Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
I haven't been following this much since the original episode, but at least here, I think I have to agree with Krugman. In their letter R&R are basically defending the notion that a lot of debt is dangerous. However, I don't think that was ever at issue. The issue was that their paper erroneously made debt look historically more dangerous than it was. The whole problem was that they presented a distorted reality. It doesn't seem like they are willing to own that.
Looking back on it, and I think it was your argument that was most compelling, the problem is that R&R's data suggests a trend while their paper suggests an inflection point. Trends are guidelines. Inflection points are calls to action. One should not be confused with the other.