- Mar 2025
-
docs.google.com docs.google.com
-
Passage: "Finally, sanctions and export controls can limit Russia’s ability to produce and develop advanced military equipment. Moscow is immensely reliant on foreign technology—including machine tools, software, and semiconductors—and Russia already struggles to produce large quantities of certain military equipment such as precision munitions. U.S. limits on technology transfers to Russia following the Kremlin’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine, for instance, caused painful delays across Russia’s military-industrial complex, including the manufacture of its global positioning GLONASS satellites."
Annotation #3: This passage highlights an often-overlooked aspect of economic warfare—the role of technological dependency. The realization that Russia relies heavily on foreign technology for its military capabilities shifts the focus from immediate financial sanctions to long-term strategic weakening through technological denial. This insight changes how one might view economic power in modern warfare, suggesting that cutting off access to critical technologies can be as effective, if not more, than financial sanctions alone. This insight aligns with historical instances where technological embargoes have been used to exert pressure on nations. For example, during the Cold War, the United States and its allies implemented CoCom to restrict the export of strategic technologies to the Soviet Union and its allies, aiming to impede their military advancements.
https://www.stimson.org/wp-content/files/file-attachments/Report7_1.pdf
-
-
www.ianfeinhandler.com www.ianfeinhandler.com
-
This is awkward for the Trump administration, which has been slow to respond to the new virus(and which thinks banning travelers from Europe is the best defense against a disease that isalready spreading rapidly on its soil). Far from serving as a global provider of public goods, theUnited States has few resources that it can offer to other states. To add insult to injury, theUnited States may soon find itself receiving Chinese charity: the billionaire cofounder ofAlibaba, Jack Ma, has offered to donate 500,000 test kits and one million masks
Annotation #3 This is really interesting. This passage presents a surprising reversal of global influence. China, once seen as dependent on Western economies, is now positioned as a benefactor in the crisis, while the U.S. struggles with shortages. It reframes globalization as not just an economic structure but a geopolitical tool that nations can use to expand their influence. This realization shifts how I view economic interdependence—not just as a trade advantage, but as a potential source of power in times of crisis.
Economic trade was harnessed in a similar way by the US after world war II, when the U.S. provided massive economic aid to Europe, not just as an act of goodwill but as a strategic move to extend its influence and prevent Soviet expansion.
https://www.imf.org/external/np/exr/center/mm/eng/mm_dr_03.htm
-
These beggar-thy-neighbor dynamics threaten to escalate as the crisis deepens, choking offglobal supply chains for urgent medical supplies. The problem is dire for the United States,which has been late to adopt a coherent response to the pandemic and is short on many of thesupplies it will need. The United States has a national stockpile of masks, but it hasn’t beenreplenished since 2009 and contains only a fraction of the number that co
Annotation #2:
This passage raises questions about the long-term impact of supply chain disruptions on international relations and trade policies. Will nations respond to future crises by prioritizing domestic production of critical goods? How might this shift reshape global supply chains? The passage highlights a key dilemma—whether globalization can adapt to ensure resilience while maintaining efficiency.
-
But the lesson of the new coronavirus is not that globalization failed. The lesson is thatglobalization is fragile, despite or even because of its benefits. For decades, individual firms’relentless efforts to eliminate redundancy generated unprecedented wealth. But these efforts alsoreduced the amount of unused resources—what economists refer to as “slack”—in the globaleconomy as a whole. In normal times, firms often see slack as a measure of idle, or evensquandered, productive capacity. But too little slack makes the broader system brittle in times of
Annotation #1: The authors argue that globalization is not inherently flawed but rather vulnerable due to its efficiency-driven structure. The push for optimized supply chains and just-in-time inventory has created a system with little slack, making it susceptible to crises like the COVID-19 pandemic. This relates to today's inquiry question by demonstrating that globalization’s vulnerabilities were not widely acknowledged until they were exposed by a major global shock. The passage suggests that while globalization has made economies more efficient, it has also eliminated crucial buffers that could have mitigated supply chain disruptions.
