"When destination countries adopt restrictive policies, their neighbors can also be affected, especially those through which migrants are transiting. Transit countries become substitute destinations when barriers prevent migrants from moving onward. Distressed migrants stay for months, and at times years"

Epiphanies:

This section reminded me of AP microeconomics when we learned about substitute goods and services. When the main target destination increases its restrictive policies, the demand for the substitute/ transition countries increases because the migrants have to go somewhere.

"When migrants do not bring skills and attributes in demand at their destination, the costs to destination countries exceed the benefits. If there are gains for migrants and origin countries, these gains are not sustainable unless destination countries take action to reduce and manage their own costs"

Questions:

How can the costs and benefits for destination countries of migrant workers be modelled? Similarly, what are the efforts that destination countries can employ to reduce and manage their costs as stated in the article?

"When migrants bring skills and attributes in demand in the destination country, the benefits typically outweigh the costs, regardless of motives, skill levels, or legal status. These migrants fill gaps in the destination labor market, with benefits for the destination economy, as well as for themselves and their origin country."

Thoughts:

In this section of the text I believe the author is stating a claim that when incoming migrants are a good fit for the area that the destination country needs more workers, the benefits of the worker immigrating to the country vastly outweigh the costs of the worker leaving their origin country. A source that helps to further that idea is linked below. https://www.bu.edu/articles/2024/do-immigrants-and-immigration-help-the-economy/

Quote: "Ultimately, however, the role of sanctions and export controls now is to change the structure of Washington and its allies’ economic relationship with Russia, ensuring that whatever trade remains benefits the United States and Europe more than it benefits the Kremlin."

Thoughts: I think in this part of the article the author is trying to finalize his piece by bringing us into his claim that the role of the counteractions done by the U.S. and EU on Russia is not neccesarily to escalate, deescalate, or make themselves stronger. It is just to make sure that when all the dust settles and all damage is done to both parties. Russia has suffered more relative to it's original place than the U.S. and EU have suffered relative to their original place. It's like a petty children's fight where they care more about how much they hurt the other one than how much they lost.

Quote: "Such a shift in strategy will not be politically easy for Western democracies to make. Russia’s rulers benefit from a vast apparatus of repression that lets them suppress discontent. Western leaders, by contrast, must answer to voters who care deeply about their wallets. Such political calculations have already influenced policymaking. Sanctions designed to choke off Russian oil exports, for instance, would increase energy prices, at least in the short term. Fearing domestic backlash, many U.S. and European leaders are therefore opposed to such measures."

Epiphany: I think this can be related back to the Cold War where, as we spoke about in class, it was a battle of ideology and power. Here we see the differences in ideology between the U.S. and Russia that remain long after the Cold War was deemed over. Russia is able to operate with absolute certainty in their actions because their leaders are able to hold their positions even if they make bad choices for their nations. In the U.S., however, they are at the mercy of their citizens and so cannot make such drastic and rash decisions which leads to less decisive actions being taken to counter Russian moves. The pros and cons between each system battle heavily as Russia's rash moves can lead them down bad roads, but the U.S's indecision can lead to inaction and Russia ends up conquering places like Crimea.

This article has more information about how the Cold War still relates to today's world: https://dam.gcsp.ch/files/2y10k6DQ6hBH56kewY5KDCeheEMY1xQSPdRcszeuktCyt57GXx6lZRH6

Quote: "The sooner the United States and its allies come around to this view, the stronger their position vis-à-vis Russia will become. Any measures that are somewhat costly to Western countries but very costly to Russia leave the former better off."

Question: How do countries decide the extent to which benefitting themselves relative to their opposition is globally beneficial? Obviously the world's global interdependence and policies have shifted a lot since, but a main cause of WW2 was that after WW1 Germany was left with practically nothing which eventually led to the rise of the Nazi Party and it's global sympathizers and allies. So what defines the point where the sanctions imposed leave the sanctioned country at a diminished point where they can't continue at that rate, but aren't so desperate that they lash out?

Questions:

I was thinking about the long term effects of countries such as China using its response to Covid as a way to build influence across the globe and it brought me back to how the U.S built influence in Japan after WW2. My question is, how do differing failures in globalisation (covid vs WW2) lead to different ways that countries attempt to gain influence worldwide and how does that translate to changes in their economic systems and output as they gain or lose influence due to these globalisation weaknesses.

