Collateral damage

Felisja

I can’t believe only one of my friends has called herself since the recession. A few of them are still teetering:

Numerous studies have found a strong connection between right-wing economic policies and suicide.

Recent research from sociologists David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu, for example, found that suicide rates in both the US and UK increase when working class wages and wealth decline. Things were particularly bad during the recession period here in the US when, according to the study’s authors, there were 4,750 “excess” suicides.

Another study, this time out of Australia, discovered a similar pattern in that country. It found that almost 35,000 extra suicides occurred when the “Tories” (Australian slang for right-wingers) controlled the government.

This isn’t just something that happens in the English-speaking world, either.

When right-wing austerity policies began to ravage Greece in 2010, the suicide rate jumped almost 18 percent. In Athens alone, it soared to 25 percent.

The same thing happened in Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. In a rush to switch the former communist country over to the free market, economists forced it go through shock doctrine-style privatization. The result was a sharp rise in suicides, heart attacks and alcohol deaths.

Obviously, right-wing economic policies don’t cause every suicide. Some people kill themselves because they have already-existing mental health problems. Others kill themselves because of the shock of sudden personal tragedy.

But even so, there’s no question that right-wing economic policies, otherwise known as Reaganomics, worsen these problems.

3 thoughts on “Collateral damage

  1. The last time the suicide rate spiked was under Reagan.
    This time a Democrat is in the WH.
    The capitalist economic policies of Obama have been no better then the capitalist economic policies of Reagan.
    The economic situation for black Americans has actually gotten much worse under Obama.
    Black Americans are voting overwhelmingly for Hillary 1) out of loyalty and 2) because she’s promised to continue Obama’s economic policies.
    Ironic isn’t it?

  2. (Is there a typo in the first sentence? Should tthat be “killed” instead of “called”?)

    As for the article, too true.

  3. Maybe somebody should point this out to Susan Sarandon when she advocates for political purity.

Comments are closed.