i take your point, and it is important. but economists don't actually have jobs. they may teach. the article bit is true, but it's kind of a technicality; i'd push back against that, on some level. not too strongly. peer review is important. but it's not the only way to measure a person's contribution to a field. i'd personally rather publish over appspot than in journals, but i'm an anarchist so take that for what it is...

the other thing about a field like economics is that there's really a very small amount of base material. i had economic students in my math classes, and the way they explained it to me was that there's basically two years to the degree and the rest of it is entirely speculative and really broadly ideological. once you know what the basic glossary is, and understand a few basic mathematical techniques, the rest is just politics.

because economics is not a science. it's barely even a social science. it's more in the realm of political philosophy.

i'll call myself a mathematician from time to time offhand, depending on the context, but if i get challenged i'm not going to push the point, because i do know better than to pretend i'm really, seriously a mathematician. but, i also know that the fact that i have 30 odd credits in math (including enough taken at the graduate level when i was studying other topics to get a master's degree, if i were to apply for it) means i know more about math than you do, and can teach you more than a few things about the topic if the situation arises where i have the opportunity to.

i guess what i'm getting at is that this isn't binary. there are shades. harper may be more white than grey, but it's exaggerating to suggest he has no business talking about the economy, or something.

www.huffingtonpost.ca/frank-koller/stephen-harper-not-economist_b_8104870.html