of economists in both policymaking fields and the financial industry failed to foresee inflation heading to 10% for instance (not just in this country), or previous booms / recessions.

You might learn something: direct.mit.edu/jinh/article/50/4/547/49623/Economic-History-and-the-Historians#2141301

I think you googled this without reading it. It’s a lament from 2020 saying that they should add a few history modules to economics degree courses. Because right now economics isn’t teaching any history (in the US).

“Economists and historians should continue to talk to each other regularly, with open minds, as many already do,..”

“Of all the social sciences, economics is perhaps the most likely to be characterized as ahistorical.”

”History, on the other hand, is the social science least amenable to generalizable rules of causation; indeed, many have argued that it is not a social science at all.”

”What reasonable prospect is there then for a long or happy marriage between economics and history?”

”An issue that is especially appropriate for historians (economic historians in particular) to raise is the matter of their ethical obligations..”. Oh there it is, economic historians are historians, not economists….

*Rishi

Rushi had a much better grasp of the economics!

So, no, the fact that his PhD is from the faculty of history does not mean he isn’t an economist. It does mean he isn’t degree qualified in economics. So you cannot base your assertion that he is an economist on the fact he has a degree in history.

You know nothing about this field of study. I think that you are describing yourself here by thinking a history degree is an economics degree.

As is the fact that you think economics requires ‘technical qualifications’.
They do. There’s a lot of maths in an economics degree. To be an economist you need to have taken courses in econometrics, statistics, discrete maths, accounting, and quantitative finance. These are core technical qualifications that Kwasi would never have learned whilst studying history of economics or summarising political thought (what MPs said in the PMQs one day) about the economy in century whatever.

Being in the military is not a field of study. You can be a military historian who is in the military, a military historian who isn’t. Or just someone in the military. As a parallel, it has no relevance in this conversation.

Military is a field of study- all the armed forces have their own colleges where they teach military operations to degree and postgraduate levels to their officers and civil servants.

www.da.mod.uk/study-with-us/colleges-and-schools/joint-services-command-and-staff-college
Usually you’re studying geopolitics, strategy and tactics, capabilities of your forces and the enemies’, how to do multi-national coalition operations, the role of NATO/UN, international laws and treaties etc. Its a field of study, you just can’t apply for it via UCAS.

There is no such thing as a medicine historian. The term you want is ‘medical’. And medicine is a science; economics is a social science. As stated above, history is an intrinsic part of any social science. So, no, the fact that his PhD is from the faculty of history does not mean he isn’t an economist. The fact that you think it does, or that this would require a ‘joint degree’ again indicates that you know nothing about this field of study. As is the fact that you think economics requires ‘technical qualifications’.

Being in the military is not a field of study. You can be a military historian who is in the military, a military historian who isn’t. Or just someone in the military. As a parallel, it has no relevance in this conversation.

So, you won’t answer my allegedly disingenuous questions and prove you know what you’re talking about, but you’ll spend two hours writing long comments, copy/pasting things from Google and generally doing literally anything else to prove you know what you’re talking about. Hmm. The fantasy backstory you created to support your argument from authority is looking fairly doubtful.

I’m going to bed. I’ll leave you with this. You might learn something: direct.mit.edu/jinh/article/50/4/547/49623/Economic-History-and-the-Historians#2141301

Your questions are disingenuous so I decline- except I have already posted the proof that his thesis is a history thesis done under the Faculty of History and his PhD degree is a history degree awarded by the Faculty of History.

I didn’t say being in the military and being an economist are equivalent?

What I was trying to explain to you is that terms like “economic historian” is shorthand for a historian of economies, the same way that military historian is shorthand for a historian of the military, the same way the medicine historian is shorthand for a historian of medicine.

It denotes what their speciality in history is, that is all. It doesn’t mean that they have any technical qualifications for these subjects, just they specialise in studying the history of them. He is not dual qualified as a historian and an economist. His degree was not a joint degree.

If you think being in the military and being an economist are somehow equivalent, or that ‘medicine historians’ exist, then I’m not the one embarrassing myself.

You clearly do have lots of time on your hands tonight, so I’ll ask again. As you’re an Oxbridge educated former City Director and you clearly have time on your hands, please tell us:

• What the study of Economics entails.
• What makes someone an Economist.
• The nature of his thesis (not the title, we have that).
• What a financial analyst does on a day to day basis.

I’m not the one whose criteria it is, though. You are. My basis is his PhD and finance career. If you disagree with that, then fine.

However, if your basis for someone being an economist is the study of economics (but not a degree), then what would you consider to be evidence of said study?

@Cherchezlaspice
He’s an economic historian, yes. Which makes him an economist, as well an historian.

No it really doesn’t. Not at all. You’re quite mistaken and embarrassing yourself at this point. Much like a military historian is not both in the military and an historian, or a medicine historian is not both a doctor and an historian. It’s really quite a simple concept.

Oooh, another long one. So, you have time to write all of that, but not to answer my questions. Fancy that. You’re not going to tell us what the dozens of financial analysts you used to employ did all day? Or about Kwarteng’s thesis, that you know all about (although you somehow read his course modules at Oxford, when he was at Cambridge).

He’s an economic historian, yes. Which makes him an economist, as well an historian. This has already been explained. And if you actually knew anything about economics, you’d know this and not be copy/pasting things you’ve Googled and barely understand.

@Cherchezlaspice
Proof his Phd is a history degree and his thesis is a history thesis

See attached: Faculty of History

You can’t get an economics degree from the Faculty of History. 🤷‍♀️
Those come from, wait for it, the Faculty of Economics. (Shocker I know)

I don't know whether he has made a study of economics in his own time or not, but my point is, neither do you. There is no evidence to suggest that he has, and so there is no real basis for claiming that he is an economist. Recent evidence would seem to back that up.