1) is laughable. Economics is hardly developed enough for someone to a.) come up with a theory "no body else" has and b.) have that theory be specific enough that one individual in a short amount of time could profit greatly from it and c.) studies a topic that's so chaotic the best theories of it are "long term" - i.e. 10s-100s of years, not days. The exceptions to my point here are so widely known as to not be profitable or not really be 'doing economics'
2) By the nature of the work of an economist there will always be people who want to say they're an economist so people will 'follow them'. Everyone has an opinion about the economy. The best system in place is the academic route - university education, accreditation, and peer review. Those aren't perfect. I'm saying they're the best we're likely to get.
3) I'd say economists either work in academia, government, or private enterprise. In academia they're refining theories, teaching, and publishing. In government and private they're running numbers. In private enterprise, I'd say they're expected to tell who ever what that person wants to hear in the way they want to hear it.
2) By the nature of the work of an economist there will always be people who want to say they're an economist so people will 'follow them'. Everyone has an opinion about the economy. The best system in place is the academic route - university education, accreditation, and peer review. Those aren't perfect. I'm saying they're the best we're likely to get.
3) I'd say economists either work in academia, government, or private enterprise. In academia they're refining theories, teaching, and publishing. In government and private they're running numbers. In private enterprise, I'd say they're expected to tell who ever what that person wants to hear in the way they want to hear it.