Annotation #3 (Epiphanies) “Migration is also just one of many forces transforming societies in an age of rapid change, alongside modernization, secularization, technological progress, shifts in gender roles and family structures, and the emergence of new norms and values.”

This changed how I think about migration. It is something that is driven out of necessity due to a lack of opportunities and poor living conditions, and is something that undoubtedly changes society and the economy in either country. This is something relevant to many converssations today, especially with Trump’s 2025 immigration policies, where mass deportation plans under "Project 2025" are tapping into broader fears about identity, culture, and societal shifts. This passage helped me see that the intense reactions to migration are often less about the migrants themselves and more about how societies respond to change. It responds to today's inquiry about how immigration drives societal gaps as a result of both economic shifts and societal attidues. This perspective responsed to today’s inquiry question: inequality, especially for migrants, due to immigration is perpetuated by attitudes in governments and societies in addition to competition in labor markets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025

Annotation #2 (Questions) “Low-income countries have large numbers of unemployed and underemployed young people, but many of them do not yet have skills in demand in the global labor market.”

Do these countries have the resources to educate these people with the skills necessary to succeed in the labor market? Or is immigration the economically optimal strategy? If these countires were to invest in education, would this lead to a more productive workforce, or just more emigration to wealthier countries with more work opportunities?

Annotation #1 (Thoughts) “The Report proposes a framework to best manage the economic, societal, and human impacts of migration. Combining insights from labor economics and international law, it looks at the degree to which migrants’ skills and attributes are in demand at their destination (match) and whether they seek opportunities or fear for their lives in their country of origin (motive).”

The author introduces a structured way to think about migration by combining two perspectives—economic fit and humanitarian need. This framework helps simplify a complex issue and is meant to guide more effective policy decisions. It directly relates to the inquiry question by offering a clearer approach to understanding and managing migration in practical terms, and assessing whether migration ultimately contributes to increasing socioeconomic gaps.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Annotation #2:

Can the lowered GDP compare with the increased production costs, as natural resources become scarcer from pollution and over-extraction?

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?

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.

https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/canada-key-themes-2025-policy-shocks-buffet-slow-growing-economy/#:~:text=Prospects%20for%20the%20Canadian%20economy,capital%20and%20persistently%20weak%20productivity.

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