2014 Shaping the Future of New York Fridays: 11:00-1:45 Boylan Hall, 2231

I think the main takeaway from this is fittingly found in the conclusion, all these countries “launched successful CCT programs but in very different ways”. (254) It’s more than okay to accept each nation is unique and complex in its own way and that’s even more reason why we should not just stick to the same Austerity methods that are constantly used over and over again. These CCT programs are creative and help civilians in their communities in ways that directly target them in order to promote the most positive effects.

Unfortunately I can see a lot of backlash from programs like this in the United States because there is a certain demographic of people that will just look at these programs as rewarding people for doing things they should have been doing anyway and feeding the culture of poverty. To them this would seem like breeding grounds for new Welfare Queens to take advantage of American citizens’ hard earned tax money.

One issue I saw that did bring some concern to me however was the idea that programs like this actually ignore structural issues in society that lead to poverty and poor health and that time would be better spent working to deal with those issues first. Honestly I would be happy with either or. :/

It’s hard not to question where the American Government’s loyalties lie when examining how it’s actions seem to continuously negatively affect the people. It is so aggravating to look at the data and see that under the healthcare system available during the recession, it was those people that required health care the most that were most neglected.

Austerity just seems to be across all bases, at least in the way it is presented in this book, a terrible solution to solving a country’s economic issues and is extremely detrimental to a nation’s people with exceptionally damaging effects to a nation’s health.

The only question left is why would a country choose to undergo measures of austerity other than being forcefully pushed by the IMF. As we saw with Iceland, a nation can ignore the IMF’s demands so why is it so uncommon?

Also, I would just like to agree with James that ALMP sounds absolutely wonderful and I would like to see similar practices applied in the United States seeing there is essentially no negative aspect to it. Minimizing stress in the unemployed and lowering suicide rates during a recession just seems to be the most logical and moral program a government could back.

I also totally applaud providing housing for the homeless instead of jailing them. Simply put, the homeless are jailed for existing and it is expensive and a burden to tax payers and is an excellent idea to provide housing for them if it’ll keep them out of jail and make them less likely to acquire a sickness and go to an emergency room and never pay for their treatment which then put on the taxpayer again. SMART POLITICS.

It was also super surprising that foreclosed homes with dirty pools led to the spread of West Nile Virus. Seems like nature taking a minute to help prove austerity policies are just not the way to go. haha

I feel sometimes as I read this book that the IMF would really absolutely love it if everyone on the planet agreed that increased social spending negatively affects the government’s budgets and profits, and cutting on these social programs during times of economic worry is a necessary evil. However, as we can see from Iceland, it’s simply not always the case.

This might say something about how I feel about the U.S. but it blows my mind how much the Icelandic government actually paid attention to it’s citizens during an economic crisis instead of having officials in the government argue with each other on what should be done. It’d be nice to have my voice heard every now and then in regards to how the country should be run… It warmed my heart to see the people of Iceland maintain their health even during an economic crisis.

It also infuriates me that the IMF simply does not adapt it’s plans based on the country. Making cuts everywhere should not be the ‘go to’ strategy. Countries’ economies are complex and deserve at least some analysis before you go ahead and affect the lives of thousands of people.