Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

JaneyVee

(19,877 posts)
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 11:27 AM Apr 2013

Whoops! Turns out debt doesn’t ruin economies.

A paper justifying international austerity measures had a couple mistakes that totally undermine its argument

Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff are two very, very well-respected Harvard economists. They are the authors of a very well-received account of the financial crisis and its antecedents. In 2010 they released a paper that is among the most influential economic papers of the modern era. The paper argued that countries with a debt-to-GDP ratio above 90 percent average negative GDP growth. (The paper also suggested that correlation is causation, in the direction neoliberal misers prefer.) In other words, this was, for many people, concrete proof — with numbers and a chart — that government debt is bad for the economy and should be reduced even in the midst of a recession and an employment crisis. The authors have briefed leaders and legislators around the world on their finding, and the paper has essentially been used to justify most debt hysteria around the world, since its publication.

But! Whoops, turns out they were wrong, about that one central fact that has been repeated as the gospel truth by purveyors of Tough Talk on debt the world over for the last three years. They screwed up their spreadsheet. Turns out average GDP growth in countries with debt-GDP ratios 90 percent and higher is positive, not negative.

The error was revealed in a new paper by Thomas Herndon, Michael Ash, and Robert Pollin of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and written about by Mike Konczal. Those authors also noted a couple counties had years of data excluded — data that would’ve undermined Reinhart and Rogoff’s argument — and criticized the way Reinhart and Rogoff weighted each country’s data in a way that privileges years of high debt and low growth over years of high debt and regular growth.

The reason we are just now getting critical second looks at Reinhart and Rogoff’s findings now, when the paper in question came out in 2010, is that the economists just didn’t release their data. Here’s Dean Baker complaining about that fact in 2010. As he wrote: “Mr Rogoff and Ms. Reinhart have declined to adhere to standard ethics within the economics profession and have refused to share the data on which they base their conclusion with other researchers.”

So, austerity’s canceled, right? Haha, no, sorry.

The rest: http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/whoops_turns_out_debt_doesnt_ruin_economies/
------------------------------------------------------------

John Maynard Keynes is laughing from his grave.
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Whoops! Turns out debt doesn’t ruin economies. (Original Post) JaneyVee Apr 2013 OP
k&r for exposure. n/t Laelth Apr 2013 #1
2 important points there: the errors and that the data had not been released, yet global policy suffragette Apr 2013 #2
Watch this become like the autism-vaccines study Trekologer Apr 2013 #3
IMAGINE THAT! elleng Apr 2013 #4
Ridiculous ErikJ Apr 2013 #5
Kicked and recommended. Uncle Joe Apr 2013 #6
You don't say! sakabatou Apr 2013 #7
K&R drm604 Apr 2013 #8
A spreadsheet error - Really???? summerschild Apr 2013 #9

suffragette

(12,232 posts)
2. 2 important points there: the errors and that the data had not been released, yet global policy
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:30 PM
Apr 2013

decisions were made.

K&R

Trekologer

(997 posts)
3. Watch this become like the autism-vaccines study
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:35 PM
Apr 2013

It is false, the actual data contradicts the conclusion, and data was manipulated to reach the conclusion. But those who are set in the mindset will cling to it no matter what.

 

ErikJ

(6,335 posts)
5. Ridiculous
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 12:54 PM
Apr 2013

A business that buys a larger building and machinery to double their production capacities could have a debt 1000% (10 times) their annual gross profit, but their gross profit (equivalent to GDP) will increase 100%.

The Cons are conning us as usual.

summerschild

(725 posts)
9. A spreadsheet error - Really????
Wed Apr 17, 2013, 02:55 PM
Apr 2013

FROM Salon article:

The problem is that debt moralists used the study to justify a political belief, and they will not shed that belief now that the study has been shown to be flawed. The idea that debt is just innately bad, and indicative of a sort of national deficiency of character, will persist. It’s not based on data, it’s based on facile analogies to kitchen table checkbook balancing and “common sense” about how it is always necessary to “live within your means.” We already have plenty of evidence that austerity doesn’t boost economies, and no one cares. No one will care about this.”


I looked up Reinhart and Rogoff. Both were appointed to the IMF during Bush’s first term.

Rogoff gained attention in 2002 when he wrote an open letter to Joseph Stiglitz after Stiglitz criticized the IMF in his book, Globalization and Its Discontents. After reading Rogoff’s open letter to Stiglitz, I seriously doubt the “arithmetic” in the Reinhart/Rogoff report was a simple mistake. Take a minute to read the letter, remembering it was written in 2002. They were just insuring the report said what they wanted it to say - - - and it's been inflicted on the world.

Rogoff’s letter: http://www.imf.org/external/np/vc/2002/070202.htm
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Whoops! Turns out debt do...