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

[CurlyhairedAssassin]

Being unable to comprehend the chancellor's economic strategy, I googled his background. His degree was in classics and history. Where are his credentials that equip him with the skills needed to be in charge of a whole country's economy?

I just don't get it. Why are we continuing to put non-specialists at the very top of their government department?

Yes, of course there are PhD topics that would make him an economist.

I don't think history PhDs are amongst them.

In any case, I have already said, the fact that he isn't an economist (and it is a fact that he isn't an economist ) doesn't actually bother me.

What bothers me is the arrogance that makes him think he knows better than the experts who know much more than him.

Right-O. I think the schoolboy errors of Kwartang prove me correct on that note that a PhD in Economic History is a history degree, not an economics degree. I also did actually go to Oxford Uni and read through the course modules for his degrees and his thesis is a history thesis, not an economics one. Rather like a thesis on the 16th century reformation of the church isn’t a actually religious text but a historical study. I understand perfectly what an economist is and is not, and Kwartang is not an economist, he’s a historian.

Sorry, but financial analysts are not that special. I had dozens working for me when I was a Director and yes it’s not 1982 but that’s neither here nor there.

What makes someone an economist? You haven’t answered the question.

Liz, Pritti, Kwasi and Raah have been planning this for a while. It's like 'The Famous 5 run a country' or 'The Stupid 5 get them and their mates Rich'.

Available on Amazon. Ideal Christmas present for the person you most dislike. Although I wouldn't buy it on principle because one of the idiotic 5 will benefit.
Trickle down economics my arse.

Well, I think they would need to have actually studied economics as a prerequisite.

Not economic history, which most definitely is not the same thing as economics.

Alrighty, 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 - l you seem to know so much about it, so enlighten us).
• What a financial analyst does on a day to day basis.

Just brief summaries are fine.

I did economic history at uni.

you wouldn’t want me as Chancellor.

even saying that, I would’ve made a better stab at it than this clown!

Quite a few world class economists, including people who have been pivotal in the creation of economic theory, don’t have a degree in Economics. So, no, not a prerequisite.

And, yes, Economic history is quite a large part of economics. You will not encounter anyone who actually knows anything about economics who would disagree with that (including people with degrees in Economics).

I don’t have that much time, you must be having a laugh.

Was it at Phd level? I’m guessing not, or you would have said.

Did you then follow it up with a successful career in finance? Also no?

I don’t want him as Chancellor, but to claim he’s ‘not an economist’ is just bizarre. Also, as nobody has said anything of the sort about previous Chancellors, who haven’t been anywhere near as qualified…I have to ask why? Why is this being said about him?

It’s not that he’s not an economist that’s the problem. As PPs have said, most cabinet ministers aren’t experts in their fields. The problem is that he, but more importantly, Truss (who gave him the job and therefore has power over him) has an ideological position (low tax, low regulation, small government, trickle-down etc) which they want to push through quickly because they’ve only got 2 years at most.

I thought as much. Yet you’ve time to write multiple comments on multiple threads.

Pick one, then. Expand on any of those points. As you’re an Oxbridge educated former City Director who has read through his course modules and know all about his thesis, this should be an
absolute doddle for you.

Or maybe, stop demanding how people respond to you.

These ‘other people’ tagged me and started these exchanges. If they can demand responses of me, I can respond in kind.

I can only think of one Education minister who has ever worked in education

yep, I’ve worked in education since 1995, and have observed exactly what happens when you put a non-education specialist in charge of education policy, a few times over. As for health….well, I’m sure we all have family and friends who work in the NHS and despair at the waste and inefficiency and pure lunacy that goes hand in hand with the implementation of silly government policy.

These ministers, and other people in prominent positions in the public sector, jump from post to post right from the start of their career (no doubt it happens in the private sector too) It seems their only aim is to leapfrog up the ladder in the quickest time possible, leaving havoc in their wake. They remain in post for far too short a time to see the true effect any changes they’ve implemented have had on their organisation/department. They can brag on their CV about having implemented this or that initiative and play around with stats which show how much of a success it was, each time making themselves look that little bit more successful than they were before. And all the while the poor buggers left behind to pick up the pieces are left standing their shaking their heads wondering who’s going to come along next time to try to implement the same initiative that was trumpeted 10 years earlier as the next big thing, that turned out to be yet another failure.

Call me cynical but it just seems to be the way life works. The true experts in their field, the ones who have been working inside the organisation at all levels for at least 10 years plus, that would be any good at the job, don’t want it cos they don’t want all the shit that comes with it. So all you get are the ambitious ones who just want to make a name for themselves and they don’t really care what happens to the organisation as long as they get their bonus or a help up to the next rung.

Yet you have time to write longer comments than I do, so surely you have ample time to fill in these glaring gaps in your knowledge? (Or maybe you know it would be a waste of your time to try and prove me wrong so you’re trying to goad me into wasting mine.)

I have always maintained that the chancellor should have a degree in Economics and relevant experience, the minister for health should be a qualified doctor who has worked in the NHS, the education minister should be an ex-teacher etc. When I am PM, a role.for which I am eminently qualified with a degree in Biology 😄, it will be so!

You’ve written some very long comments on this thread.

So, you have time to tag me, tell me how you’re an Oxbridge educated former City Director who has read through his course modules and know all about his thesis, and accuse me of ‘glaring gaps in my knowledge’. But no time to back up your claims. I see. 😂

The departments of education and health would certainly be a lot better if they were headed by people who had any background experience in the areas they are making policy decisions in.

as nobody has said anything of the sort about previous Chancellors, who haven’t been anywhere near as qualified…I have to ask why? Why is this being said about him?

ooh. I wonder. Could it perhaps be the fact that he’s only just taken on the role and already his actions have caused the pound to drop against the dollar, the Bank of England and International Monetary Fund to go into panic mode, and the public’s confidence in the Conservative party to tank too. In short, a right mess.

Rachel Reeves, Shadow Chancellor, has a degree in PPE (Oxford), a Masters in Economics (LSE) and has worked as an economist for the Bank of England and the British Embassy in Washington. I think she sounds supremely qualified fir the role and has shown no signs of being a crazed ideologue along the lines of Kwarteng.

You can despise him and his policies. That doesn’t make him ‘unqualified’ or ‘not an economist’.

If my comments are “very long” then yours are epically long. I tagged you only saying It’s not a PhD in Economics, it’s a HISTORY PhD.

After which you objected to my post to the OP and tagged me said “I don’t think you understand what an economist is.” and “That’s utter nonsense” and “Anyone who thinks they aren’t had no idea what they’re talking about.”

Oh, we’re your questions as to what economists and financial analysts are and do not genuine then? You already know and don’t need me to answer the questions you asked of me? Thought as much.

Most Chancellors don't. The issue is that Kwarteng is both arrogant and is a blind follower of his ideology rather than having the flexibility to adapt to circumstances. He won't listen to advisers, which even an economist would need as many specialise in one sector.

Professional economists with this level of dogmatism can and will fuck up in precisely this way. They are unable to ever admit that their precious theory is wrong: it's always that it wasn't implemented properly or it's someone else's fault.