Yet we’ve never once even nominated, let alone elected, an economist to be the President of the United States of America. 

Instead we keep electing lawyers. Now I don’t want to shit on lawyers, but I will. Lawyers are good at one thing, language. And their specific skill with language is to manipulate it and multiply it. In laymen, they are really good at writing a lot of impossible to understand sentences and then piecing them together in a giant puzzle that only those educated in the skill of linguistic-fuckary can understand. This is, in essence, the skill of a lawyer. 

This specific skill set comes in most handy when doing one of two things; Drafting a contract, to essentially lay out infinite trap doors for others to fall in and regulating an industry, as to create complex laws which create an unnecessary impedance on participants in that industry so regulators can profit through either fines on violations of those regulations (i.e. taxes and penalties  or on translations of those regulations (i.e. loopholes, exceptions and lawyer fees). 

The more complex the language, the more difficult to navigate. In essence, the opposite of a free market. Lawyers are the fat of the system, like lard, they attach themselves to the working muscle and create unnecessary waste and weight. 

And yet, we keep electing these lawyers to “save” or “create” free markets (or for the delusional; free-er markets). And then we sit back and wonder why those economic freedoms we thought we were promised never come into fruition. 

Ask yourself why a lawyer would ever work towards making his own profession obsolete. 

And yet, we keep electing lawyers. 

If we truly believe that the POTUS has any control over the economy and we truly believe that the economy is always the top priority of the President, then why don’t we elect economists to do the job?