Economic Health & Human Health

David Stuckler makes a good argument about the detrimental effects of government spending cuts on public health.” When the government cuts spending, it reduces people’s income, leading to less business, more unemployment, and a vicious spiral of slowing down the economy.” The case with Kierren’s dad dying the day after being deemed “fit for work” by Cameron is an example of how budget cuts can lead to slowing down the economy. “During the late 1920s, the US super-rich—the Fords, Vanderbilts, Carnegies, and Rockefellers—were the masters of the country’s financial markets. This top 1 percent of the population held over 40 percent of America’s wealth.” Given that this time was the period right before the stock market crash and the Great Depression, having such a large wealth gap is not economically stimulating. Today’s figure of wealth inequality in the United States is completely analogous to the numbers of the late 1920s. David Stuckler writes, “As public health researchers, we were shocked and concerned at the illogic of the austerity advocates, and the hard data on its human and economic costs. We realized the impact of the Great Recession went far beyond people losing their homes and jobs. It was a full-scale assault on people’s health. At the heart of the argument was the question of what it means to be a society, and what the appropriate role of government is in protecting people.” The initial threat to health was the increased suicide rate after Black Tuesday. Similarly to the Great Recession of recent years, Stucklet finds that the suicide and fall-in traffic death rates have increased. Stuckler compares the New Deal, Shock Therapy in Russia, and the IMF programs in Asian all show how the most vulnerable members of economy feel the worse effects of austerity programs with large budget cuts, intended to improve economic health but actually hurt it while also hurting human public health.

Leave a Reply