Talk:Economist

message: -17 sept 2012 "A Doctorate in Economics is the most respected ones to be called as Economist." ...um, what? I would edit this sentence to be more comprehensible, but I'm not quite sure what it's trying to say. What does 'ones' refer to, and what does 'called as Economist' mean? Sorry if this comment doesn't belong here, but really. 
-In regard to the references, some are spooky, so, lets try to improve that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.39.171.137 (talk) 14:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not true.  For example, the econ department at MIT is pretty left leaning, as oppose to its political science department which is right wing.  A commonly held misconception is that economist are "right wingers."  There are economists in all ends of the spectrum.  Examples through personalities is Princeton's Paul Krugman and Columbia's Joseph E. Stiglitz.  Another thing to keep in mind is that academic economics is different from the stuff you read on the media since in the media austrians are over-represented compared to much lower share in academia.  Brusegadi (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

text: It's actually a common myth that economists are on the right. The bogus stats are peer-reviewed empirical studies (of which I have seen quite a few, showing most economists to be left-leaning). Here's a good article (writing actually by some of the comparatively few laissez-faire economists): . Signaturebrendel 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

text: No one is suggesting writing a section on it, but 264 is not a bad size for a sample.  Brusegadi (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For a paragraph on the voting patterns of an entire field that sample size is not adequate.  Nor does it sample a broad spectrum of sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaya35 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we'll leave that to the opinion of the authors versus the anons... Brusegadi (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: "While Max Weber is best known and recognised today as one of the leading scholars and founders of modern sociology, he also accomplished much in the field of economics. However, during his life no such distinctions really existed." - from Max Weber article in Wikipedia, and it is also my own conviction. Typelighter 23:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max Weber 

message: I removed Laffer as he neither founded supply-side economics, nor is he the principle economist associated with it.  Friedman and Hayek are the economists best associated with that school of thought, and both deserve to be listed as Founding Fathers.
:Friedman and Hayek are the economists best associated with that school of thought - you'll need a reference for that; those two are more closely associated with the Austrian School and Classical economics. Signaturebrendel 06:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friedman was a Chicago school economist and Hayek was of the Austrian school. Not only were they very different from each other, neither of them were supply-siders. --Jayson Virissimo (talk) 23:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True - as I've said in my post above; I think some confusion comes from the fact that both Hayek and Friedman were libertarians and are, therefore, associated with the GOP. Neither, however, were the founding fathers of supply-side economics. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laffer as founding father in economics? 

message: With all due respect, Muhammad Yunus is no economist. Just like Coca-Cola CEO is no chemist.
:Your comparison is idiotic. Muhammad Yunus has a Ph.D. in economics and was head of the economics department at Chittagong University. E. Neville Isdell, the CEO of the Coca-Cola Company, does not have a degree in chemistry. The term "economist" is not just a description of one's occupation, but also a description of one's knowledge. --JHP (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yunus 

message: it is absolutely fucking ridiculous to have a picture of 'an economist'. you wouldn't have a picture of a geographer or a financial analyst would you?
:You have a point there, though I am not about to take sides on that issue. But is the strong lanaguage really neccessary? Oh, well. Signaturebrendel 07:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  picture 

message: I've removed the criticism section (which is comprised of only a few sentences anyway) for the following reasons: (1) Being called "dismal science" is not a criticism of economics. (2) The business week article claims (without evidence) that economists failed to predict the economic crisis of 2009 provides no evidence. In November 2007, Nouriel Roubini of NYU said in The Economist, “I now see the risk of a severe and worsening liquidity and credit crunch leading to a generalized meltdown of the financial system…” In addition to Roubini, see any of numerous Wall Street Journal editorials from the late 90’s and early 2000’s pointing to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as a likely source of future financial meltdown. Wikiant (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I am neutral on the content of the criticism section. However, it more properly beings in the Economics article than here. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Again, the recently added criticisms fit much better in Economics. That's the place where such substance is discussed. Adding it here will expand the meaning of this article until it would have to replicate a great deal of the Economics article. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cretog8 that these criticisms are off-topic for this article, which is about "Economist" as an individual profession, not about the discipline of economics which has its own article.  Although one might argue "economists" failed to prevent this recession, that is really a criticism of the discipline as a whole, rather than a criticism of the singular economist.  This article just outlines what an economist does, how much they are paid, etc. Similarly, our Psychiatry article has a section on the anti-psychiatry movement, but the Psychiatrist article just outlines academic requirements, sub-specialties and the like, with no criticism.  Therefore I would suggest removing this section as it is not within the scope of the article. Fletcher (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

