> Surprised this sentiment isn't more popular, they've proven themselves to be both dishonest and incompetent.
Maybe because the question of whether they are dishonest and incompetent is a less interesting ad hominem (ad companis ?) than the question of whether China can or cannot sustain its debt-fueled binge.
> Whether or not it's "interesting", the trustworthiness of the source seems rather important.
Not really. If the question is about the popularity of a sentiment, then of course the interestingness of the sentiment is relevant.
But as with every argument, it's the quality of the argument that is important, not the arguer. The only way that the trustworthiness of the source is important is if you are unable to evaluate their argument based on other factors and were planning merely to trust them or key information they relied on based on their perceived authority which I agree would be a bad idea.
Economics is far more complicated than most other fields, and you very often don't know the real "quality of the argument" until years later. So yes, in this case prior track record does very much matter.
Maybe because the question of whether they are dishonest and incompetent is a less interesting ad hominem (ad companis ?) than the question of whether China can or cannot sustain its debt-fueled binge.