This has to be true, and it shows us the careful balance of what a free international financial market really is. Due to the webbed nature of this any change or event on one part of the web will cause vibrations throughout the web. So if the American economy begins to slow down this will have effects on developing countries in Asia or South America as the vibrations must travel down the web. Just look at the Asian Financial Crisis, due to the webbed nature of the international financial market a pensioner in Illinois can be effected. For this reason free international financial markets must impact on a large scale development.

Again evidence of the rise of Financial Imperialism. In this cases its the United States projecting itself onto another nations decision which massively impacted the global financial market. As Financial Imperialism is a byproduct of free international Financial markets it shows us that development can be often negatively effected. I would argue that this is only part of the time. If we look at Chinas belt and road program I found this article of China's Belt and Road Initiative and it shows us that again while programs like this are financial imperialism they can still have massive positive benefits on development.

I have been to both!

This was an interesting to note for me. Based of my understanding of the 08 financial crisis similar things happened with the mortgages (heres a fun article that refreshes your mind). Banks and Financial Institutions bought them up, splitted them bundled them so much an individual like Mrs. Panoi could be hold and or directly effect tiny parts of financial stakes all around the world. Which shows the ease and the dangers of free international financial markets, due to the ease in which investors can make investments overseas this may create a positive benefits for development in LEDCs (lower economically developed countries) but at the same time poses a danger to development with the lack of regulation that comes in a free global financial market.

The fact that it was actually the United States and Europe that caused the asian financial crisis is very interesting. It could almost be viewed as western financial imperialism. This article I found here draws very interesting parallels between traditional colonisation and the actions of world actors today like the IMF, other nations and groups. It would seem that free international financial markets can negatively affect development.

I found this interesting article about the 0.01% and it shows us that there can be wealth inequality even in the top 1%.

Link to Article

My choice would be to not live in this idyllic society. I would be able to benefit and take advantage of people wanting to work, to study and to take risks. I think in a society where everything is equal you run into the inherent problem that no one is wants to improve their own situation. A societal stalemate.This would truly be a dystopian society.

I found an interesting article with quotes from a professor from the Lee Kwan Yew School of Public Policy that talked about how Trump's Administration used the pandemic as an opportunity to shift the blame of it onto china to promote their Trade War with China. [Link to article]

"just-in-time" supply chains must make it much more cost effective to make products, it would be interesting to see at what point Apple adopted this policy

I disagree with this statement. The notation that firms and nations are only now discovering how vulnerable they are is false. A good example is the shortage of shipping crates during the COVID-19 pandemic and its effect on trade and the economy. The shortage of shipping crates existed before the pandemic on a much smaller scale, seen with the diffrence in the price of a shipping crate being larger in nations like China and cheaper in the United States, but then was amplified and made much worse by the pandemic. This so nations and firms knew about the issue before hand it was just not large enough to worry to much about. This is the same for other issues, its not like firms and nations where completely ignorant of the issues its that they had a plan in place that they though would work or did not view it as a large enough issue. Many of the examples are just ones nations and firms knew about and the ones that the plans in place for them did not work.

Hello AT Econ people.

very cool

This is very interesting as I watched a lecture by Jordan Peters that talked about how at a certain income level, families start making environmentally friendly decisions. So one could say that as the GDP per capita increases in nation there would be a turning point where CO2 emissions per capita start to decrease as well, as more people would pass that income marker and make environmental decisions on a larger scale. One aspect which may inhibit this is wealth inequality, take Mr. Hopkins example of three men at a bar. Mr. Hopkins, a Homeless Man and Jeff Bezos the GDP per capita of just those men at the bar would be astronomical and they should all be billionaires, but because of wealth inequality this is not the case. This could suggest that maybe GDP per capita and CO2 emissions per capita may not be the most accurate way of measuring the correlation between GDP and CO2 emissions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y564PsKvNZs&ab_channel=thisfooliscool

I think this is partly true but on the whole I think perceptions around combating climate change in recent years has prodmently become more mainstream and positive. So regardless of where someone lives I think, thanks to Social Media and the Internet, most people will have similar views surrounding proposed environmental policies.

I agree with the article here, Diamond's thesis fails to address other factors at the time. For example colonial government policies, excessive taxing, resource exploitation and discrimination against local inhabitants of Peru and other South American nations would have been massive impacts on why Peru now is some much less economically developed and successful compared to Spain. If we look at Slows Model while a increase in technology should lead to economic growth, changes in government policy (ie. spanish colonial laws, taxation, ect.) while in some situations have a positive effect, can inversely have a negative effect as well.

https://voxeu.org/article/economic-impact-colonialism

I would agree that on the large part the article is right the religion does not have that great of an effect on the economy, but on a fundamental level the approaches to living a good life from a protestant perspective are more likely I would argue push protestant majority labour forces to be to a degree more productive compared to catholic or other religious majority labour forces. Of course in the modern era this argument is redundant due to a number of reasons, however on the eve of the industrial revolution during this time and the large scale and influence of religion, I think an argument showing a correlation between what majority a labour force is and productivity (thereby economic growth) is valid.

Position Paper Fun

This is a very interesting point about the Middle Easts' dependency on oil and gas, and very possibly a prelude to the demise of Middle Eastern oil rich nations in years to come as energy sources change. It means that if these nations do not want to fall behind they have to play the catch up game with the wealthier superpowers as they shift over to green renewable energy and its benefits. If not changes in both the oil price, during crisis and or any other reason, has the the potential to exemplify the inequality not just between these oil nations and nations around the world with diverse resources but also between the middle class and the 1 % of these nations. Just as the nation will struggle to keep up with diversified nations, the middle and lower classes with struggle to find labour, and revenue to sustain their families. While wealthier individuals in these nations can live off their invested and diversified portfolios created with their oil money. The Middle East is the prime example of how an overreliance by growing nations on its singular or unique natural resources as a source for economic growth can very easily cause inequality in a international and local context.

New Zealand is cool. Hi Mr. Hopkins, I am Bryn.