It's not a fair question? Sure it is. I'm willing to bet that even the women will go with me on this one. Now, choose.

Domenica Davis or Milton Friedman?

Why do you hesitate? Do you think I'm comparing apples and oranges? Okay then, let's look at their track records. Compare the following:

Above is the Economic Surprise Index - negative values outweigh positive ones indicating very poor performance by the economists - versus a comparison below of temperature accuracy for five weather forecasters - the few degrees they're off isn't going to change my choice of sweater or shirtsleeve attire. Incidentally, notice that the government agency (NOAA) is doing a slightly worse job than all the civilians.

It does seem that the weather forecasters are doing a better job, doesn't it? Now, let's get back to the important question.

Evelyn Taft or Paul Krugman?

Still not satisfied. Okay, let's compare the weather girls with the economists in some other areas of prognostication.

Above is a comparison of economic forecasts versus actual performance by key industries. The economists are either way too conservative or simply clueless. Below is a comparison of five weather forecasters predicting precipitation. That's a pretty damn good batting average for the weather girls. Again, the NOAA is one of the worst performers in the short range forecasting of precipitation.

I've studied both, economics and weather. Not enough to be an expert. Just enough to understand them. Interestingly, there are similarities. Both are affected by a myriad of variables interacting in seemingly magical ways. However, weather forecasters learned to qualify their prognostications. They tell us that there is a likelihood of precipitation or temperature fluctuation based on the fact that they have seen a certain result x% of the time when they have detected a specific pattern of variables. They recognize that there are other variables in play that they have not yet detected which may alter the outcome, otherwise they could predict the weather with 100% certainty.

Economists, on the other hand, seem to lack humility. They speak with an air of absolute certainty. They award themselves prizes. There's even a Nobel Prize in Economics. Yet, they do not understand all the variables that may affect a certain economic outcome. Indeed, it may be argued that there are more variables affecting the economy than there are affecting the weather. Still, have you ever heard economists couch their prognostications with a percentage of likelihood of their correctness? Me neither.

So, one more time.

Jackie Guerrido or Alan Greenspan?

Both economists and weather girls help us make decisions that affect our economic well being. Buy or sell stocks. Paint exteriors or interiors today. Raise taxes or lower them. Plant crops or harvest. 

Given the poor performance of the economists, I think that I would rather that our elected officials in Washington focus more on T&A than on Ivy League credentials. It seems to work for the weather forecasting business. They might even take a tip from Plato who complained that ignorant seamen could tell more about the weather with a glance at the sky than all the philosophers with all their intelligence. See. A little humility goes a long way. Don't find much of that in Washington, do we?