Krugman vs Rogoff and Reinhart

I think Krugman is mistaken in this post.

The Rogoff/Reinhart study looks at multiple countries and discovers that growth tapers off once gross debt exceeds 90% of GDP. This argument is not based upon one single episode of US post-war experience but upon multiple countries since the 19th century. Irons and Bivens argue that "The empirical findings of GITD are very unlikely to be relevant to the United States economy of today" which is akin to saying "What applies to everyone else does not apply to America". Sadly this is just another way of expressing American exceptionalism.

Does Krugman really believe that America's single experience of High gross debt after WW2 completely cracks open the Rogoff/Reinhart argument? It seems likely that he has not read the paper at all.

To reiterate: Rogoff/Reinhart examine multiple countries over many years and have come to the conclusion that high gross debt badly affects GDP growth. Their research is NOT based simply upon one period of US history but upon dozens of different countries. To argue that this does not apply to the US is magical thinking, based upon American exceptionalism.

(posted in comments)

No comments: