Is this job candidate unqualified for the job?

One thing that is often overlook in academics is people skills and the ability to assemble or lead.

 

This is where I was going with my thoughts.

 

do you actually know how a typical portfolio manager comes to his conclusions? he watches the news, reads a quarterly/yearly financial statement from the company, mayyyybe takes the time to read industry and global journal reports (which oops, are academic in nature), and uses a computer model, that was created by the theoretical knowledge of a professor to make a suggestion. so yes... i would. if your idea was true, people at Bear Stearns would still have their jobs.

since you're still reaching a bunch... and chose to ignore my little plane tidbit... are astronauts crazy for getting in a spaceship designed by people at NASA? surely they didn't all fly spaceships before.

nice try though.

i do somewhat agree with the last two posts of R Acree and Hawk though. there is value there.

but we should stay on the topic at hand, in which case economist work really has no real world hands on equivalent, besides maybe being a financial analyst, which is low level in scope and thought compared to what somebody at the fed would be thinking about. so really even that real world equivalent is a stretch at best... maybe when he was 25-30 years old it woulda been relevant. maybe.

 

It was a real question, not meant as a "Name someone better"

More like a "What type of person....?" or "Where would you find this type?"

 

I should have shot out the disclaimer that my presense here is because of my interest, not my knowledge of how these things work. Between google and this thread I must say I am getting somewhat of an idea.

 

I thought it was the icing on the cake. LMAO!

 

I don't think it does. Macroeconomics and corporate finance are just not the same thing. Not even close.

Your analogy does not accurately depict what we're discussing. What you're actually proposing is akin to letting pilots design airplanes. And it doesn't matter how many thousands of hours they have, they just don't have the right skills to do that.

There is just no "real world experience" when it comes to macroeconomics. It's either academia or government (in which I include IMF and the like).

 

True, but given the real world success rate of some of the theoretical crap foisted upon us by academia, I think a little skepticism is healthy.

 

Pretty sure you mean tenure, although I am sure some pilots have been known to sing while they fly. As for your half-syllogism, do you mean to infer that the premise (degrees and teaching) results in the inability of the conclusion (apply that knowledge)? Implied in this seems to be a assumption of "to what" the knowledge is being applied.

Of all the categorical jobs people dismiss, the least sensical, to me anyway (but I had some good ones), are teachers.

OBTW, since everyone apparently missed the joke, Strauss was a lifelong academic.

 

You're preaching to the choir, brother. Every time I sat in a macroeconomics class, I kept thinking "this is all bullshit and you can make that stuff say anything you want it to say." I hated that stuff with a passion, and sucked pretty bad at it. Not sure which was the cause and which was the consequence.

 

I think that working in the private sector and having first hand experience with how the decisions on monetary policies effect business and lending are important. I have never stated that a strong academic background is not important but it should never be the only yardstick.

Just a stupid, hoakie ass, hillbilly opinion though.

 

You assume that the people are ignorant based on what? You may not have been addressing my comments however my point was not that the people were stupid. It was lack of a varied input. Oh and why is an academic more qualified than a CEO for the Fed based on your criteria? Seems both are different with strengths in different areas that would apply.

Teachers are not stupid but frequently lack applied experience. There is theory and then there is reality. Theory can be very useful but seldom will it work if implemented in a pure sense.

Oh and that hillbilly is likely more knowledgeable on economics than you

 

no, he's not.

 

Academicians are often more accustomed to developing and testing theories in a very controlled environment manipulating very few variables at a time. In the wild, that is often not a very realistic or practical approach. Monetary policy may well be one of the few exceptions. My gut feeling is give the guy a chance, but the downside of failure is a bit frightening.

 

Not sure if it's ignorance, or simple stupidity (you all tell me), but I thought I was pretty clear: comparing individual business operations with meta-macroeconomics (i.e,, monetary policy of the US Dollar in the 21st century global economy).

I don't believe the job of the Fed (putting Strick's syllogism of "application") is well-aligned with private sector business management skills (which it appears is what folks are wishing for). It's not just a different ballpark, it's a different sport.

 

How many academics are in this thread that can weigh in?

 

Much better stated. Though there is companies like Wal Mart, GE, GM, Microsoft that are larger than many countries economies and deal with international trade and laws.

I think he is qualified just a poor choice at this time.

 

You raise a good point, and why I, as a physical scientist, tend to loath economics -- it actually doesn't lend itself to classical scientific inquiry well at all. All those universally un-met assumptions, and human behavior and shit. It's also why political philosophy is so strongly tied to international economics, and why, since the rules are just patterns, there is very little accountability toward policies that go adrift. Which in turn leads to even less agreement on the nature of the drift (consider one classic historical case: FDR's economic polices in reaction to the Great Depression).

Back on sorta topic: Why would a CEO want to to join the government in a leadership role? Oh. waitaminute. I forgot where I lived there for a sec .

 

So exactly what good are stellar qualifications from academia or corporate America? Sounds like it is somewhat akin to trying to steer the Titanic with a trolling motor.

 

I'm still trying to figure it out.