You forgot the quotes around "economist". Economics is still not science, it's getting closer; but the whole field ignores stuff and deals with spherical cows to simplify complexities.
This, of course, makes it wildly inaccurate.
This, of course, makes it wildly inaccurate.
All the other examples I used -- chef, journalist, writer, singer -- can win awards and recognition: Michelin stars, Pulitzer, Hugo, Nebula, Grammy, and such. Those are good indicators of their accomplishments, but that's not the same as having a set of "agreed-upon norms and standards that can be measured".
And if you decide to relax your criteria and say that having those is acceptable, then guess what? There's a Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and a slew of other awards for economists.
Like it or not, studying economics is something that people can and do dedicate their lives to. Would it be better if we had more clarity, transparency, and consensus when it comes to what they do? Absolutely. But dismissing the whole profession out of hand is unhelpful.
Economic theory is good for asking questions and maybe creating a standard. It has a dismal record of answering questions.