Certainly worth watching, as you suggest. And their economies are a bit different than ours. What is appropriate for the one may not work for another. I think it would depend upon where the cuts were made.

I'm reminded of how Bill Clinton managed to leave a surplus for GWB. A trillion dollars. That did seem to involve cutbacks in spending and welfare reform. (And how the Conservatives squandered it. Eight years later the Conservatives were pushing for bailouts for the huge banks and hedge funds.)

There are several forces acting upon the economies of all Western countries which cannot be controlled by either stimulus or austerity. The effects of globalization seem to be an influence which no one can control and has and will inevitably lead to depressing effects on all Western economies. It used to be that what propped up European economies was owning colonies. Expensive. Then came the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

The new imperialists are mega-corporations, whose contribution to maintaining their empires is negligible, as they transfer wealth from the Western economies to poorer nations and themselves. As they move more and more toward "owning" democracies, that influence will increase.

Another one is military expenditures. Whatever else may be said about the last half of the 20th century, the threat of major war has been decreased. The United States has no credible threat, and yet an enormous military budget draining the life out of the economy. There is no chance of a major European war. The only real wars are those the US has started. There is no chance of that being significantly reduced. Another drain on the economy that neither austerity nor stimulus can affect.

But beware the physician who has only one option for every problem. Fever? Let blood. Nausea? Let blood. Coughing? Let blood. Aches? Let blood. Anemia? Easy. Let more blood. Poor economy? Cut taxes on the wealthy and cut social services. Good economy? You guessed it.