Thoughts:

In this section of the article I believe the author is stating their true idea that while globalization is great for increasing the total efficiency of the world through the global specialization of industries and workers, it also leads to an interdependency on others that will result in catastrophic inefficiencies if a dire enough situation occurs and blocks access to a specialized product or service that is needed on a large scale.

I think this article does a good job going into the uncertainties and issues that are still occuring as a result of Covid and how they impact developing countries that rely heavily on others in order to thrive: https://www.crisisgroup.org/global/responding-global-economic-vulnerability

Epiphanies:

It's strange because as we've learned economics so far, models such as the PPC or the supply and demand curve always emphasize the best point of production as that which we use up the most resources for the most amount of output. But here we explore the idea that we need to use fewer resources than the most efficient solution so that when we run into issues in supply such as those caused by Covid 19, we can then use our backup resources.

Question: If it's silly for us to forfeit consumption so that our future generations are richer at the cost of the world. Isn't the whole argument for combatting climate change that because we consume now our future generations might be richer, but will have nothing worthwhile to spend it on because the world has deteriorated so drastically? What defines the point at which getting more wealth leaves the world in too bad a state that it's actually worse for our descendants than combatting climate change? This article has a very nice explanation as to some of the historical answers to the question I posed: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2020/01/27/economic-growth-environmental-sustainability/

Thoughts: I believe that in this section of the article the author is trying to warn against the implementation of strict and high target plans for the adoption of more eco-friendly initatives. Since the issue of global warning is still one that is very much in the air in terms of future costs and how that might affect the world in centuries time, we shouldn't adopt models that come up with an "arbitrary" point to aim for and then make models that apply to the hypothesized situation at that point.

Epiphany: In the past and even when I was reading this article, I've always thought of efforts to tackle global warming as a local issue (countrywide) that then is counted accumulatively in a global scale. I never stopped to consider the idea that countries have checks and balances with each other to monitor their carbon emissions and make sure everyone is adhering to global policies.

Annotation #1 (Thoughts): What is the author thinking, trying to say? In this first annotation you should use hypothes.is to highlight a section of the text in which one of the main ideas (thoughts) expressed by the author is clearly stated. Explain how the passage relates to today's inquiry question.

"WE WILL ARGUE that to understand world inequality we have to understand why some societies are organized in very inefficient and socially undesirable ways. Nations sometimes do manage to adopt efficient institutions and achieve prosperity, but alas, these are the rare cases."

In this quote the author is trying to convey the fact that the three common methods previously used to connect why countries are rich or poor are wrong. He is arguing for his hypothesis that in order to understand world financial inequality we have to understand the strengths and fallacies in the social structures of countries.

Annotation #2 (Questions): What questions do you have about the text after having read it? In this second annotation you should use hypothes.is to highlight a section of the text in which the author expressed an idea that caused a question to arise in your mind. It could be a question relating to something you would like to research this semester or just something about which you are confused. Explain how the passage relates to today's inquiry question.

"Of course, many once believed that the Chinese culture and Confucian values were inimical to economic growth, though now the importance of the Chinese work ethic as the engine of growth in China, Hong Kong, and Singapore is trumpeted."

Since we've established that geography has no impact on substantial impact on the economic growth and prosperity of countries in the previous hypothesis (geography hypothesis), why did this trend not extend itself to countries that are a between Singapore and China, for example Vietnam. Vietnam has a high percentage of its population that have ethnic origins in China yet it hasn't experienced the same growth as Singapore by any means. Why is that?

Annotation #3 (Epiphanies): Is there something you read in the text that opened up a way of thinking about the world that you had never thought of before but will influence how you think about it now? In this third annotation you should use hypothes.is to highlight a section of the text (an insight) that is an epiphany for you. Explain how the passage relates to today's inquiry question.

"Most economists and policymakers have focused on “getting it right,” while what is really needed is an explanation for why poor nations “get it wrong.”

I felt that his was particularly compelling considering the vast majority of the paper thus far has been about discounting the commonly used theories in the field. This line which I think was aimed to give a definitive answer as to why all these theories are misguided and inaccurate was powerful.It has helped me to understand the reasons why economic models regarding poverty and inequality haven't been fully developed or accurate yet.