In the paper titled International Finance and Growth in Developing Countries, a similar argument is made where the importance of international financial markets is addressed. Although the financial liberalization lead to the financial crises in 1997, today the international financial market and the global foreign exchange market has evolved to become a massive transaction hub where countries benefit off of each others imports and exports through the means of goods and services or stock investment.

International financial markets are bad for certain countries in East Asia. For example, the crisis lead to the fall of the Thai currency. Yet, in China, international financial markets are working well to benefit both the Chinese economy and the US economy. This is because China invests in saving US dollars in reserves or investing it back into America as capital while America imports Chinese goods and services. Therefore, international financial markets in China and America work because the current account deficit and capital surplus in America balance each other out.

The very idea of the international financial markets being "contagious" is bad for other East Asian countries when the Thai currency took a bad hit in 1997. As mentioned in the passage here, the contagion effect spreads the economic crisis to surrounding countries because of a psychological shift that they will too soon experience an economic downfall. Therefore, international financial markets affecting one country could very well affect another country the same negative way.

International financial markets have been bad for poorer countries in East Asia like Thailand as mentioned in this passage. Since the US forced capital flow and financial liberalization in Thailand, the inherent value local currency was also forced to diminish slowly leading to economic downfall in Thailand. Therefore, the international financial markets brought into Thailand by the US have been bad for East Asian countries.

The "accidents of birth" in relation to justifying why there is economic income inequality reminds me and connects to another concept called the social determinants of health. An article titled A Conceptual Framework for Action on the Social Determinants of Health written by Orielle Solar and Alec Irwin in the University of Maryland describes how one's health can be predetermined or correlated with their social characteristics (sex, gender, race, socioeconomic background, etc). Similarly, this reminded me of "accidents of birth" where one's social characteristics influence their income and economic mobility which thus "justifies" income inequality to an extent. Personally, I find both these concepts a concern that needs to combated institutionally in order for economic and health mobility to become accessible to all people.

Migration influences development in both good and bad ways depending on one's "accidents of birth". Say you are a wealthy white family migrating to seek another job opportunity in a different country, then migration will lead to positive development and consequences as it will better your income over time with a new job opportunity. However, this positive outcome is due to the "accidents of birth" of this family being white and wealthy. In an another example of "accidents of birth", we can see migration causing a negative consequence in regards to income; therefore, it illustrates the concern in regards to "accidents of birth", migration, and income inequality over time. Say there is a middle-class African American family with a single-mom raising her children. They are seeking migration to another country simply for a fresh start and with no secured job opportunity. It may be safe to say that this family may not have any economic mobility after migrating to a new country—which only exacerbates their income inequality.

One article that I found from the New York Times by Peter S. Goodman linked here about global economic inequality as a result of Covid-19 vaccines relates to the topic of globalization in a time of high demand, in this case for Covid test kits. With a special high demand for vaccines, especially in developing countries, globalization has almost hindered accommodating for the vaccine demand. For example, Goodman states that now "a group of developing countries led by India and South Africa sought to increase the supply of vaccines by manufacturing their own." Therefore, instead of usually relying on trade and globalization for the availability of vaccines, many countries are domesticating production to meet their high demand and so are no longer "trading". This addresses the negative effects of globalization in the time of a pandemic as well as the possible decline of globalization.

I find the contrast between the conventional idea of trade leading to positive development due to globalization and the spread of a virus like Covid-19 also due to globalization quite interesting. Trade, in fact, does not necessarily only lead to positive development—take the pandemic for example. This makes me think about the cost and benefits to trade on a macro level when it comes down to globalization. Although economically speaking, the benefits associated with trade through increased wealth in many nations outweigh the costs of a virus, it is imperative to consider the long-term consequences of Covid on globalization. We still haven't been able to travel for almost a year, tourism has hit lowest levels, and cases are still rising. So then, as of now, do the costs outweigh the benefits of trade and globalization?

I found a journal article linked here that explains a similar viewpoint to this paragraph. The abstract examines current environmental tax policies in the United States and suggests alternatives to the standing "polluter pays principle" that is applied nationwide. Like this paragraph, the authors introduce subsides or incentives as a viable option to encouraging a more optimistic approach for environmental policy since it is still quite rare internationally.

Economic growth affects the environment as reflected in the example of the overfishing of cod in this paragraph. Fishing is a very common source of income in many countries and can lead to a growth in local economies. However, without regulation, the "open-acess" of fishing often results in overfishing which is detrimental to the biodiversity of marine life. The so-called "Tragedy of the Commons" applies here to illustrate that when something is a shared, open resource for economic growth, it is often exploited and in this case, harms the marine environment.

One article that relates to the idea that geography, merely, is not helpful in understanding the origins of inequality or contributing to economic growth is linked here. In this Forbes article, economic growth is attributed to start ups, information technology, and innovation which directly relates to the argument made here that these similar geographical locations had drastically different technologies.

Technology and innovation through the Industrial Revolution caused a steady growth in UK's economy. This relates to the Solow Model that attributes one aspect of growth to technology and new ideas