-
- Feb 2025
-
www.econlib.org www.econlib.org
-
Due to the issues raised above, the current literature involves two different approaches to climate policy design.15 One approach looks at the expected costs and benefits of increasingly stringent penalties on emissions, and then prescribes a policy that equates the marginal benefits (in terms of avoided future climate change damage) with the marginal costs (in terms of forfeited economic output). This is the approach of theorists such as William Nordhaus, and it results in a “policy ramp” where the equilibrium path involves only modest emission cutbacks in early decades, so that the weaning away from fossil fuels is much more gradual compared to other proposals.16 This “ramp” occurs because distant climate damages are heavily discounted for the first few decades, and because of technological improvement over time, which makes emission reductions relatively cheaper if they are postponed.
Annotation #3:
I think this is a really interesting approach to thinking about this. Can new, novel technologies really reduce emission reduction costs? This reminds me of the argument on whether electric cars really do help the environment at all, or if they are just shifting the source of pollution from a point source (the car) to a nonpoint source (factories, byproducts of production, etc.)
https://greenly.earth/en-us/blog/industries/electric-cars-are-they-really-ecological
-
When economists differ on the “optimal” tax on a ton of carbon dioxide emissions, most of the variation is due to the discount rate each applies to the forecasted stream of benefits and costs. Fighting climate change involves large, upfront costs in the form of foregone goods and services. Whether it taxes emissions or imposes a shrinking cap, the government takes away options from producers. Thus, measured GDP and per capita income will be lower, at least compared to what they would have been in the absence of emission curbs. This forfeited output is the cost of fighting global warming.
Annotation #2:
Can the lowered GDP compare with the increased production costs, as natural resources become scarcer from pollution and over-extraction?
-
If the physical science of manmade global warming is correct, then policymakers are confronted with a massive negative externality. When firms or individuals embark on activities that contribute to greater atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, they do not take into account the potentially large harms that their actions impose on others. As Chief Economist of the World Bank Nicholas Stern stated in his famous report, climate change is “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.”6
Annotation #1:
The author introduces the claim that man-made climate change is a negative externality of production, and will increase the marginal social cost for society, impacting many generations to come. This gives us another nuance to consider when thinking about the inquiry question: even if economic growth exceeds the deadweight loss from climate change, does it take into account that this deadweight loss may multiply and carry over onto future generations?
-
-
docs.google.com docs.google.com
-
Quote:"The real reason that the Kongolese did not adopt superior technology was because they lacked any incentives to do so. They faced a high risk of all their output being expropriated and taxed by the all-powerful king... Neither did the king have incentives to adopt the plow on a large scale or to make increasing agricultural productivity his main priority; exporting slaves was so much more profitable."
This section made me think about other examples where economic stagnation is not necessarily due to ignorance or cultural resistance, but a rational response to the incentives created by political and economic institutions. It shifts the perspective from blaming individual or collective behaviors to examining systemic structures. This made me wonder why certain societies fail to progress economically despite having access to knowledge and technology, specifically Canada, my home country. Opening up to foreign investments, especially in real estate, has made the prices of housing increase tremendously, leaving many Canadians unable to afford a home. This situation reflects how economic stagnation or hardship can arise from institutional incentives that prioritise foreign investment over domestic affordability, demonstrating that even developed nations are not immune to structural issues that affect economic well-being.
-
Quote:"China, for example, is one of the countries that made the switch from economic policies that caused poverty and the starvation of millions to those encouraging economic growth... This did not happen because the Chinese Communist Party finally understood that the collective ownership of agricultural land and industry created terrible economic incentives. Instead, 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."
This passage makes me wonder about the relationship between political shifts and economic outcomes. Specifically, how do internal power struggles within authoritarian regimes lead to transformative economic policies? What conditions make political revolutions that benefit the economy possible in some cases (like China) but not in others?
-
Quote:"We will argue that to understand world inequality we have to understand why some societies are organized in very inefficient and socially undesirable ways... Getting it wrong is mostly not about ignorance or culture. As we will show, poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty. They get it wrong not by mistake or ignorance but on purpose."
This passage encapsulates the central thesis of the book, emphasizing that political decisions and power structures are fundamental to understanding global inequality. The author argues that poverty isn't an accidental outcome of poor decisions or cultural shortcomings but a deliberate result of how power is wielded within institutions. This provides us with insight into why Singapore is as rich as it is: decisisions by the government that prioritize the wellbeing of the nation as a whole.
-
.
-
hi
-