Gherald says:

I don't understand the left's obsession with Megan's credentials, which I commented on three weeks ago

LG later wrote:

On the dilletante side of things, I don't have any problem reading
average folks with interesting thoughts who don't hold themselves out
as experts in any sense of the word (eg you and me). I get suspicious
when people without the training to call themselves an expert in a
field do so (and, no, in my mind, an MBA is not sufficient training to
be considered an expert in economics).

My response was:

You're going to have to point me to an example of Megan calling herself an expert on something she isn't. In the year or so that I've been reading her blog, she's been quite up-front about her academic qualifications whenever it's relevant, which it rarely is.

Since when do we expect successful bloggers to be scholars? Do you read Andrew because he has a PhD in government, or because he's a popular blogger with many interesting things to say? Is Ezra Klein's health wonkery less relevant because he only has a BA in political science? Are you concerned that Matt Yglesias has only majored in philosophy?

What's so special about economics? Why can't someone who comes from a related field--Wall Street finance and journalism, in Megan's case--have informed things to say about economics and associated policy matters? And how can you even begin to justify the claim that she "knows nothing of economics or political economy, beyond that minimum of jargon needed…" ?

I can understand disagreeing with someone who's views and analysis you don't like. But pretending someone with Megan's considerable knowledge & understanding never knows what she's talking about is absurd.

Perhaps you should read Megan taking down someone who genuinely "knows nothing of economics or political economy, beyond that minimum of jargon needed" for a better feel of what that's really like.

To which he replied: "Back to the grind, back later."

And now the lazy bastard's in Hawaii! Figures. =P