The idea that suffering is good for both the soul and the economy is widely held. To “austerians”, a financial crisis is a mark of moral turpitude, to be redeemed only by suffering. But an economy exists on earth, not in the afterlife. Those who advocate the path of austerity need to show that it is not just moral, but effective. How is this to be done? By pointing to successful examples. In Europe, that example is often the Baltics and, above all, Latvia, a crisis-hit country that was rescued and is now – we are told – blooming. Is it? And, if it is, does this bring lessons for others? The answer to both questions is: only up to a point.
人們普遍認爲，緊縮既符合道義又有利於經濟。對「緊縮派」而言，金融危機是道德敗壞的標誌，只有經歷緊縮之苦才能贖罪。但經濟存在於當世，而非來生。那些提倡緊縮的人必須證明，緊縮不僅符合道義，而且還很有效。如何才能證明？答案是舉出成功的例子。在歐洲，人們往往把波羅的海國家當作例子，尤其是拉脫維亞——拉脫維亞曾遭受危機衝擊，後來得到紓困，現在（我們被告知）經濟蓬勃發展。真是這樣嗎？若果真如此，其他國家能以此爲榜樣嗎？這兩個問題的答案均是：只是在某種程度上如此。