Hi Dani,



That is a fine essay and one that is long overdue. I wish I'd written it.



Every sentence is correct, it is a thing of beauty. But yet I dare to add to your duly considered words.



I compare the entire profession (and each individual economist in it) to a star quarterback -- for example, the great Joe Montana who is probably the best quarterback who ever lived.



But what would Joe Montana have been *without a healthy dose of self-confidence* and instead lived his life on and off the field in a world of self-imposed self-doubt, with doubts about his overall importance to his team -- in short, a world-class athlete with vastly superior skills who didn't know and who didn't believe, how capable and how important he was to his team, to his sport, and to the fans?



That is how economists and the profession itself appear to me.



It is a profession that is presently better than it has ever been, certainly no cohort of economists have the knowledge, theory, and datasets that the economists of today have, nor have such intractable problems ever required solving. For example, the economic puzzles extant in ancient Rome or of the Victorian Era were Lilliputian by comparison.



I see three main problems with regards to the profession.



1. Unlike Joe Montana who received huge, instant accolades for massively successful plays on the field -- economists prevent economic catastrophe(s) -- which nobody really notices and the world moves blithely on. THAT IS A PROBLEM. Economists prevent economic catastrophes and nobody notices. Need I say more? It is a problem related to mindfulness, to the recognition of competence, and of reward.



In short, it is a problem intrinsic to human psychology that we reward some, but not others.



It might be more accurate to say that today's economists 'make plays' that are of the utmost importance to 'the game' but are more analogous to the defensive linemen on a football team who *prevent* the other team from scoring touchdowns.



Notice that for those players that the cheering isn't as loud?



It is a major problem in economics and (unbelievably) even economists don't give their colleagues due respect.



It isn't always about creating 'touchdowns' -- sometimes it's about preventing catastrophe... each is just as important as the other.



Psychology is a major factor in regards to economics and to this point the application of human psychology with regards to individual economists and towards the profession and its rightful and important place in human societies has been largely ignored.



2. The profession lacks self-confidence. Imagine superstar pro athlete Joe Montana -- but this time *without* confidence. (!)



Did Joe Montana, great as he was/is, ever seriously think that every time he threw the ball that it would result in a 50 yard touchdown?



No. Joe Montana showed up on gameday and played his best game. Because he knew that's all he could do.



But did the fact that he couldn't throw a 50 yard touchdown every single time he threw the ball, cause him to lose confidence? No.



If you're playing *your best* game, then you should have all the confidence in the world. But there's no harm in trying to improve your game, over time. That's a given.



3. "Start with the end in mind."



In order for economists to do their jobs properly, we need to have a goal.



Nobody enters a car race where there isn't a definite start line and a definite finish line.



Economists are stuck in a race with no start line and no finish line. Why are we even racing?



We know who we're racing, we know when we're racing, but what goal are we trying to achieve?



Would somebody tell me?



You can't. There is no goal. Economics is a free-for-all race against other countries with no end goal.



And yet, every economy (country) is in that race and started at a different position, they are all driving totally different kinds of vehicles, at different speeds, and taking different routes!



We need to stop that!



You can't *win* a race when there is no finish line (a goal) unless you kill all the other competitors.



Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) anyone remember that?



We arrived at M.A.D. because politics entered the economics picture. And not always with good results in the 20th century. The 21st century doesn't look that much better.



I could write a thesis on this -- and volumes, or even tomes, would still need to be written on the verifiable path that took us from the (economic) competition point to the (political) M.A.D. point.



We need to start with the end in mind, a goal.



I posit that the finish line *the goal* for the U.S. (to keep this example simple) should be that each and every citizen has a net worth of 1 million dollars, perfect health and healthcare system support, and a fully paid or sponsored university education.



Further, by law, 25% of each American's investment portfolio should be re-invested in American businesses, and the other 25% of their portfolio should be invested in companies that are located in countries that are on good terms with the United States. And only those countries that are on good terms with the United States. (With prison time for those who invest in unfriendly nation economies)



Those goals in totality is what economists could 'work to' and 'measure against' and 'devise theories' to get us all there.



Who but America could attain such a goal?



Germany, Japan, The UK, France, Canada, Australia -- but only with American leadership and with some amount of lag-time.



Beginning with the end goal in mind would give the profession unprecedented focus and allow it to become all that it can and should be, instead of continuing on as the world-class and multi-talented group it is -- but one without a clear goal in mind, and because of that, one heavily-laded with self-doubt, and under the thumb of politicians.



The economics profession is nearing a tipping point here in the early 21st century.



It will either rise to unprecedented greatness by strongly asserting its independence from politics, by setting its own goals with the end user of economics in mind (citizens, not corporations) and on account of doing those two things, will become super effective, super efficient, and consequently become fully self-confident -- or it will become evermore the whipping boy, the toady of politicians.



In the 20th century we faced Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.) due to the competition between political models and individual politicians.



If economics remains subservient to politicians and to politics in general, the 21st century will face M.A.D. of a different kind, the Mutually Assured Destruction of the global economy -- due to the competition between political models and between individual politicians.



Because in a no-goal model, the only way to *win* is to eliminate the other competitors.



Economics by its very definition is amenable to, and works better with, an end goal.



In politics, there is no end goal



If we are to survive as a species, eventually, the importance we place on economics must supercede (Canadian spelling) that of the importance we place on politics, because, as I said before, in a no-goal race, the only way to win is to kill all the other competitors.



Which is what we've been doing in slow-motion since 1914, and one could argue, since the time of Genghis Khan.



It's always a pleasure to read your fine essays here at ProSyn, Dani. Thank you for making your posts publicly available.



Cheers, JBS