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

Since most of our previous readings conveyed a not-too-subtle sense of imminent failure and rampant evil, this week’s reading, by comparison, could be considered almost lighthearted and carefree. I genuinely enjoyed hearing about improvements in countries generally considered underdeveloped, bankrupt and lacking competent leadership. But, to tell you the truth, I have no idea how these CCT programs could possibly lead to any improvement. The numbers thrown out there by Su and Muennig, the authors, just don’t seem to make sense to me. In one of their more terrifying sentences, they wrote that “a very poor family with three children and two teenagers would receive 242 reals,” or $153, per month. I did a bit of Googling and according to the Brazilian daily newspaper, Estadao, a worker on the bottom end of Brazil’s pay scale earns roughly $77.40 per month. Because I know everyone hates math, I’ll do the arithmetic for you. In total that comes out to around $230 per month. For a family of 7. That’s around $30 a person per month. I spent $5 today on coffee and a bagel . I don’t know how things work in Brazil, but I doubt even the most austere families could survive on that little. Another number that didn’t make sense to me was the $21 a month conditionally granted to teenagers in Brazil. Why go to school for $21 a month, when you can work for $77 a month? There is no incentive. Maybe we’ll be able to answer these questions in class.

Even though I definitely found the reading very interesting, I sort of wish it elaborated a bit more on democracy’s “lifesaving” abilities. It might have given new meaning to “Give me Liberty, or give me death!”

Throughout these past few semesters, I have developed, in my admitted ignorance, an idea of how a government should best assist and service the citizens that pay it tribute. Many of the people that ebb and flow through the periphery of our existences have had their lives and their paths significantly altered by “chance.” These alterations are not those of a tailor. They fail to make our lives more snug and comfortable. These alterations are most always detrimental to our standard and quality of life. And that is where the government should come in. It should be the place of the government to mitigate the negative effects of “chance” on the life of its citizen. The government should have the social services in place to care for a person when disease strikes or when a company is forced to downsize. It should be the aim of a government to guide the growth of a society to overall comfort, health and contentment, despite the wrenches that are constantly thrown recklessly into peoples’ lives.

There is one aspect of our current government policies that incessantly nags at me, and ceaselessly antagonizes and harasses the ideal above. Instead of helping those in need, those who are vulnerable and weak and whose lives have been “altered,” the government has a track record that is truly something to be ashamed of. Yet, if neglect were the only issue, I would not be as bothered as I am now. Our current policies seem to go out of their way to accentuate poverty and disability. The policies seem to undermine the entire purpose of government, not only impairing the ability of our nation to succeed, but crippling our growth. It is not realistic for us to aspire to Sweden’s active labor market policies. Our population is approximately 34 times that of Sweden’s and unless everyone wants to pay taxes that are astronomically higher, we have find another way. And that, I think, is the idea being espoused by The Body Economic. Our government leaders must investigate the paths that create healthy societies. They cannot let their egos and their prejudices get in the way of facts and data. They must set aside their party lines and do the deed they were elected to do—what’s best for the American people.

The Body Economic closes with a challenge. “To achieve a real, lasting human recovery,” the authors emphasize, “we must fundamentally change the way we think about what’s important.” The challenge posed is, at its essence, a deeply moral one. It begs those in charge of our policies to transcend the political biases that are so embedded in every decision they make. It implores the men and women who ultimately determine our quality of life to rise above the doctrine of their respective political parties and to respond to difficulty with an increased sense of accountability. It asks them to put the people first. When a government invests in the health and future of its people, both benefit. In biological terms, it would be considered a mutualistic relationship. Many political pundits, however, would have you believe that it more closely resembles a parasitic one. While the people revel in their free healthcare, the poor, old government digs itself deeper and deeper into a bottomless pit of despair (and debt). Yet, the two doctors, Stuckler and Basu, procure enough evidence to conclusively show that the highest economic return is received from investments in health, education and social protection programs. At a time when the public opinion of governments around the globe has never been worse it has become the responsibility of the citizens to hold their governments accountable to growth strategies that do not detract from their health, wealth and dignity.