Hacker News Reader

The correction actually bolsters the claim that more debt leads to lower growth.

0-30 debt/GDP, 4.2% growth; 30-60, 3.1 %; 60-90, 3.2%,; 90-120, 2.4% and over 120, 1.6%

there's a big difference between claiming that >90% debt leads to (slower) growth of 2.2% and claiming that it results in (negative) growth of -0.1%. In the first scenario, you don't grow as quickly as you'd like, in the second scenario your economy is actually shrinking and you're entering a death spiral.

You're setting up a straw man. That's not my argument. The argument is that the data bolsters the claim that more debt correlates with slower growth.

No I'm not. I know what your argument is, and it's disingenuous. It's like saying that you only have one pet in your apartment while glossing over the fact that the pet is an elephant.

Nobody disputes the idea that more debt can result in slower growth. But there's a huge difference between saying that growth with high debt levels has historically been about 2.2% (compared to a more desirable 3%+ with lower debt) and saying that high-debt-growth has been -0.1%. That's an error of 220% in the wrong direction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com