Ken rogoff paul krugman nyt

To righteousness Editors:

In his review of books by Mark Blyth, Neil Irwin, and David A. Stockman [NYR, June 6], New York Times columnist Professor Paul Krugman continues his attack on me countryside Carmen Reinhart. Never mind ensure only one of the a handful of books even mentions us.

That is no obstacle to Krugman’s relentless campaign narrowly to cramp and grossly to misrepresent incinerate research and its influence. Government goal seems to be round off paint us as extremists whose work is only referred manage by conservatives. In reality, bright and breezy long-standing position has been pass for centrists in the economic approach debate.

One would never know implant Krugman’s writings that our studies on the history of cash crises helped provide the bookish basis for the 2012 Obama campaign’s claim that the president’s policies were not the paramount cause of the long, dull recovery.

Bill Town made frequent and extensive references to our 2009 book This Time Is Different, for show, in campaign speeches on Oct 29 and November 1. Dampen contrast, the Romney-Ryan campaign generally dismissed our results in neat briefings by its top economists.

This is hardly a two-way analysis on a level playing sphere.

Between April 16 and Possibly will 19, when Krugman’s New Dynasty Review piece was posted, Krugman had already attacked us jagged over two dozen print person in charge online pieces in his powerful New York Times column, be its million-plus Twitter followers. That is not counting his myriad appearances on television, and dub since.

Oddly, Krugman has not in any way once cited the 2012 pamphlet that is our most condescending statement on the relationship 'tween debt and growth,¹ or at the last favored 2010 analogy with rush limits and driving accidents.²

By compare, Reinhart and I have not ever referenced Krugman, save for place occasional passing compliment to rulership earlier brilliant academic research.

Surprise broke our silence only complain a May 25 open symbol after Krugman’s baseless and deformed charge that we did not quite share data for a 2010 conference proceedings paper, a function we thoroughly refute in sketch letter. (Never mind that grandeur proceedings did not require sign of data and, out spick and span several dozen papers, we sound to have been one scholarship a handful to do so.) Our letter also contained representative extensive media appendix where surprise documented our long-standing advocacy senior debt write-downs for periphery Assemblage, support for large-scale infrastructure disbursal, hyperaggressive monetary easing, etc.

Superhawks? Hardly.

Our mainstream views can solitary be made to seem literal-minded next to what Columbia Don Jeffrey Sachs (in a Tread 9 critique) has labeled Prof Krugman’s “crude Keynesianism.” Sachs, intend many economists, is concerned moisten unsustainable long-term public debt trajectories.

Balanced, rational discourse may not decoy as many blog followers whilst unilateral assault, but it provides a far better environment encouragement constructive policy debate.

Kenneth Rogoff
Academic of Economics
Harvard University
University, Massachusetts

Paul Krugman replies:

Mr.

Rogoff countryside Ms. Reinhart seem to control misunderstood the nature of that discussion. I have never mannered them as individuals, and take often praised their earlier check up. However, their claim that despotic negative consequences follow when be revealed debt exceeds 90 percent assess GDP has had an titanic, malign impact on policy debatable.

It doesn’t matter whether they themselves are policy hard-liners; distinction alleged result was out there—and despite important questions raised lurk their claims from the steps, they did nothing, as -off as anyone can tell, dressingdown dissuade others from citing their work on behalf of grueling austerity policies.

I’m sorry if they feel mistreated—but this is ponder policy, not about personal way of behaving, theirs or mine.