The Eunuch class...

...defending its perceived exclusivity rights on economic commentary. Naturally, I disagree with this. (My comments in italics)

"The punchline to all this is that when a professional research economist thinks or talks about social insurance, unemployment, taxes, budget deficits, or sovereign debt, among other things, they almost always have a very precisely articulated model that has been vetted repeatedly for internal coherence. Critically, it is one whose constituent assumptions and parts are visible to all present, and can be fought over. And what I certainly know is that to even begin to talk about the effects of unemployment, debt, deficits, or taxes, one has to think very hard about many, many things. Examples of this approach done right in the context of some of the topics mentioned above are recent papers by Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago, Jonathan Heathcote of the Minneapolis Fed, or Dirk Kreuger and his co-authors. Comparing, even momentarily, such careful work with its explicit, careful reasoning, its ever-mindful approach to the accounting for feedback effects, and its transparent reproducibility, with the sophomoric musings of auto-didact or non-didact bloggers or writers is instructive. For those who want to really know what the best that economics has to offer is, you must look here. And this will be hard."

The panopoly of economics is far too difficult for the unwashed masses. Very subtle. Economics is now officially a religion, having fully jettisoned the teachings of its founder(s) in favor of an organized system of thought which confuses process with wisdom, sacrosanctity for the sublime. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Quesnay, Grotius, Pufendorf, William Petty, and other important "economists" suffered from the condition of being "auto-didacts". This letter reads like so many apologistic sermons. Also note the appeals to authority and genuflection for senior priesthood members.

But why should it be otherwise? Why should anyone accept uncritically that Economics, or anyfield of human endeavor, for that matter, should be easy either to process or contribute to? To some extent, people don’t. Would anyone tolerate the equivalent level of public discussion on cancer research? Most of us readily accept the proposition that Oncology requires training, and rarely give time over to non-medical-professionals’ musings. Do we expect advances in cell-biology to be immediately accessible to anyone with even a college degree? Science journalists routinely cite specific studies that have appeared in specific journals. They generally do not engage in passing their own untrained speculations off as insights. But economic blogging and much journalism largely does not operate this way. Naifs write books, and sell many of them too. People as varied as Matt Ridley and William Greider make book-length statements about economics. I’ve never done that, and this is myjob. This is, to say the very least, bizarre. The response of the untrained to the crisis has been even more startling. Many books have already been written about the nature of financial markets by non-economist writers, and I listen to Elizabeth Warren on the radio fearlessly speculating about the nature of credit market dysfunction, and so on

ECONOMICS IS NOT A SCIENCE. It has, however, become something of a profession, one that feels threatened by its lack of usefulness by comparing itself to sciences that can achieve real results. Even oncologists will admit they cannot predict the future, but Economists have a hard time dealing with this unavoidable human condition. The tone of this commentary reflects the most dangerous of attitudes: institutional arrogance and the confusion of credentials with knowledge. By beutifying not the pursuit of truth, but the establishment of an order, this commentary misses the point. Remember, it was "Political Economy" first, and should never be confused with true Science.

It is good to see rebuttals to this arrogance: