The latest stimulus plans proposed by individual countries have naturally been much debate on the part of economists of all sensibilities. Regularly, they are guests on television shows as opponents of politicians. Nothing is more natural that the experts of a domain expressed on the decisions they understand better than anyone the consequences.

We may yet feel some discomfort. Citizens would have a political debate on this and it should argue that the government or candidates. But the debate or analysis are also on the technical part of the record. This does not translate into the fact that the problem proposed by politicians was distorted, and that ordinary people could not

This is particularly striking in the oratorical duels between people of opposite edges policies. One comes to wonder if each of the protagonists did not invent its own economic theory. In the minds of viewers, or more generally non-expert citizen, we do not know if the issue comes down to a mere technical problem or a real choice of values, a social choice, political choice.

The confusion is well maintained by the politicians, who take what most of us are not expert in the field, to Klitschko figures and solutions to wield behind bits of explanation which is the only master.

Generally, the problem is ill posed, and it seems that politicians bear a great responsibility. Or they try to convince us that their solution is good, asking rhetorically to judge their proposal as a specialist field, we are not. This is really a cheap shot, similar attack on an unarmed man. Or they try to pretend that the problem requires only one solution - they do - which is reduced to technical considerations (we have heard a lot about the pension issue, among others). There would be no choice. It is characterized intellectual dishonesty. The solution found by the media to try to restore a debate that opens and initially so shaky, is to invite economists to speak, to correct such proposals or statements of politicians. This is a process that must be welcomed, and that is commendable pedagogically.

But in doing so, the normal democratic debate is not found does not reverse? The technical debate now comes in response to proposals from politicians. It's as if they could overcome the initial scientific aspect of the economy or the lessons of history, just before the appropriate corrections.

My criticism focuses on the debate in which citizens are entitled. This is not to deny that account Bercy advisers or competent economists. The problem is to make available to the public debate of issues in advance of ridding its technical issues that must be reserved for specialists.

When this happens, when the issue is debated whether a reduction in VAT leads to an increase of this, in such circumstances, we must consider that the debate is perverted. Either he is a consensus from the experts, and we are only interested in the answer, or it is not the case, and then only specialists are competent to discuss, but it ' is certainly not for us to resolve this thorny issue.

On a topical issue, the role of economic experts could be the problem correctly, ie to specify where technical discussions stops and starts where the policy options and choices values. For as the economics can help us on how to achieve a given goal, as they do us no help in choosing what should be the goal. A non-biased discussion should focus only on this last point.