Reinhart y Rogoff dicen que hay que ahuyentar a la austeridad

Reinhart, Rogoff Backing Furiously Away From Austerity Movement

Mark Gongloff - Hufftington Post

Under steady attack after their seminal research was found to be riddled with errors, Harvard economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff are making a show of backing away from the austerity that their research encouraged.

They claim that their views on austerity have never changed, but the record tells a different story. They're still trying to have it both ways -- advocating for government belt-tightening while trying to avoid being seen as political.

For those readers who have spent the past month held prisoner by the Sleestaks from "The Land Of The Lost," let me catch you up: Reinhart and Rogoff wrote a paper back in January 2010, called "Growth In A Time Of Debt," which strongly suggested that government debt of more than 90 percent of gross domestic product caused bad things to happen to economies. In the years since its publication, that paper has been cited by many politicians, from Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to George Osborne of the U.K., to justify harsh belt-tightening programs despite deep, widespread economic pain in the U.S., U.K. and Europe.

Two weeks ago, a University of Massachusetts-Amherst grad student, Thomas Herndon, destroyed their paper's credibility by pointing out that it was riddled with errors, including glaring data omissions and a goofy Excel spreadsheet mistake. Suddenly, the Paul Krugmans of the world, who have spent the past few years arguing fruitlessly against austerity, had the upper hand. The austerity movement had been discredited, along with the research from Reinhart and Rogoff that underpinned it.

Of course, Reinhart and Rogoff have repeatedly claimed that their work has not been discredited at all, that the bulk of the data still supports their thesis that debt is a really, really bad thing. And austerity advocates claim, accurately, that they weren't relying only on Reinhart and Rogoff in pushing for austerity. They still believe debt is a really, really bad thing, with or without Reinhart and Rogoff's numbers.

As part of the effort to rehabilitate their image, Reinhart and Rogoff have taken the additional step of trying to distance themselves from austerity altogether by claiming they were never advocates. In a Financial Times piece on Wednesday (subscription required) and in a New York Times op-ed last week, they argued that "austerity is not the only answer" to the oh-so-serious problem of government debt. In fact, a whole toolkit must be used -- a little austerity here, a little financial repression there, maybe a little inflation.

And with Wednesday's FT column, a surprising new tool appears in the kit: More government debt! Although not too much more, and only if it's used for the right things (emphasis added):

To be clear, no one should be arguing to stabilise debt, much less bring it down, until growth is more solidly entrenched....

Nevertheless, given current debt levels, enhanced stimulus should only be taken selectively and with due caution. A higher borrowing trajectory is warranted, given weak demand and low interest rates, where governments can identify high-return infrastructure projects. Borrowing to finance productive infrastructure raises long-run potential growth, ultimately pulling debt ratios lower. We have argued this consistently since the outset of the crisis.

But Reinhart and Rogoff never argued, in many of the high-profile columns they wrote following the release of their paper, that governments should take on more debt for infrastructure spending, or for anything else. In fact, they strongly suggested that governments had better hurry up and start cutting their debt, tout de suite, lest a new financial crisis hit.

This is what they wrote in the FT in January 2010, around the time of the publication of "Growth In A Time Of Debt" (emphasis mine):

Given the likelihood of continued weak consumption growth in the US and Europe, rapid withdrawal of stimulus could easily tilt the economy back into recession. Yet, the sooner politicians reconcile themselves to accepting adjustment, the lower the risks of truly paralysing debt problems down the road. Although most governments still enjoy strong access to financial markets at very low interest rates, market discipline can come without warning. Countries that have not laid the groundwork for adjustment will regret it.

Markets are already adjusting to the financial regulation that must follow in the wake of unprecedented taxpayer largesse. Soon they will also wake up to the fiscal tsunami that is following. Governments who have convinced themselves that they have done things so much better than their predecessors had better wake up first. This time is not different.

In July 2011, they wrote in Bloomberg:

Although we agree that governments must exercise caution in gradually reducing crisis-response spending, we think it would be folly to take comfort in today's low borrowing costs, much less to interpret them as an "all clear" signal for a further explosion of debt.

Rather than suggesting that it might be okay to increase crisis-response spending temporarily, they allow only that spending can be reduced "gradually." Which is austerity by another name. And they warn governments against "a further explosion of debt" to pay for infrastructure or stimulus or anything else, even when interest rates are at record lows and people are suffering.

