Skip to main content

View Diary: Researchers finally replicated Reinhart-Rogoff, and there are serious problems. (124 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  there's no doubt (20+ / 0-)

    that this will go mainstream.

    and the reason is because Mike Konczal actually "tweet-marketed" the story in a very buzz-feed type of way by saying an excel error fuelled the pro-austerity movement.

    Krugman picked it  up, Bernstein picked it up, and every journalist on Twitter and financial analysts are screaming about it. The "woops Excel error" angle is what makes this a "sexy" mainstream / television story that's sellable.

    this is really an effective way to get the mainstream to care about niche-wonky type of issues.

    R&R have responded, by the way, here is a letter they sent out to journalists in full:

    http://www.businessinsider.com/...

    Basically they're shellshocked. They're trying to claim that even if the aggregate data isn't accurate, the "90%+ debt/gdp still has 1% lower growth".

    It's really a sad thing to see lol. Not only is their main point that growth drops above a totally nonsensical threshold, but they stick to their story and claim causation.

    I mean, it's obvious that this isn't a causal relationship, and the slower growth is associated with a period where economies usually apply keynesian stimulus to offset the dip and generate growth to come out of the slump.

    So they seem to acknowledge the error (although not directly) while still clinging to their point by (falsely) claiming that their original interpretation doesn't change.

    It comes off as academically unethical and intellectually dishonest of them to stick to their conclusion but ignore the SNAFU.

    Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

    by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 01:25:55 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  In fact, (0+ / 0-)

      it makes one think they new about the errors, but were mainly interested in supporting a conclusion they believed rather than in finding out the truth.

      •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

        "knew" not "new." But have no fear, my general conclusion is still the same. -:) -:) -:)

      •  There is no doubt they censored the data (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        aguadito

        That alone should have been cause to bounce the paper.

        But, that didn't happen (their dog ate their homework, or dug a hole and buried their spreadsheet). What is remarkable is that now, after the original paper led to so much damage, they finally allow full review of the data set and (false) assumptions.

        •  I was thinking about that as well (0+ / 0-)

          I mean, they willingly gave their data over to Haldron et al -- if they had KNOWINGLY deceptively manipulated the data or ignored key analyses -- why would they give up the data knowing they would be exposed?

          I'm not sure what to make of the intentions of R&R just yet, but as I mentioned up-thread -- there is an AEI & Heritage (right-wing) connection to Reinhart and Rogoff. And of course corporations and plutocrats fund AEI & Heritage.

          I really don't want to jump into calling this a conspiracy theory, but we've literally had YEARS of MISERABLE austerity inflicted on Europe, and used to justify cuts in the US and totally wash away any hope of stimulus -- mostly because of this Harvard study...

          Deficits don't matter, jobs do.

          by aguadito on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:48:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (150)
  • Community (65)
  • Elections (43)
  • Civil Rights (38)
  • Culture (32)
  • 2016 (32)
  • Baltimore (28)
  • Economy (27)
  • Texas (27)
  • Law (27)
  • Bernie Sanders (26)
  • Environment (26)
  • Hillary Clinton (24)
  • Labor (23)
  • Health Care (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Barack Obama (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • International (18)
  • Freddie Gray (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site