Jesse:
I'm going to admit up front that this is probably super petty, but does having a Masters degree in Economics really qualify our Prime Minister as an economist? Such that people (NatPost) should suggest part of why we thought his relations with Keven Lynch were good was because Lynch was "a fellow economist"? Don't you have to, say, WORK as an economist before you're "an economist"?
Mr. Lynch, for example, has a DOCTORATE in Economics. And has worked as an economist for years, and years, and years, in both the public and private sector.
Prime Minister Harper has, so far as I can tell, mostly just been taken by total surprise by an economic downturn, then flip-flopped back and forth like a snared tuna over whether it's going to be easy or tough.
By the way, PDPD Chief Economist Cam (he took first year econ) will no doubt ring in on this soon.
Saturday, May 9
Title Characters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
To chime in, well, of course not.
He's an economist in basically the same way that Jack Layton's a political scientist. But the NatPost really means that "economist" here is a background and disposition, although they'd swear differently if you pressed them on it.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the crisis, though, as Carney and Bernanke look just as bewildered as Harper most days.
Except that Lightin' Jack has a PhD and has written books.
oh, yeah, interesting.
But I still think the main issue here is that people who want to score lame points can go back and forth here, but it's, er, lame.
And I don't so much think there are a tonne of points to be made here. I don't think he refers to himself as an economist.
And, on further reflection, I think this feeds in to an old idea of yours that I'm about to write about: the idea that these guys are professional politicians, and that there's some hay to be made there.
What's Harper ever done? Because if his answer is "I was an economist", then I think it's go time.
This is by far the pettiest post on this site.
Do you think Iggy did the right thing promising to bring up Sri Lanka to caucus and potentially press for Canadian sanctions against Sri Lanka in response to the Gardiner blockade? Its setting a precedent of reward for creating massive public disorder. Thoughts?
I think it would help if you guys were bigger babies, and failed to notice that I suggested in the post that it might be petty.
The economy is important. It's the biggest issue Harper's going to have to face. If he wants to play economist, and act like he has special knowledge, then he should be responsible about it, and explain why he disagreed with everyone except the most rabid right wing economists and HU when it comes to stimulus.
Politicians are obviously going to get to prevaricate about whatever they want; I think professional qualifications is something we can actually pin them down on.
I'm not as far over on this as HU. I don't think it's petty, rather just that the point gets old quickly, so it isn't worth overly fretting about.
But I agree this segues to the career politician point, which I think is a stronger one for various reasons.
And I would argue to HU that the larger point is that the National Post actually thinks Harper's an economist in any meaningful way, which is truly strange.
I am Spartacus?
/shuffles out with head down.
Post a Comment