Sure, post-WW1 France vs. Britain are a fairly good natural experiment that was conducted - France devalued and Britain did not, and despite the natural advanta

Sure, post-WW1 France vs. Britain are a fairly good natural experiment that was conducted - France devalued and Britain did not, and despite the natural advantage of not being destroyed in the war France's economy generally outperformed Britain's anyway. In the current situation one can look at the US vs. Europe though that is more of a less-austerity vs. more-austerity example and of the course, as with all natural experiments the two subjects are not entirely the same. That, and the economic models that are consistent with recent behaviour in these economies are saying that the alternative is better. Also, we know the trade-off here - austerity is bad for wage-earners, the poor, people with few, no, or negative assets in the denominated currency. Inflation is bad for net asset-holders in the denominated currency and importers. Now, given that most of the vulnerable people in a society fall into one group that can be a moral basis for action and it is easy to see which side of the political spectrum is more likely to align on each particular side of the debate. (I post this feeling assured you probably won't read the response since a whole day has passed, but what the heck!)