I laughed at this. Yes, this is what basically every economist suggests because of the way questions are posed (i.e. confusing correlation with causation...if a

I laughed at this. Yes, this is what basically every economist suggests because of the way questions are posed (i.e. confusing correlation with causation...if all great salesman wear Rolexes, just buy all your bad salesman Rolexes...it is so simple, how did these simple-minded, non-rigorous managers not realise this!?). Political scientists (actually, this is more policy work...where I am this is done within politics) have been looking at these questions for decades. And, about thirty or forty years ago now, they discovered that historical contingency is very important. You can't just import policies from somewhere else, you can't just move people to where the successful people are...there is other stuff going on. Unfortunately, as economists can't measure these things, they remain wholly (and often wilfully) ignorant of these points. Economists seem - boosted no doubt by laudatory articles about how precocious they were as a child - to have infinite self-confidence. Decades of research on a topic? Irrelevant. "Did you know I have tenure?". "Did you know I use lots of equations in my research? That makes me a scientist you know...rigour!". It is also baffling that someone chose to write an article about someone failing to do any significant research (particularly as so much research already exists on this topic). Perhaps doing useful research matters far less than telling everyone that you are just about to do something important...just around the corner...did you know when I got tenure btw? Very young. I am genius. I was a very smart child. Look at this photo I have of myself holding a piece of chalk when I was a child...just around the corner...