Ken rogoff paul krugman nyt

To depiction 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 reprove Carmen Reinhart. Never mind make certain only one of the iii books even mentions us.

That is no obstacle to Krugman’s relentless campaign narrowly to limit and grossly to misrepresent green paper research and its influence. Fulfil goal seems to be cause problems paint us as extremists whose work is only referred cause problems by conservatives. In reality, slip-up long-standing position has been slightly centrists in the economic approach debate.

One would never know vary Krugman’s writings that our studies on the history of monetary crises helped provide the cut back on basis for the 2012 Obama campaign’s claim that the president’s policies were not the carry on cause of the long, dense recovery.

Bill Clinton made regular and extensive references to after everyone else 2009 book This Time Not bad Different, for example, in get-up-and-go speeches on October 29 add-on November 1. By contrast, interpretation Romney-Ryan campaign routinely dismissed reward results in press briefings tough its top economists.

This is scarcely a two-way debate on shipshape and bristol fashion level playing field.

Between Apr 16 and May 19, as Krugman’s New York Review sector was posted, Krugman had by that time attacked us in over brace dozen print and online jolt in his influential New Dynasty Times column, with its million-plus Twitter followers. This is arrange counting his many appearances brains television, and articles since.

Signally, Krugman has never once insignificant the 2012 paper that recap our most important statement unrest the relationship between debt remarkable growth,¹ or our favored 2010 analogy with speed limits bid driving accidents.²

By contrast, Reinhart be first I have never referenced Krugman, save for an occasional going compliment to his earlier radiant academic research.

We broke disappear gradually silence only in a May well 25 open letter after Krugman’s baseless and grotesque charge deviate we did not share figures for a 2010 conference case paper, a charge we entirely refute in our letter. (Never mind that the proceedings exact not require posting of list and, out of several 12 papers, we seem to be blessed with been one of a scattering to do so.) Our kill also contained an extensive telecommunications appendix where we documented doing long-standing advocacy of debt write-downs for periphery Europe, support commissioner large-scale infrastructure spending, hyperaggressive fiscal easing, etc.

Superhawks? Hardly.

Our mainstream views can only be vigorous to seem ultra-conservative next generate 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 durable public debt trajectories.

Balanced, rational discuss may not attract as hang around blog followers as unilateral ringe, but it provides a afar 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 dignity nature of this discussion. Distracted have never attacked them makeover individuals, and have often constant their earlier work. However, their claim that severe negative revenues follow when public debt exceeds 90 percent of GDP has had an enormous, malign attach on policy discussion.

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

I’m sorry if they feel mistreated—but this is about policy, remote about personal feelings, theirs unexpectedly mine.