Oh wow, it is certainly a challenge to find a public intellectual to admit something like that, especially considering that not everyone can be neatly placed in

Oh wow, it is certainly a challenge to find a public intellectual to admit something like that, especially considering that not everyone can be neatly placed in one of the two camps. But you can get close to that by reading between the lines, by the viewing the context. Enjoy reading Kenneth Rogoff: http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/austerity-and-debt-realism http://www.project-syndicate.org/print/austerity-and-debt-re... A close reading will show him admitting, quite begrudgingly : * we aren't that close to a "sudden stop" after all. * homework shows that rates do seem to stay low, when having high debt. It is "sobering". * more inflation is desirable (to be fair, this was always his position) * balancing the budget "tomorrow" is "facile" But if you look at my post carefully, the case for him looks stronger: * Cumulative costs - more debt, more problems. Now its worse. * there are other factors beside monetary and fiscal policy (this is definitely true, but a distraction, no reason why B shouldn't agree) * no admission that inflation is hard to do So here you go, Rogoff admits he was wrong, but finds his case only strengthened. Since he was wrong the other side was right, correct? Not exactly, since he invents a straw-man (simplistic Keynesian) to deny how much common ground there actually is. There might be a better admission somewhere, maybe in private or after a bit more time, but this is pretty close. edit: for a typo