According to an OECD report it becomes clear that migration in necessary for economic growth. The reprt stated that "Migrants accounted for 47% of the increase in the workforce in the United States and 70% in Europe over the past ten years." Simply put it shows that migration is important in host countries, filling labor shortages and generally just expanding the economic pie. However, different streams of migration have differing impacts on host countries' economy.

While gains can be strong as a result of certain migration which supplies labor to countries short on it. Some very significant barriers stand in the way of making this sustainable. Firstly, it is very difficult to gauge which migrants will be a strong match. This means that among 100 migrants perhaps only 5 or 10 will mesh with the destination country. Secondly, language barriers complicate things significantly, requiring host countries to invest significantly to train migrants, who may not really want to learn, in a new language. However, falling populations in Europe and east Asia mean migrants seem to be necessary for future economic growth.

This article talks about how Russia's economy has withstood sanctions and has proven itself to be resilient in the face of sanctions, relying more on China and becoming more self sufficient. LINK

This is interesting because it shows how domestic considerations are influencing US foreign policy in a significant way. This is because oil, as the article points out, is one of Russia's most lucrative industries.

This relates to Reinert's writing about the downsides of comparative advantages.

He disagrees with the claim made. This is because he argues that countries are specializing in being poor as they are focusing on low yield industries

This example illustrates why nearshoring is becoming an important economic phenomenon as companies are seeing through the pandemic and global uncertainty that their supply chains must be made more resilient. This includes setting up important industries in allied countries and seeking stability.

The ignorance hypothesis reminds me of a book I read called *How Rich Countries Got Rich and why Poor Countries Stay Poor*. It argues that a lot of modern policies regarding development are misguided and do not yield favorable results. He more specifically argues that free trade is overrated as a lot of developed countries leveraged high tariffs to develop lucrative manufacturing industries.

I agree that the synergies which existed within western Europe and to an extent across the northern Atlantic are vital in explaining the high level of economic development those countries experienced. Soon aft6er Germany's unification it copied a lot of British industrial technologies illustrating how the spread of industrialization is closely tied to economic prosperity. In the case of Singapore I think that this argument can be modified to extend beyond just the spread of industrial technology but to the successful implementation and creation of advanced legal systems and institutions. Singapore, never an industrial juggernaut, compensated by laying a strong foundation for the establishment of highly lucrative services such as financial and legal services. And of course a lot of these services and institutions find Britain and its legal system as a major inspiration.

Poverty acts as a physical barrier to better economic decision making. Long amounts of time spent acquiring necessities restricts time for deliberation in decision making. This has trickle down effects in wealth accumulation and children's development according to other experiments in the report.

People have many things in the way of them acting economically rational. In many cases altruism and care for wider community is not taken into account. Economics assumes ethical egoism.

These claims regarding the influence of our methods of decision making redefines the 'economic man' to more closely resemble the humanity in all economic beings (human factors).