In June 2012, Rogoff did call "debt-ceiling absolutists" naive in their belief that governments could suddenly just stop taking on debts necessary to pay for stuff like armies and roads. But he also scolded the "simplistic Keynesians" like Krugman who have called for more debt and more government spending: "[E]xpanding today's already large deficits is a risky proposition, not the cost-free strategy that simplistic Keynesians advocate."

A little later, in August 2012, Rogoff claimed that he had "always favoured investment in high-return infrastructure projects that significantly raise long-term growth." But as Slate's Matthew Yglesias noted at the time, this is a stingy sop -- okay, fine, we can spend some money, but only as long as we're sure we're spending it on "high-return" projects. Good luck figuring out what those are.

And for the past three years, as their paper was used as a political weapon by austerity advocates, Reinhart and Rogoff remained mute, never complaining that their paper was being misconstrued or taken too far. In fact, their columns and congressional consultations only fanned austerity's flames. Rogoff in 2011 told Congress that right now was "absolutely" the time to start cutting debt, according to Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.).

Now that their thesis has suffered a potentially fatal blow, and the "fiscal tsunami" of soaring interest rates they predicted has still not materialized, Reinhart and Rogoff are re-writing history and appearing to get a little cozier with the idea of debt. Given the damage that austerity has already caused, any apparent abandonment of it is welcome. Still, there's no better proof that the intellectual case for austerity has always been empty.

Un estudiante encuentra el error en la depresión del Excel

How a student took on eminent economists on debt issue - and won
Reuters

By Edward Krudy

NEW YORK | Thu Apr 18, 2013 1:54pm EDT

(Reuters) - When Thomas Herndon, a student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst's doctoral program in economics, spotted possible errors made by two eminent Harvard economists in an influential research paper, he called his girlfriend over for a second look.

As they pored over the spreadsheets Herndon had requested from Harvard's Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, which formed the basis for a widely quoted 2010 study, they spotted what they believed were glaring errors.

"I almost didn't believe my eyes when I saw just the basic spreadsheet error," said Herndon, 28. "I was like, am I just looking at this wrong? There has to be some other explanation. So I asked my girlfriend, 'Am I seeing this wrong?'"

His girlfriend, Kyla Walters, replied: "I don't think so, Thomas."

In the world of economic luminaries, it doesn't get much bigger than Reinhart and Rogoff, whose work has had enormous influence in one of the biggest economic policy debates of the age.

Both have served at the International Monetary Fund. Reinhart was a chief economist at investment bank Bear Stearns in the 1980s, while Rogoff worked at the Federal Reserve, passing through Yale and MIT before landing at Harvard.

Their study, which found economic growth slows dramatically when a government's debt exceeds 90 percent of a country's annual economic output, has been cited by policymakers around the world as justification for slashing spending.

Former U.S. vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, is one influential politician who has cited the report to justify a budget slashing agenda.

Using the two professors' data, Herndon found that instead of a dramatic fall in growth, the decline was much milder, slowing to about 2.2 percent, instead of the slump to minus 0.1 percent that Reinhart and Rogoff predicted.

Things tend to move at a glacial pace in the world of academic research papers, but within 24 hours Herndon and his two teachers, who co-authored the report, Michael Ash and Robert Pollin, found themselves swept up in a global debate.

Herndon's paper began life as a replication exercise for a term paper in a graduate econometrics class. He expected to replicate Reinhart and Rogoff's results, then challenge the idea that high public debt caused growth to slow.

But he never got that far. Repeated failures to replicate the results roused his interest. Pollin and Ash encouraged him to pursue it after he convinced them he was onto something.

"At first, I didn't believe him. I thought, 'OK he's a student, he's got to be wrong. These are eminent economists and he's a graduate student,'" Pollin said. "So we pushed him and pushed him and pushed him, and after about a month of pushing him I said, 'Goddamn it, he's right.'"

Herndon approached Reinhart and Rogoff earlier this year for the spreadsheets they used in their paper. The two professors provided them at the start of April, unlocking the mysteries of the data that had stumped Herndon.

Herndon said only 15 of the 20 countries in the report had been used in the average. He also said Reinhart and Rogoff used only one year of data for New Zealand, 1951, when growth was minus 7.6 percent, significantly skewing the results.

Reinhart and Rogoff have admitted to a "coding error" in the spreadsheet that meant some countries were omitted from their calculations. But the economists denied they selectively omitted data or that they used a questionable methodology.

For Ash, the findings mean the claim that high public debt causes growth to stall no longer holds water.

