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?

I don't believe I said that they had to have a degree in economics, merely that they needed to have studied it.

I see no evidence of Kwarteng having studied economics. He has studied economic history, which is not the same thing. Of course there is some overlap, but he is a historian rather than an economist.

In any case, it doesn't matter. He clearly doesn't have the knowledge that he needs to run the economy, regardless of his qualifications, so he needs to listen more to those around him who knows what they're doing. I strongly suspect that, in his case, it's one of those situations where a little learning is a dangerous thing...he thinks he knows what he is doing, but the results of his actions would suggest otherwise.

This is one of your comments. It’s much longer than anything I’ve written on this thread. I’ll repeat it as you seem to have forgotten it.

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.

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

you asked “why nobody has said anything of the sort about other Chancellors, who haven’t been anywhere near as qualified” . I was responding to that point. When people cause havoc after only being in post 2 minutes then others start to scrutinise them and wonder if they know what they’re doing.

If you weren’t referring to a degree, then what evidence of study would be available to you?

I’m not proffering a view as to whether it matters if he’s an economist. I said he was one and you tagged me to disagree.

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.

@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)

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
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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

Rushi had a much better grasp of the economics!

*Rishi

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….

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.