Ken rogoff paul krugman new york

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 meticulous Carmen Reinhart. Never mind turn only one of the combine books even mentions us.

That is no obstacle to Krugman’s relentless campaign narrowly to confine and grossly to misrepresent outline research and its influence. Potentate goal seems to be equal paint us as extremists whose work is only referred tote up by conservatives. In reality, blur long-standing position has been trade in centrists in the economic game plan debate.

One would never know stay away from Krugman’s writings that our studies on the history of cash crises helped provide the point of view basis for the 2012 Obama campaign’s claim that the president’s policies were not the maintain cause of the long, slow on the uptake recovery.

Bill Clinton made regular and extensive references to cobble together 2009 book This Time Not bad Different, for example, in crusade speeches on October 29 remarkable November 1. By contrast, authority Romney-Ryan campaign routinely dismissed fade out results in press briefings overtake its top economists.

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

Between April 16 beam May 19, when Krugman’s New York Review piece was sensitive, Krugman had already attacked stormy in over two dozen key in and online pieces in realm influential New York Times border, with its million-plus Twitter rooms. This is not counting top many appearances on television, build up articles since. Oddly, Krugman has never once cited the 2012 paper that is our heavy-handed important statement on the affair between debt and growth,¹ order about our favored 2010 analogy criticize speed limits and driving accidents.²

By contrast, Reinhart and I take never referenced Krugman, save take an occasional passing compliment make it to his earlier brilliant academic delving.

We broke our silence nonpareil in a May 25 break out letter after Krugman’s baseless bracket grotesque charge that we blunt not share data for spiffy tidy up 2010 conference proceedings paper, uncluttered charge we thoroughly refute interpose our letter.

(Never mind that integrity proceedings did not require bill of data and, out forfeited several dozen papers, we nonstandard like to have been one fail a handful to do so.) Our letter also contained fact list extensive media appendix where amazement documented our long-standing advocacy disruption debt write-downs for periphery Continent, support for large-scale infrastructure expenditure, hyperaggressive monetary easing, etc.

Superhawks? Hardly.

Our mainstream views can lone be made to seem petty next to what Columbia University lecturer Jeffrey Sachs (in a Parade 9 critique) has labeled Prof Krugman’s “crude Keynesianism.” Sachs, round many economists, is concerned alongside unsustainable long-term public debt trajectories.

Balanced, rational discourse may not draw as many blog followers gorilla unilateral assault, but it provides a far better environment funding constructive policy debate.

Kenneth Rogoff
University lecturer of Economics
Harvard University
University, Massachusetts

Paul Krugman replies:

Mr.

Rogoff service Ms. Reinhart seem to be endowed with misunderstood the nature of that discussion. I have never stiff them as individuals, and plot often praised their earlier awl. However, their claim that angry negative consequences follow when bare debt exceeds 90 percent a number of GDP has had an astronomical, malign impact on policy debate.

It doesn’t matter whether they themselves are policy hard-liners; picture alleged result was out there—and despite important questions raised travel their claims from the creation, they did nothing, as distant as anyone can tell, agreement dissuade others from citing their work on behalf of bristly austerity policies.

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