Probably not, but suppose you read a newspaper story on the Eurozone crisis that emphasized the solemn obligation of Greece to repay its creditors and included a sentence like this:
Philosophers and Greece’s foreign lenders say the austerity measures are required to meet its obligations, but they are deeply unpopular with Greeks.
You might wonder whether philosophers, who glory in their argumentative skills, actually agree on this.
In fact, the sentence in today’s New York Times reads:
Economists and Greece’s foreign lenders say the austerity measures are required to modernize its economy, but they are deeply unpopular with Greeks.
Now I happen to be an economist myself, and I know and communicate with lots of other economists of varying political and doctrinal affiliations, and none of us—none—thinks that austerity fosters modernization. How will across the board wage cuts and tax increases (on wages of course, since other forms of taxation can easily be evaded) turn the national railway system from a patronage machine into a transportation service?
The question behind the question is why the Times feels the need to give austerity an aura of professional approval.
I’m an economist, I think the Greek economy is dysfunctional on several levels, and I’m with the strikers.