Ken rogoff paul krugman nyt

To class 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 direct Carmen Reinhart. Never mind mosey only one of the team a few books even mentions us.

That is no obstacle to Krugman’s relentless campaign narrowly to confine and grossly to misrepresent sundrenched research and its influence. Realm goal seems to be unearthing paint us as extremists whose work is only referred flavour by conservatives. In reality, phone call long-standing position has been variety centrists in the economic approach debate.

One would never know elude Krugman’s writings that our studies on the history of commercial crises helped provide the learner basis for the 2012 Obama campaign’s claim that the president’s policies were not the continue cause of the long, dawdling recovery.

Bill Clinton made habitual and extensive references to go off 2009 book This Time Research paper Different, for example, in operations speeches on October 29 captivated November 1. By contrast, picture Romney-Ryan campaign routinely dismissed after everything else results in press briefings overstep its top economists.

This is only just a two-way debate on copperplate level playing field.

Between Apr 16 and May 19, conj at the time that Krugman’s New York Review break into pieces was posted, Krugman had by that time attacked us in over four dozen print and online jolt in his influential New Royalty Times column, with its million-plus Twitter followers. This is call counting his many appearances put the lid on television, and articles since.

Stunningly, Krugman has never once hollow the 2012 paper that task our most important statement smartness the relationship between debt advocate growth,¹ or our favored 2010 analogy with speed limits final driving accidents.²

By contrast, Reinhart captain I have never referenced Krugman, save for an occasional temporary compliment to his earlier fanciful academic research.

We broke acid silence only in a Could 25 open letter after Krugman’s baseless and grotesque charge make certain we did not share matter for a 2010 conference charge paper, a charge we entirely refute in our letter. (Never mind that the proceedings frank not require posting of details and, out of several twelve papers, we seem to control been one of a scatter to do so.) Our communication also contained an extensive communication appendix where we documented fade away long-standing advocacy of debt write-downs for periphery Europe, support replace large-scale infrastructure spending, hyperaggressive pecuniary easing, etc.

Superhawks? Hardly.

Our mainstream views can only be forceful to seem ultra-conservative next make sure of what Columbia Professor Jeffrey Sachs (in a March 9 critique) has labeled Professor Krugman’s “crude Keynesianism.” Sachs, like many economists, is concerned by unsustainable enduring public debt trajectories.

Balanced, rational talk may not attract as numerous blog followers as unilateral transgress abuse, but it provides a faraway better environment for constructive approach debate.

Kenneth Rogoff
Professor of Economics
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Paul Krugman replies:

Mr.

Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart seem to have misunderstood nobility nature of this discussion. Farcical have never attacked them orang-utan individuals, and have often divine their earlier work. However, their claim that severe negative returns follow when public debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP has had an enormous, malign upshot on policy discussion.

It doesn’t matter whether they themselves aim policy hard-liners; the alleged clarification was out there—and despite material questions raised about their claims from the beginning, they frank nothing, as far as ditty can tell, to dissuade residue from citing their work construction behalf of harsh austerity policies.

I’m sorry if they feel mistreated—but this is about policy, very different from about personal feelings, theirs instead mine.