Over the past four years of recession, we have seen a re-run of the debate that surrounded the Great Depression. In the 1930s, there were those, like Herbert Hoover, who insisted that austerity - cutting government spending - was the way to beat recession. Others, like John Maynard Keynes, were convinced the remedy was stimulus and expansion.
In the event, it was a no-contest - and so it is today. It is now clear that the austerity being inflicted on the benighted Greeks cannot work, but even the other "PIGS" - Portugal, Ireland and Spain - who have done everything required of them by the austerity disciplinarians, have found that they are going backwards, deeper into recession and with a rising ratio of government debt to GDP.
And while the British may have avoided the problems of euro membership, they imposed their own austerity. The result? They are mired in a recession that threatens to be worse for them than the 1930s. In the US, by contrast, President Obama's stimulus programme - bitterly opposed and relatively timid as it was - is pulling the US economy around.
There can now be little doubt that stimulus is the key to beating recession. As that reality becomes increasingly difficult to deny or ignore, where do we in New Zealand stand? Sadly, we find ourselves with Herbert Hoover, down an ideological cul-de-sac with nowhere to go. The proponents of the current orthodoxy now don't even bother to defend it; they promise merely a continuation of the drawn-out stagnation - resorting, like school kids in the playground, to challenging their critics to offer something better.
The critics seem increasingly ready to respond to that challenge. A recent example is Bernard Hickey's interesting suggestion that we should consider "quantitative easing" (or, as it used to be called pejoratively, "printing money").