The unexpected results of last week's parliamentary elections in the U.K. have reignited a debate that has been raging ever since the global financial crisis took hold in 2007: spending vs. austerity.
On one side of the argument is Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who has long argued that increased government expenditure is more beneficial for aiding a recovering economy rather than tough fiscal austerity. Over the last five years, the noted Keynesian has lambasted the U.K. government for cutting back on public spending at a critical time for its ailing economy.
This weekend, however, Krugman was on the receiving end of a stinging retort.
"Shame where shame is due," Harvard historian Niall Ferguson said in a comment piece in the Financial Times on Sunday, adding that Keynesian economists have been "ignominiously humbled."