> The article made waves because it didn't surprise anyone So the reason it made waves is because it confirmed everyone's previous biases. Which is why people

> The article made waves because it didn't surprise anyone So the reason it made waves is because it confirmed everyone's previous biases. Which is why people defend it even when that "confirmation" was based on an error of simple arithmetic. Reminds me of a bunch of studies that were taken out by Excel errors, like that economics failure about national debt going higher than GDP being some sort of trigger for societal failure. The people who boosted that study were the people who were saying the same thing, with no study, for no other reason than that the numbers are of a similar magnitude. After it was shown that the study showed no such thing, its supporters insisted that it was still true because of course it was true. https://stanfordreview.org/clarifying-the-implications-of-the-reinhart-rogoff-excel-error/ https://stanfordreview.org/clarifying-the-implications-of-th...