Technology

Mate, I'm not the person who answered your original comment.

I just saw you making claims about somebody else making fallacious statements when in fact it was you who started with a big fat fallacy and then bitched and moaned about how they were the ones being fallacious when somebody else countered it by pointing out that at least one of the points of "evidence" that you yourself presented for Mr. Krugman's "pretty good track record" (whatever the fuck such vague and ill-defined expression means) was in fact a Swedish Central Bank Prize For Economics In Honor Of Alfred Nobel, which is commonly misportrayed as a genuine Nobel Prize - even by Krugman himself - when it is no such thing.

Of all the things to use to claim somebody has a "pretty good track record", him having something he himself calls a Nobel Prize which is not in fact a Nobel Prize actually weakens that point rather than strengthens it, as it casts suspicion on his honesty.

As it so happens for a while I had a lot of exposure to Mr. Krugman's opinions - on and after the 2008 Crash, when I in fact worked in the same Industry as he did - and in my opinion he was often full of shit and all over the place, at least back then, and a pretty good illustration of the caricatural Economist "who has predicted 10 of the last 2 downturns". One could say that he likes to throw shit at the wall, wait to see what sticks and then claim he was a genius for spotting it.

I'll repeat myself: had you not started with an Appeal To Authority in your original post and absent all those words of praise for the person making that point, just let the logic of the point speak for itself, you would have been better off.