you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions. and so, there are "schools" of thought. whichever is the current flavor of the month (or rather decade) will carry one of its own to the "highest prize". in terms of hard to get, i'd argue the so-called clark medal is harder. anyway, economists try to act all "science-y" and serious but the fact is, those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros) and those who win fake nobels are not the same people...
> you don't have to be "smart", you have to fit in. economics is a self-referential discipline. there is no real standard of truth or verity or validity of a theory and hence a lot of bickering even about fundamental questions.
The closer a theory fit to practice (e.g. economic modelling) the better it is.
> those who arguably understand economics very well (say a soros)
There is a difference between understanding macro economics and a person doing dubious and unethical things to get money (e.g. Soros). Soros was involved in many dubious financial transactions and was found guilty of insider trading in France. What he did in Hong Kong may not be entirely illegal but it certainly is completely unethical.
Also - their is a difference between macro-economics and things such as stock trading or currency speculation.
On the other hand - most people have a problem with a lot of economists because of what their results are (i.e. not progressive).
