While one hand was trying to balance the budget cutting in investment (education that makes people happier and more productive, healthcare that keeps people healthy, ...) the other hand has been increasing the expenses and decreasing revenue (giving bailouts to bankers, allowing tax havens).

How was austerity supposed to balance the economy when money was given away to the rich and taxes reduced? For each euro that was removed from schools, more than that was given to banks. Each time public health benefits were reduced there was a new company moving to Ireland, Malta, etc.

So, now we have the same or more unbalanced budgets but citizens are poorer, less educated and do not see a future for themselves.

> Continued stagnation will feed the resentment and anti-establishment, anti-euro forces in Italy.

The Eurozone countries need to increase revenues and start investing that money into education to prepare its citizens for the new economy. The alternative is disenfranchised citizens stuck in poverty that will fall in the hands of populism.

You have to spend money to make money. Austerity misses the point.