戦争エコノミストラインハルトとロゴフは"無礼"クルーグマンを呼び出す
War economists Reinhart and Rogoff call "uncivil" Krugman
Harvard economists and Nobel are engaged in blame game
Guerra de economistas: Reinhart y Rogoff llaman “incívico” a Krugman
Los economistas de Harvard y el Nobel se enzarzan en un cruce de acusaciones
El texto de la carta a Paul Krugman (en inglés)
El País Madrid 26 MAY 2013 - 21:10 CET
Reinhart recibe a y Rogoff en su casa. / Mary F. Calver (TNYT)
War economists Reinhart and Rogoff call "uncivil" Krugman
Harvard economists and Nobel are engaged in blame game
The text of the letter to Paul Krugman (in English)
The Country Madrid 26 MAY 2013 - 21:10 CET
High Voltage academic. Harvard economists Kenneth Rogoff and Carmen Reinhart have sent a harsh letter to Nobel laureate Paul Krugman refuting the criticism that this has shed on the work of the authors of the book This Time is Different-a work in which rebuilding financial crises and their consequences since 1800 and has served semicircular politicians to justify austerity policies. Krugman asked, rhetorically, in an article (The Excel depression) if the publication of Rogoff [former IMF chief economist] and Reinhart could have "almost completely destroyed the economy of the West".
"We admire their academic work of the past that has influenced us. So we have lived with deep disappointment uncivil behavior dramatically in recent weeks, "Harvard economists say in a long letter to Krugman. When they accuse of "wild exaggeration" that the interpretation made on their work and the impact it has had on the economy "is selective and superficial". And it is "deeply misleading about where the problems are."
The academic duel joins those who have maintained throughout history other prestigious economists like Keynes and Hayek, in the interwar period, or Galbraith and Friedman in the second half of the twentieth century.
Research and Reinhartt Rogoff argues that "when a country that has been generating a large deficit is no longer able to borrow more money, it always requires a certain amount of adjustment." Harvard economists linked high debt levels with low growth. They conclude that transfer a debt level exceeding 90% of gross domestic product (GDP) causes a slowing economy. But a few weeks ago it was reported that another study published by the University of Massachusetts revealed that Reinhart and Rogoff report omitted relevant data and methodology used unusual in the academic world (based their study on an Excel spreadsheet), allowing them led to sharp criticism.
Krugman has been quick to respond qualifying as "sin analytical" the result of the work of Harvard economists. The Nobel laureate said yesterday on his blog, published in The New York Times, that "there is a huge difference between the statement countries with debt above 90% of GDP tend to have slower growth than in countries with a less than 90% debt. " And the statement: "The growth falls sharply when the debt exceeds 90%."
He adds: "The first is true, the second is not. However, R & R [Rogoff and Reinhart] repeatedly erased that distinction, and have continued to do so in recent writings ". Krugman accused of "not making an effort to correct this error, or even if you have recognized, have said that this is a misunderstanding, and made it quietly."
Harvard economists explained in the article referred to the Nobel Prize "his desire to blame our work in 2010 to justify the failure of some politicians do not recognize a basic fact: we support different policies. Anyone with experience in these matters knows that politicians can wield any item that suits their interests. "
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