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

As the reading talked about the programs in the South American countries, as well as a few municipal programs in the Unites States, what struck me was how complete these programs need to be in order for us to achieve success. Just offering money to those who complete specific goals or accomplishments simply doesn’t work- we have seen enough examples of failure to know that. Rather, the plan must be integrated at every level- from the right government distribution and overseeing practices, to multiple qualifications for cash, to several checkpoints and stages through which participants are monitored. Even more so, multiple programs must be planned to compliment each other to achieve significant social change such as is seen in Brazil.

Perhaps this plays a large part in why such a program is so much harder to implement in the U.S. on a national level. We have so much infrastructure and bureaucracy already in place that restructuring to accommodate new programs on a comprehensive level is exceedingly difficult.

The question I find most intriguing- and most practical- is what, exactly, is America thinking? James suggested that conservatives egos are too big to allow them to be impartial- maybe. However, I think there really gotta be more to elected officials making choices that harm their country.

The body economic was an intriguing book that makes its point well; however, we all know that realistically, one book doesn’t change much. What we can get from the book- and I think many of us did- is an appreciation of the subject, a new way of thinking about health and public policy, and ideas on what we should do moving forward. I know that I’m interested in hearing more of the debate on these issues and seeing how things develop- hopefully for the better.

The reading this week, to me, illustrates a perfect example of preconceived notions being carried throughout time and having a huge effect. Stuckler and Basu do a pretty great job- and convincing one- of illustrating how the IMF’s policies failed Greece and how a departure from austerity helped Iceland. However, the IMF reacts like a school kid caught in web of lies- they just keep making it worse by sticking to their original policies.

I’m not so into conspiracy theories like James is, so I don’t believe the IMF is recommending their policies in order to cause harm, or because they don’t care about lower-class segments of the population. I think the IMF really just believes in their policies and are blind to the evidence because of their preconceived notions. What needs to happen is the field of policy advising needs to become more scientific- in the sense where recommendations are based on real trial and error, as opposed to intuition and old practices.