24
Apr 14

The Body Economic, Part 2

The second part of The Body Economic brings us to familiar times: The Great Recession. Iceland and Greece are compared for the way they implemented different policies after the banking crisis, and those decisions had immense impacts on the citizens of those countries. Reading the chapter on Iceland was so interesting, as I had not known that the government essentially brought the issue of austerity and social programs to the people.

It seems obvious that ordinary people should not have to pay for the mistakes of rich bank executives who invested private money in risky investments. The idea that the government’s money should be used to repay private investors of a bank is ridiculous. But that would have happened, had Iceland followed the austerity recommendations of the IMF. Thankfully, it was brought to a vote, and the exact opposite occurred.

I really liked the way the authors brought in the mindset of philosopher John Locke and economist Milton Friedman to illustrate the world’s opposition to Iceland’s democratic move. Locke’s theory of the “tyranny of the majority,” which I had previously thought of as true in just about all cases, becomes such an oppressive view when looked at from the perspective of public health. It basically assumes that people are too stupid to vote for policies that will benefit them, which is ironic, because the “Wall Street option,” austerity, has been shown to be more deadly than anything the people voted for. Iceland’s economic recovery was a direct result of the decision to reject austerity, and put the people first. Allowing the banks to go under, instead of believing in the “too big to fail” mantra of the US, allowed Iceland to rebuild its economy, and encouraged accountability in the new banks that are now in Iceland. And that is before mentioning any of the health benefits of rejecting austerity. Perhaps we should take a leaf out of Iceland’s book.

In contrast, the situation in Greece broke my heart. The continued austerity recommendations from the IMF has caused such a terrible health and economic situation in the country, and it’s impossible to know how far-reaching the consequences will be. The rates of suicide and HIV are extremely alarming, and the social unrest is terrifying, but understandable.

Recent news says that Greece is slowly recovering, and at least according to ABC news (http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/government-finances-improved-europe-2013-23435242), things are looking better. But you cannot bring back those whose lives were lost because of certain policies, and that is extremely sad.

I find it ironic that austerity, which looks at economy first, and health second, does not even improve the economies of those countries in which it is implemented. It is based upon principles like cutting spending, which sound effective, but sadly are only so in theory. The IMF really needs to take a look at what austerity has done to human life, and reevaluate their recommendations.


11
Apr 14

Body Economics

David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu in their work, Body Economics, bring glaring examples of how austerity as a governmental practice is terrible for the economy and lives of citizens, thus bad for the country as a whole. First, we see an interesting set of statistics of how the great depression affected mortality rates in a few ways. Overall mortality rates declined despite increases in suicide rates. The reason for this is that there were less automobile accidents (the leading cause of death) and that people were healthier because they stopped consuming alcohol due to the prohibition, and walked more because they couldn’t afford gasoline for their cars, etc. These statistics also seem to be consistent in today’s Great Recession. The most important part of the history of the Depression is to see how the government reacted to it. Under Hoover’s austerity plan, the country ended up with the Ford Hunger March, which disastrously turned into a massacre. Under Roosevelt, the New Deal simply worked. It was a plan of the government funding jobs thus stimulating the economy. It was a plan of providing funds to those who needed it. Less hunger meant better health. This New Deal policy is stark contrast to the post-communist mortality crisis. The rapid transition from communism to capitalism had led to a major population decrease in men. Factories shutting down led to increased rates in suicides, homicides, and alcohol poisoning. Stress and anxiety led to alcohol abuse, then resulting in suicide and homicide and increased rates of alcohol related diseases. When Russia tried to slow down alcohol abuse, the men drank more lethal alternatives. This data and data we’ve seen with the IMF treated Southeast Asia is clear in proving that austerity kills. The question becomes why doe people still think austerity works? How can cutting healthcare improve the lives of its citizens? It simply doesn’t. How can sucking out funds from the economy improve the economy? It just doesn’t.


11
Apr 14

Why Austerity Kills

In the reading for today, The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills, I was fascinated and moved by a few different concepts. I have always, politically, had the same inkling that welfare is directly necessary for the health of our society. However, I didn’t realize the extent to which this was the case. This article woke me up in a certain way. I knew that many people became overwhelmingly depressed when faced with joblessness or lack of economy. Yet the rates on suicide following a change in economic activity was by all means terrifying. If we can visibly see this correlation, it seems necessary to me (and humane) to bring about the New Deal’s of this generation in order to give hope and peace to those who are struggling. And it seems very possible that through these actions, we’d see a bottom down revitalizing effect. People who were previously on welfare or unemployment could hopefully be presented with new job opportunities.
These steps towards a working America would clearly lower the suicide rate and provide citizens with a sense of meaning and personal choice.