[SilasX]

I'm not claiming R/R are saints. I'm just objecting to ridiculous strawman implied by:

"We show that, contrary to R&R, there is no definitive threshold for the public debt/GDP ratio, beyond which countries will invariably suffer a major decline in GDP growth."

RR's claim is entirely statistical, so of course they're not going to claim that exceeding the ratio always ("invariably") leads to a major decline in growth.

RR's being wrong doesn't mean it's okay to insinuate they hold ridiculous positions that they really don't. That's just compounding public misconceptions.

[pseut]

Have you been following RR's op-eds, etc over the last two years? I have the impression that they've been less circumspect than you claim.

[SilasX]

"X carries too much/undesirable risk of Y" != "X unavoidably leads to Y"

The former is what RR said, the latter is the strawman being attributed to them.