He knows the joke behind the title of this blog.
When I realised the magnitude of the utter hopelessness of finding an interesting title for a blog on economics, written by a Canadian academic, I decided to go with irony.
Update: Here's yet another. Paul Krugman points us to an autobiographical piece:
Admittedly, there were those science fiction novels. Indeed, they may
have been what made me go into economics. Those who read the stuff may
be aware of the classic Foundation trilogy by Isaac Asimov. It is one of
the few science fiction series that deals with social scientists — the
"psychohistorians", who use their understanding of the mathematics
of society to save civilization as the Galactic Empire collapses. I loved
Foundation, and in my early teens my secret fantasy was to become a psychohistorian.
Unfortunately, there's no such thing (yet). I was and am fascinated by
history, but the craft of history is far better at the what and the when
than the why, and I eventually wanted more. As for social sciences other
than economics, I am interested in their subjects but cannot get excited
about their methods — the power of economic models to show how plausible
assumptions yield surprising conclusions, to distill clear insights from
seemingly murky issues, has no counterpart yet in political science or
sociology. Someday there will exist a unified social science of the kind
that Asimov imagined, but for the time being economics is as close to psychohistory
as you can get.
The first time I read this, I nearly jumped out of my skin; this is also the story of how I drifted from another field – political science in my case – to economics.
Worthwhile Canadian Initiative 
I did wonder.
By the way I’m an admirer of some of your views. But I guess it is easier coming from a small country, with a parliamentary system and which usually has coalition governments. Americans are terrified of any policies that can’t be expressed in 6 words or less. The idea of one initiative offsetting another is too complex (politically) for them to consider.
Stephen, No hard feelings but I always did think the blog title kinda sucked. Self-deprecating English-Canadian whatever are getting kinda tiring, dontcha think? And no I don’t have a better suggestion at this moment. Though knowing the history behind the name does help.
But I was intrigued by this bit from the link given by Krugman:
Canadian economics blogger Stephen Gordon’s “Worthwhile Canadian Initiative,” defiantly in English from “Quebec City,” covers Canadian trade and economics.
Care to comment? Are you raising the hackles of colleagues and students by running an economics blog in English only?
No, no, no. I don’t know why they said that; I speak French to francophones, and English to anglophones. The hard-core English rights movement is more of a Montreal West Island phenomenon.
I didn’t think so. Besides quebecois economists publish all their best work in English and are generally less dogmatic about always working in French only.
This award should increase Krugman’s standing among members of the general public. Whether it will contribute to a couple of points difference in presidential race is another matter though.
I’m hoping that the higher profile of ‘new’ or strategic trade theory will reinforce the Canadian public’s support for freer trade.
Ah, the internets – such a wonderful thing for revealing that what you always took to be extremely odd and unusual personal motivations or tastes are actually shared by quite a large number of people. I can’t decide if it’s nice that there are others who are sort of like me on this one, or if it’s incredibly scary.
this is also the story of how I drifted from another field – political science in my case – to economics
Likewise. Besides, many of the more interesting political scientists and sociologists borrow heavily from economics though economists seem to be doing much borrowing from psychologists and biologists these days.
Curious though, I experienced some frustration in economics in the beginning until I started to slowly realize how strategic theory and property rights economics managed to get at questions previously addressed by structuralists and similar big picture story tellers. Neo-classical economics lacked sufficient social hierarchy.