text: If a physician underperforms, the problem is that physician, not physicians in general. Your statement, "economists as a whole failed..." is POV until such time as you can present evidence (specifically, you'll need to substantiate the "as a whole" part). Your statement, "did not make themselves heard" is similarly POV. I watched many economists over several years sounding the warning publicly -- some of them Nobel Laureates. My POV is that people (read, "mainstream media and popular press") didn't want to listen. Wikiant (talk) 21:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Part of our job as editors is to weigh, where appropriate, competing citations based on the quality of the source and the relevance of the citation. I believe I am correct in saying that The Economist is regarded as a higher quality source than Business Week (the former being a hybrid between an academic journal and a popular press publication; the latter being Newsweek with a bent for business topics). Add in the Wall Street Journal, which is also regarded as a more reliable source than Business Week. I've shown you an article in The Economist (and can find relatively quickly several articles in the Wall Street Journal) that disagree, on this topic, with Business Week. Wikiant (talk) 22:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia relies on editors with expertise to use their judgments and attempt to attract other editors to a consensus wrt weighing sources. I am an econometrician and do policy research, so I have expertise in this area. Were it up to me, given Business Week's reputation (relative to other sources) and given that the BW article itself doesn't appear to offer substantiation for its claims, I'd not include the BW article as a source. Nonetheless, if you check the article you'll see that we currently have exactly what you just requested -- Business Week, Wharton, and several other sources are shown. Wikiant (talk) 23:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Sorry...the citations are in the economics article. I agree with the other editors that criticism is about the science, not about the people -- so the whole criticism section should be in the economics article. I'm not throwing titles. Rather, I responded to your implied question as to what qualifies one to weigh one source over another. Remember that Wikipedia is a communal project. Each of us brings something of value to the project. One of the things of value you brought is the raising of the awareness as to the potential need for a criticism section. One of the things of value that I try to bring is a deeper than average knowledge of this subject. To the extent that we seek common ground, the article improves. Wikiant (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism. 

message: Coming across the page of David Korten I have felt that this self identification issue is causing some trouble. Korten is not a student of economics, and the discussion page mentions that he has made radical/wrong definitions of common economic terms. Could he be termed an economist? Who sets the standards?  
(My personal bias, as a student of economics, is that no one who calls GDP 'a measure of the rate at which we use up natural resources' should be called an economist. The man is well-known, recognised by fellow thinkers in the field of Green economy, he is a member of Club of Rome, but does that entitle him to be called an economist?). Anubisthefoxhead (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is for improving the article, not general discusssions on the subject.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Help needed here

message: As long as there's a section for it, maybe we should include the Clark Medal and fellowship in the Econometric Society.Franknarf11 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other honors and awards 

message: FYI, I just added Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen in the section Economist#Famous_economists and forgot to specify in the comment field before saving... --Ledjazz (talk) 18:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen to [[Economist#Famous_economists|Famous_economists]] section 

message: I've edited the opening statement, which previously stated that an economist is typically someone who holds a PhD in economics; such a statement seems highly dubious. The link backing the assertion up is also dead. The Oxford and Mirriam Webster dictionaries simply define an economist as an expert or specialist in economics. The vast majority of economists who work in the public or private sector would only be trained to degree or masters level, yet they're still economists. Cyclonius (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Sentence 

message: Dr. Lane has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:
We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.
Dr. Lane has published scholarly research which seems to be relevant to this Wikipedia article:
*Reference : Andersson, Fredrik & Holzer, Harry J. & Lane, Julia & Rosenblum, David & Smith, Jeffrey A., 2013. "Does Federally-Funded Job Training Work? Nonexperimental Estimates of WIA Training Impacts Using Longitudinal Data on Workers and Firms," IZA Discussion Papers 7621, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Lane's comment on this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Economist. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060430185238/http://www.bls.gov:80/oco/ocos055.htm to http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos055.htm#earnings/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified