Thanks for clarifying your position, which I still think is wrong..

One last attempt at illustration: most practising economists (public and private sector) are not academics and therefore are rarely - if ever - peer reviewed. It would seem, by your definition, that such economists are all bogus. (You say: "anyone who is not undergoing rigorous peer review and who is not cited by his peers is bogus.") I think that's wrong. This would, for instance, apply to most/all economists in our National Treasury, which you otherwise seem to agree is a solid institution.

I, of course, agree that advice should have some basis in empirical evidence where that exists, but that is again about Malikane's failure to provide substantive arguments for his 'manifesto' rather than his overall credentials. Where someone repeatedly, or only, does that, then these points converge and the label may be justified.

I look forward to further discussions.

Regards,

Sean