"Their central thesis has been substantially weakened," he said.

Reinhart and Rogoff, however, say their conclusion that there is a correlation between high debt and slow growth still holds.

"It is sobering that such an error slipped into one of our papers despite our best efforts to be consistently careful," they said in a joint statement. "We do not, however, believe this regrettable slip affects in any significant way the central message of the paper or that in our subsequent work."

Now that Herndon has ably crossed swords with some of the most eminent figures in his field, he is thinking about expanding his work into a Ph.D. thesis.

(Reporting By Edward Krudy; Editing by Stacey Joyce)

Krugman: La depresión del Excel

The Excel Depression

By PAUL KRUGMAN

In this age of information, math errors can lead to disaster. NASA’sMars Orbiter crashed because engineers forgot to convert to metric measurements; JPMorgan Chase’s “London Whale” venture went bad in part because modelers divided by a sum instead of an average. So, did an Excel coding error destroy the economies of the Western world?. New York Times

The story so far: At the beginning of 2010, two Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff, circulated a paper, “Growth in a Time of Debt,” that purported to identify a critical “threshold,” a tipping point, for government indebtedness. Once debt exceeds 90 percent of gross domestic product, they claimed, economic growth drops off sharply.

Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff had credibility thanks to a widely admired earlier book on the history of financial crises, and their timing was impeccable. The paper came out just after Greece went into crisis and played right into the desire of many officials to “pivot” from stimulus to austerity. As a result, the paper instantly became famous; it was, and is, surely the most influential economic analysis of recent years.

In fact, Reinhart-Rogoff quickly achieved almost sacred status among self-proclaimed guardians of fiscal responsibility; their tipping-point claim was treated not as a disputed hypothesis but as unquestioned fact. For example, a Washington Post editorial earlier this yearwarned against any relaxation on the deficit front, because we are “dangerously near the 90 percent mark that economists regard as a threat to sustainable economic growth.” Notice the phrasing: “economists,” not “some economists,” let alone “some economists, vigorously disputed by other economists with equally good credentials,” which was the reality.

For the truth is that Reinhart-Rogoff faced substantial criticism from the start, and the controversy grew over time. As soon as the paper was released, many economists pointed out that a negative correlation between debt and economic performance need not mean that high debt causes low growth. It could just as easily be the other way around, with poor economic performance leading to high debt. Indeed, that’s obviously the case for Japan, which went deep into debt only after its growth collapsed in the early 1990s.

Over time, another problem emerged: Other researchers, using seemingly comparable data on debt and growth, couldn’t replicate the Reinhart-Rogoff results. They typically found some correlation between high debt and slow growth — but nothing that looked like a tipping point at 90 percent or, indeed, any particular level of debt.

Finally, Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff allowed researchers at the University of Massachusetts to look at their original spreadsheet — and the mystery of the irreproducible results was solved. First, they omitted some data; second, they used unusual and highly questionable statistical procedures; and finally, yes, they made an Excel coding error. Correct these oddities and errors, and you get what other researchers have found: some correlation between high debt and slow growth, with no indication of which is causing which, but no sign at all of that 90 percent “threshold.”

In response, Ms. Reinhart and Mr. Rogoff have acknowledged the coding error, defended their other decisions and claimed that they never asserted that debt necessarily causes slow growth. That’s a bit disingenuous because they repeatedly insinuated that proposition even if they avoided saying it outright. But, in any case, what really matters isn’t what they meant to say, it’s how their work was read: Austerity enthusiasts trumpeted that supposed 90 percent tipping point as a proven fact and a reason to slash government spending even in the face of mass unemployment.

So the Reinhart-Rogoff fiasco needs to be seen in the broader context of austerity mania: the obviously intense desire of policy makers, politicians and pundits across the Western world to turn their backs on the unemployed and instead use the economic crisis as an excuse to slash social programs.

What the Reinhart-Rogoff affair shows is the extent to which austerity has been sold on false pretenses. For three years, the turn to austerity has been presented not as a choice but as a necessity. Economic research, austerity advocates insisted, showed that terrible things happen once debt exceeds 90 percent of G.D.P. But “economic research” showed no such thing; a couple of economists made that assertion, while many others disagreed. Policy makers abandoned the unemployed and turned to austerity because they wanted to, not because they had to.

So will toppling Reinhart-Rogoff from its pedestal change anything? I’d like to think so. But I predict that the usual suspects will just find another dubious piece of economic analysis to canonize, and the depression will go on and on.