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

Having taken economics, I’m used to hearing different arguments for why differing policies work better. Each side can show you really convincing supply and demand curves that make a lot of sense, and you often end up not sure which side of the fence makes more sense economically.

However, Stuckler and Basu depart from just academic hypothesis in their book. They provide the reader with real-life examples and natural experiments throughout history to prove their points. The style of the book makes for a very reassuring read in the information and ideas presented. The authors do a great job in providing substance and evidence to field which, at other times, leaves us wanting to know more.

I also think that the usage of real life people throughout the chapter helps to add a more human element to the book. All to often, economics dehumanizes in an attempt to study the science of money. Reframing our perspective on economics, especially when it concerns healthcare, is very valuable.

Josh Setton

I found Part I of Stuckler and Basu’s The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills to be clear, informative and interesting. At its core lay several important ideas that I had never heard before, and if I did, I had not properly understood them. For example, the idea that public health does not have to suffer even though the economy is suffering- if a government chooses to continue or increase spending on public health, its people will be better cared for and the economy can bounce back. What helped me understand this concept the was the authors’ distinction between personal debt and government debt. When I hear the word “debt”, I assume that the most important and effective course of action would be one that decreases spending immediately, in an effort to build up savings and avoid slipping further into debt. But the economist understands that there is a fundamental difference between government debt and personal debt, and that spending on social projects is essential in protecting the people during an economic crisis. “What the Great Depression shows us is that even the worst economic catastrophe need not cause people’s health to suffer, if politicians take the right steps to protect people’s health.”

David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu’s work, The Body Economic, is the latest reading that attempts to tear away the wool covering–or more accurately, enswathing—our eyes. The crux of their argument, at least according to my understanding, is the idea that by adopting strict measures of austerity during a financial crisis, the public health of the greater population is placed in harms way. Though the idea of spending and saving wisely, especially during hard times, is a deeply respected value, the fact that frugality and thriftiness are proven to work on an individual and communal level should not imply that the same practices would be effective on an administrative plane. Rather the two authors assert, quite convincingly, that  “austerity” as a nationwide economic policy is not a sound practice, it is merely  an ill-advised attempt at repairing an economy on the fly.

Though my opinion does not mean much, their claims seem to hold water.  As far as I understand, an economy gets “fixed” when citizens are able to pour their hard-earned dollars back into the multitude of businesses, large and small, that comprise that country’s populace. If austere government policies lead to the physical debilitation of the general public, then the victims of the policies are rendered incapable of contributing to the “fixing” of the economy in any manner. Cutting-back is counterproductive.