Thoughts: "Migrants can contribute much to the destination economy’s efficiency and growth, especially over the long term. Low-skilled migrants perform many jobs that locals are unwilling to take, or for which they would ask wages above what consumers are willing to pay." Often, educated and high sckill albor economies will not have their citizens want to conduct low skill labor, which shows that immigrants don't really 'steal' any jobs. Insttead, they contribute to a nation's economy and infrastrucute in a way that citizens don't want to. Many argue that the reason these jobs (in the US, particularly) are only recently low-paid because there is a supply of immigrant labor. However, historicqlly many immigrants have had these jobs because Americans didn't want to do them, such as Chinese Americans building railroads accross Western America.

Question: "In origin countries, emigration can support poverty reduction and development—especially if it is well managed.

42 Remittances are a stable source of income for migrants’ families, supporting invest ments in children’s education, health care, housing, and entrepreneurial activities. These benefits could be amplified by lowering the costs of sending remittances." Do these benefits outweigh the costs of brain drain?

Epiphany: "For example, many Afghans who left their country after the 1979 Soviet invasion are still in exile today, and so are their children and grandchildren. Humanitarian aid is critical to meeting immediate needs, but policy making, from the outset of a crisis, should aim for responses that can be sustained over time, both financially and socially"

This part made me realise that refugees are immigrants that countries take on in the long term, because future generations are also considered political enemies of the state, because the countries are not in a suitable possition in the future to make a home, or because children of immigrants have assimilated to the host country's culture.

Insight:

"Political leaders, however, must be open about the fact that such a policy involves tradeoffs. Tightening export controls on Russia will reduce Western firms’ sales there—although, with only three percent of the world’s GDP, Russia is a small market for most companies. Cutting off Russia’s commodity exports, which would challenge the Kremlin’s ability to fund its foreign policy, would also raise prices for Western consumers in more serious ways—impacting everything from metals to gasoline."

It is interesting to see how even cutting trade with Russia, which has a relatively small population and less economic power compared to the U.S.'s other geopolitical Enemy of China, had such a big impact on global prices. i would assume that global sanctions on Russia mostly would have effected Russians and barely effected Americans, but I remember how much prices of gas skyrocketed after the war started and how there was a global shortage of wheat because of Ukraine.

"Political leaders, however, must be open about the fact that such a policy involves tradeoffs. Tightening export controls on Russia will reduce Western firms’ sales there—although, with only three percent of the world’s GDP, Russia is a small market for most companies."

Question: To what extent are governments willing to bear economic costs in order to uphold their priciples? I think that the sanctions of Russia surprised many Americans with how big the impact actually was, so I'm curious to see if America would take similiar step sthe next time there is a war.

"This type of reasoning can be uncomfortable for many U.S. and European officials, who understandably prefer economic policies that leave everyone better off. The alternative vision, by contrast, is based on a zero-sum logic of power politics and implies ongoing costs for Western economies. Like it or not, however, the United States and Europe’s relationship with Russia is now mostly zero-sum. "

Insight: It is interesting for me to see how trade can continue to be zero-sum. Usually, things like the Hecksher-Ohlin model/PPC show that trade is a positvie sum game that an benefit all countries involved.

This interedependence between countries as a result of globalisation is highlighed in this article through vaccines. However, this is a symptom of a larger issue. For example, bordering countries going to war can also cause global supply chains to crack (like Ukraine and Russia) or for specific climate change in one area of the world to impact food supply.

This article is mostly focused on how globalissation harmed the covid 19 pandemic because it made it easier for it to spread. For example, globalisation made it possible for countries with a comparitive advantage in producing vaccines to distribute vaccines worldwide. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6950829_The_Impact_Of_Globalization_On_Vaccine_Development_And_Availability

This is an important question to consider when deciding between prioritising economic growth and sustainability. Some argue that countries are irresponsbile for putting the long term needs of future generations (who would best benefit from emphasising sustainability) over current ones who are struggling due to poverty. We don't know what kinds of technologies will exist in the next 100 years, so taking a gamble on that might be considered irresponsbile. Personally, I don't agree with this perspective.

Here, the author quantifies the negative externalities associated with Climate change in Nigeria to 300 dollars of a single ton of carbon in the next 100 years. In order to correct this market. in order to correct this, the government would need to employ a 100 dollars per unit tax in order to completely close the vertical divide between the MPC and MSC. However, doing so would also signoficantly reduce revenue in Nigeria. Because Nigeria is a developing country, I wonder if that would have a higher social cost. For example, is cutting tax revenue that goes into healthcare benefits more harmful to citizens?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307867634_Analysis_of_the_Impact_of_Oil_Revenue_on_the_Nigerian_Economy: pewer reviewed source that suggests a significant positive correlation between Nigerian economic growth and collection of government revenue through oil tax.

Quote #1: Institutions are the key to economic growth because they determine the incentives for savings, investment, and innovation.

Usually, we discuss investment into physical and human capital and productivity as the main drivers of economic growth. However, here the author notes that systems need to be stable in order for these investments to matter in the first place. For example, one of the reasons that Singapore has been able to achieve so much more economic growth than other former colonies is because we've always had an uncorrupt government that acted with the people's best economic interests in mind.

Quote #2: There certainly is some merit in this argument, but as we’ll show, the prime determinant of why agricultural productivity—agricultural output per acre—is so low in many poor countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, has little to do with soil quality. Here, the author is countering ot the argument that geographical disposition plays a large role in the economic growth of a country. However, it turns out that the amount of physical investment a country has in their agriculture plays a big role in how advanced the country can become, even if the natural resources are extremely good. For example, most of the Indian population is agriculturally employed, very little capital is allocated to this industry. This means that despite India's rich lands, economic growth through agricultural production is really difficult (Bisilia and Mahendra) (Retrieved from https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/te).

Quote #3: " Deng Xiaoping and his allies, who were no less self-interested than their rivals but who had different interests and political objectives, defeated their powerful opponents in the Communist Party and masterminded a political revolution of sorts, radically changing the leadership and direction of the party. "

Here, the author talks about how some political leaders are not intrinsically smarter than other political leaders are. Rather, a lot of economic development that countries like China experienced is because leaders were able to fundamentally change their political ideology. For example, Deng Xiao Ping was willing to have market forward policty that directly contradicted the beliefs of communism. Thsi shows that often times, it is the overarching political thoughts in a countr ythat contribute to economic development and not just the ability of individual leaders.