Hi,

I tried to answer you immediately but I couldn't because of some connectivity issues.

Yes, I do understand Keynesian economics which suggests at the time of boom. However, with Greece, those days are past. However, the key point of the article is that when the countries bailed their banks out, the board and shareholders of those banks saw an increase in the net worth. Even in the cases, where the CEOs have asked to leave, they left with a hefty settlement that is almost unrealizable to most in the middle and lower income level. However, having to come of its own debt, when the Govts., imposed austerity it is poor and middle income families who lost their jobs.

Yes, some were stupid enough to buy into the bubble. But the close nexus between the real-estate barons and the politicians, as well as the opportunistic (unregulated) acts of financial industry is the main reason for those bubble. If austerity is expected to flush inefficient industries out, should it be the banks who should have ceased to exist in the first place? I could even accept austerity, to some extent, had those banks become a national property. Instead of that, cutting the jobs of the poor and middle class, to keep afloat an asset of the rich is nothing but day-light plunder...! Hence, i tend to side with the article...!

I would also like to request you to kindly point out some articles or data sources, where the austerity has actually affected the rich, if possible...! (I mean made them lose a few millions for example..!)