[Al-Rik]

"I clicked on cell L51, and saw that they had only averaged rows 30 through 44, instead of rows 30 through 49."

What Herndon had discovered was that by making a sloppy computing error, Reinhart and Rogoff had forgotten to include a critical piece of data about countries with high debt-to-GDP ratios that would have affected their overall calculations. They had also excluded data from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — all countries that experienced solid growth during periods of high debt and would thus undercut their thesis that high debt forestalls growth.

 

Not to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon (for either side), but how in the carp does someone (who is supposedly quite good at this sort of thing) make such a mistake?

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The error in question was that an Excel spreadsheet was being used to average 8 or so values, and for whatever reason -- someone clicking and dragging wrong, data being added and the formula not being updated -- only the first 5 of them were actually counted. If you've ever used Excel it's scarily plausible.

And lazy Excel Users like me tend to use always the same Excel spreadsheet.
Every time I start an new project I delete the old data, but leave the calculations in place and add the new data.
It's quick and convenient, but if you make a mistake... exact that kind of thing happens.

[Scourge of Ages]

And lazy Excel Users like me tend to use always the same Excel spreadsheet.
Every time I start an new project I delete the old data, but leave the calculations in place and add the new data.
It's quick and convenient, but if you make a mistake... exact that kind of thing happens.

[BloodEagle]

"I clicked on cell L51, and saw that they had only averaged rows 30 through 44, instead of rows 30 through 49."

What Herndon had discovered was that by making a sloppy computing error, Reinhart and Rogoff had forgotten to include a critical piece of data about countries with high debt-to-GDP ratios that would have affected their overall calculations. They had also excluded data from Canada, New Zealand, and Australia — all countries that experienced solid growth during periods of high debt and would thus undercut their thesis that high debt forestalls growth.

 

Not to jump on the conspiracy bandwagon (for either side), but how in the carp does someone (who is supposedly quite good at this sort of thing) make such a mistake?

Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity. The error in question was that an Excel spreadsheet was being used to average 8 or so values, and for whatever reason -- someone clicking and dragging wrong, data being added and the formula not being updated -- only the first 5 of them were actually counted. If you've ever used Excel it's scarily plausible.

I have used Excel, though.  It gives a visual representation when grouping things. 

So I can't understand how someone could miss something like that when calculating the final values.  If it had been an error somewhere else (somewhere in or near the data itself), then I could understand it.

As it stands, I can't help but feel that the people involved are incredibly stupid and / or incompetent, when current thought to that effect seems contrary.

[Black Wolf]

People blaming the report authors for government austerity measures are fundamentally misunderstanding the relationship between government and researchers of any stripe. There was never a moment when some prime minister or president read this report and decided "Right, time for some austerity!" I'd also be very, very surprised if there was ever any government around the world who looked into the economic research, weighed up the pros and cons, and then chose that route on the basis of the evidence. Almost certainly, the decision to go down the austerity path was made in a party room or cabinet meeting somewhere (on the same basis that people make their decisions every day, which is very rarely a scientific one). People would have then been sent out to find evidence supporting the consensus they reached, not the other way around.

You have to remember that governments, by their nature, are not rational actors, but are driven primarily by ideology. Austerity is an expression of that, just like the vast majority of policy decisions made by any government. The fact that this report was held up in support doesn't make the report at fault (though they are at fault for their own sloppy work). If it hadn't been this report, it would have been another. Count on it.

[Luis Dias]

People blaming the report authors for government austerity measures are fundamentally misunderstanding the relationship between government and researchers of any stripe. There was never a moment when some prime minister or president read this report and decided "Right, time for some austerity!"

The "report authors" [sic] aren't to be blamed for the politician's decisions. However, they are to be blamed for providing a pseudo-scientific justification for them. These "authors" weren't idle impartial scientists who just "observed" facts from the world and "published" them. They were outright advocates of austerity and used their own scientific credentials (and their papers) to justify the policies they were advocating.

So yes, I still say hang them.

I'd also be very, very surprised if there was ever any government around the world who looked into the economic research, weighed up the pros and cons, and then chose that route on the basis of the evidence. Almost certainly, the decision to go down the austerity path was made in a party room or cabinet meeting somewhere (on the same basis that people make their decisions every day, which is very rarely a scientific one). People would have then been sent out to find evidence supporting the consensus they reached, not the other way around.

Clearly you know nothing. These "party rooms" are venues where austerians made their "scientifically driven case" that Austerity was unavoidable and the least worse policy before armageddon. These points were made on numerous "powerpoint presentations" by financial ministers, aides and so on (one of those bastards is the financial minister of my country), where they advanced their ideology not as ideological, but as if it was what Science (tm) itself was saying about reality. Now this "truth" is shattered to pieces, some advocates are scrambling confused as their pet ideologies are sinking faster than the Titanic, and there's dozens of millions of people suffering due to the madness of all these idiots.

You have to remember that governments, by their nature, are not rational actors, but are driven primarily by ideology. Austerity is an expression of that, just like the vast majority of policy decisions made by any government. The fact that this report was held up in support doesn't make the report at fault (though they are at fault for their own sloppy work). If it hadn't been this report, it would have been another. Count on it.

Of course. There's a difference however in defending your ideology for its sake or pretending it's "Science". This is the part that has crumbled with this shenanigan. And I hope for the better.

[redsniper]

Part of the austerity measures is limiting condescension and "sarcastic quotes," and you're way over your quota. :V

[Phantom Hoover]

it's like reading a paragraph-long bbc headline

[Luis Dias]

The hilarious part in your comment, phantom, is that you accused me of being a troll just a few hours ago.

[Phantom Hoover]

i accused you of trolling, not of being a troll