[rzwitserloot]

This is an ad hominem attack in the sense that PK has laid out the logic underlying his statement here. He is not asking that you are to trust his point based solely on his say-so.

The right approach is: "This argument is dubious / incorrect / however you might want to refer to 'wrong' because X" where X could be "there's this and that proof that there -are- deals being made" or "Here is proof the Japanese DID drop bowling balls" or even a more esoteric "I don't think grousing about one-party rule and the death of US democracy is reasonable; these concerns are overblown", which feels more like a slugfest between 2 'vibes' which seems kinda silly, but, by all means, share your opinion here.

But, "Paul Krugman said it therefore what the fuck who cares?" is a logical fallacy and it should have no place here on HN.

[readthenotes1]

If someone is famous for being wrong, shouldn't that be considered in evaluating hen's statements?

[anonymars]

Famous according to who? I would judge his record as probably mixed, like most predictions ("predictions are hard, especially about the future."*) Otherwise picking stocks would do better than random chance.

One could be wrong despite the right reasoning or right for the wrong reasons.

And yet, at some level, I agree with you. It's natural to weight what other people say by perception of their prior predictions. I have a similar reaction to Larry Kudlow or Jim Cramer: if one of them told me the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and double check.

Thinking about it some more, I think I can reconcile the difference by looking at the reasoning versus looking at the result. Like poker: you can make the right move and still lose, or make the wrong move and still win.

To bring that back to the current topic: Trump may yet escape causing a recession, but the reasoning for "this tariff war is a terrible idea" has thus far struck me as a lot more coherent than the reasoning for "this tariff war will lead to prosperity"

* funny enough, after writing this whole spiel, I looked it up to see if I got the Yogi Berra quote right (I didn't), but what did I find? An article about this exact topic (Krugman's predictions): https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/12/predict...

[rzwitserloot]

That's judging a book by its cover territory.

You can do that: Life is too short to do a whole bunch of research just to check anything you hear, so you have to judge statements using known imprecise and dangerously oversimplified mechanisms such as 'well, this guy has been wrong so often, lets just assume also wrong here'. But _if_ you do that, you should know you're using really bad guidelines, and you should definitely NOT spread that around and start using it as a logical argument. You, personally, aren't going to bother checking the truth of a statement if it comes from a source you consider exceedingly dubious. Fine. But don't tell others it's a load of horsepuckey because X said it. At best, state that X's personal assurances it is true aren't worth anything.

The right move would be to not click it on HN and not comment on it. If you care enough to comment, why not just check the statements or argue based on them?