Seeking Alpha

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (R&R), the Harvard economists whose research on the...

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (R&R), the Harvard economists whose research on the linkage between economic growth rates and high levels of public debt has helped inform the debate on the eurozone debt crisis and whose now famous (and largely inconsequential) spreadsheet error became an unlikely water cooler talking point, are now engaged in a full-on war of words with Paul Krugman. Essentially, Krugman claims R&R overstate the importance of the 90% debt-to-GDP threshold. R&R now accuse Krugman of using "wild hyperbole" to describe the influence of their work and call his recent behavior "spectacularly uncivil." Stay tuned.
Comments (8)
  • Ted Bear
    , contributor
    Comments (567) | Send Message
     
    Well...it doesn't matter when the same people who issue it are printing sufficient fiat dollars to buy it all back.....doesn't sound like Krugman considers this minor little issue when he argues that debt at 100% of your productivity is not a bad thing. Of course it isn't, under those terms. But that won't go on forever, and then we're just stuck with the bill, and have no hard assets to show for the furious spending spree.

     

    Oh, the hangover.
    26 May 2013, 09:27 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (820) | Send Message
     
    America has no hard assets?? Wow I learn something new everyday.
    26 May 2013, 10:10 PM Reply Like
  • Jake2992
    , contributor
    Comments (820) | Send Message
     
    Spreadsheet error.. yea right. They lied. Plain and simple.

     

    The only force large enough to pull an entire economy out of severe tailspin is the government. They have to step in and be the spender of last resort. Real unemployment would have peaked at over 35% if we didn't have the stimulus. At those high levels of unemployment, the debt grows even larger, as well as human misery.

     

    The debt fear mongers have been proven wrong and they are simply getting desperate.
    26 May 2013, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3002) | Send Message
     
    No worse than the Keynesian fear mongers that keep telling us how much worse it could have been
    26 May 2013, 11:29 PM Reply Like
  • jb8967
    , contributor
    Comments (438) | Send Message
     
    Yes, I suppose it's better to listen to the fear mongers who would have us go to war...perpetually...and then foot the bill using supplementals.
    21 Feb, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • tradewin
    , contributor
    Comments (658) | Send Message
     
    Krugman's claims are pretty outlandish. And Excel spreadsheets are error prone. But that is where everyone seems to be focusing all of the attention : the inconsequential.
    26 May 2013, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • varan
    , contributor
    Comments (3333) | Send Message
     
    If R&R had technical arguments to defend their claims, they would not have resorted to the last refuse of the losing side of an argument, to wit, accusing the other side of 'uncivil' behavior.

     

    Clearly Krugman won this one.
    27 May 2013, 02:19 AM Reply Like
  • machiavelli
    , contributor
    Comments (320) | Send Message
     
    To say the change in data is "largely consequential" is written by someone who looks at a number range (4, 2.8, 2.8, -0.1) and clams it is not significantly different than (4, 2.8, 2.8, 2.2)... even without the context it is bizarre to say so. But, it is ideology that drives the austerian junkies, not facts or data.
    27 May 2013, 04:14 AM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)