What did we have there? Gordon Brown had bankrupted the economy. If he had not let debt accumulate under his watch there would not be the pressure to reduce it now (hello, Spain there? Besides, the UK public debt was not particularly high on the eve of the crisis -private debt was). This was deemed logically undeniable.

There was the idea that the crisis was the making of Brown. Nevermind that it started in a different continent. Also, I know Labour was in power for 13 years, but a policy you failed to repeal is not exactly the same as "your" policy, and certainly not your signature.

Also, it was of course thanks to the reduction in spending that the UK could borrow at a low rate (moning, Japan, how are you?).

No direct spending could have any positive effect since, you see, it would take so long. Uh? What about not firing a teacher, does that take long?

Deep down, they're not bad people, believe me. But they seem to have got religion. My guess from the wording was that they were Torygraph readers. There was a mention of "I have a problem with the New Statesman, I find it too far left".

Anyway... if you argue, it's rude because it's discussing "politics" (I thought I was talking about economics). And if you don't, you help the meme spread. How do you fight a religion indeed?

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

This is the problem with political discourse today (and part of the reason why I don't dismiss the excuse of "electing better politicians" entirely. The truth is not obviously intuitive and requires substantially longer than one soundbite to explain - and is thus edited out of broadcast media and the above-the-fold portions of print articles. The "family finances" metaphor is immediately comprehensible (and has the added advantage of implying virtuousness). Doesn't matter if it's wrong: lying cynical politician 1, honest political aspirant 0.

Survival of the slimiest.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman

I'm at a loss. How can one combat a religion like austerity?

The traditional remedy has been sufficiently crushing poverty to make people stop seeing the political economy as a morality play and start seeing it as an existential struggle.

Notable side effects include elevated risk of suicide, national suicide, violent revolutions, coups d'etat, sabotage and assassinations.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

I've said before that the biggest failure in science over the last five decades has been its complete acceptance of pseudo-scientific economics as if it's actually a genuine science.

Instead of challenging the insane and multiply-refuted political beliefs that have slashed research funding, moved the talented into financialisation instead of research, and crippled the world economy, science chose to harangue spoonbenders, homoeopaths and dinosaur denialists instead.

And now there is no alternative, because no one of public significance has argued for one.

So it goes.

How can one combat a religion like austerity?

If it's a religion, what is their God?