When I read economists and listen to their propositions, I immediately check their background and match their words with their business engagement. That is the way to acquire the means to understand and interpret that economic proposition because economics is a subjective science. That's the truth.
If you listen to Warren Buffett (an economist de facto by virtue of practice), for example, you will see his recommendations have all the bents to stabilize the stock market and to experiment less. His views will be less relevant to emerging activities and new tech and he is less likely to address policies that engage younger people in business. He will be more into stability, old money and structured, established markets.
Paul Krugman will kill you with statistics even when we all know that figures do lie in inexact sciences like Economics. Kruger is an intellectual and a Nobel Laureate economist, but he's often wrong - like all economists.
If you listen to a manufacturer-economist, you will first be alarmed by how much he knows about nearly everything. He will list in directions that make his raw materials easily available and opens local and foreign markets to his goods. You must be keenly aware of this drift and know that his views are not altogether independent. They hardly ever are.
In my estimation, the worst of economists - insofar as one becomes an economist by virtue of experience and practice - are the banker-economists. These burn the candle of enterprise from both ends viz; they hate risks and they keep their eyes on the money to closely. Nobody with that attitude can realize their full potential in enterprise, which is a major pillar of economics, and economics being not just about money, but also about the overall good of society. Some of the benefits of a sound economy are intangible even though they are so powerful, and a blanker could miss out on those because they don't look any bit like money or a balanced book. Note that economics is about governance and it stretches out way beyond mere money and regular business.
The idea economist is one with a wide range of knowledge in businesses and a deep understanding of human nature with a good dose of selflessness and experience in government. He must also have had, it is having a definition experience in actual enterprise. This would have helped him synchronize his knowledge with reality and expanded his view of costs and benefits beyond the immediate and beyond just money.
I was stuck by Peter Obi's forex proposition and it made me out my thoughts down in this manner. My immediate opinion about his view is that we cannot liberalize forex now simple because we are not earning enough through trade or saving enough through local production. I don't see how any argument can beat that because it is simply fundamental.
132.587 SRY