This article relates to the chapter, as it elaborates on theory that the "rich get richer". Companies such as amazon grew greatly during the pandemic, and the stakeholders that benefited were people that owned shares of Amazon (the employees). Meanwhile, many workers that worked for large firms were laid off, and the income gap increased significantly. The article also talks about the theory of "trickle-down economics" and how it has proven to be flawed as a result of the pandemic. Ultimately, the article proves this chapter's theory that it is incredibly difficult to limit the wealth of the 1%, and that ultimately the position you are born in greatly determines your role as either employee or employer, thus increasing the wealth divide.

This argues that the poverty trap is what ultimately leads to greater income inqequality, and that free trade and transportation of goods and services is a factor of what contributes to inequality. This relates to the inquiry question of does “free trade agreements and immigration increase inequality in Europe and the United States”? Simply put, this source says that those that are born into wealth have a significantly higher chance to become an employer instead of an employee. With their accumulation of wealth, they could also become lenders, increasing their investment with higher rates of returns than an employee would. Therefore, the rich get richer. Furthermore, with free-trade, they can have a lower cost of production by foreign workers working at a lower wage with greater efficiency (more workers), hence increasing gross revenue, and the employee (the rich) are more wealthy.

While there is no doubt that these economic sanctions have greatly affected the Russian economy, this article discusses the prolonged effects on the world economy as a result of this conflict. The question is: are these economic sanctions really deterring the conflict in Ukraine, and at what point do the costs of this war on the world outweigh the punishment levied on Russia. After recovering from the damage that COVID has caused, the world economy is only just getting back on its feet. The lack of supply and high demand for crude oil is spiking gas prices in many parts of the world, inflation is skyrocketing in several countries. In the United States, this has caused the FED to higher interest rates, causing the dollar to rise.

For one, financial penalties will slow Russia’s economic growth. The country’s economy will probably shrink this year due to Washington’s and Brussels’s existing sanctions. By throwing a wrench into the Russian financial system and further cutting Moscow off from international capital markets, the sanctions will reduce overall investment, dragging down the country’s long-run growth rate.

This relates to the inquiry question of how these economic sanctions have affected the Russian economy. The article essentially reports on all the effects that foreign economic sanctions have had on Russia, and this paragraph proves the validity of the GDP equation in a current scenario. With these sanctions, Russia has been denied access to the international markets, hence they no longer have an outflow or inflow of investment, freezing many Russian assets and slowing Long-run growth.

In the coming months, many more of these vulnerabilities will be exposed.

This article from the economist talks about the "death of globalisation". They agree on some points of this writing, talking about the overdependence on certain countries to produce critical consumer goods. The article suggests that after the dust settles, there will be an increasing number of people that realise that globalisation is perhaps outdated, and we need to pursue other methods of production. They suggest that in the emerging multipolar world, production and global economies will be based around America, the European Union and a China-centric Asia.

This relates to the inquiry question, of how exactly does trade relate to development. This article is essentially saying that with globalisation, there comes the specialization and division of labour, which increases productivity. As we know, productivity is one of the key factors for economic growth. The downside however, is that the article claims that a more globally interdependent market leads to perhaps too much reliance on other countries for production, which if a disaster were to occur, would seriously harm economic growth.

Related to this article.

The article talks about the 4 ways that governments "can encourage businesses to meaningfully lower their carbon emissions". They state that governments can mandate climate-related financial disclosures for companies. Also, they can expand and improve global carbon markets, put a price on carbon and help developing economies navigate the low-carbon transition. The last reason relates to the previous idea of "getting rich first" and then dealing with the environment, which is the approach that many developing countries use.

This reminds me of what was brought up in class, the idea of putting one's self interest before the community. This can be shown with the idea of "get right first, then deal with the environmental damages". This is the case for many developing countries, like China and India where they are indeed forgoing the safety of others and the Earth, and instead pursuing individual economic self interest.

Link to Article

The article above discusses Robert Mugabe, a corrupt nationalist politician who became President of Zimbabwe, and destroyed the country in nearly every way possible. Mugabe dug Zimbabwe into a hole of economic crisis, with crippling inflation, unemployment and stagnant wages. Unbeknown to some people, Mugabe actually inherited a solid economy when he ascended to power, and Zimbabwe had previously endured years of economic sanctions from the UN. Yet his extremely poor political and economic decisions directly resulted in an impoverished Zimbabwe. This relates to this chapter's point on how politics and economics influence each other. I personally believe that when it comes to a country that lacks economic prowess (such as the United States), if one side of this delicate balancing act of politics and economics tips out of order, the other is to collapse in response.

While some parts of "The Geographic Hypothesis" are evident in global economics, there are some holes in its argument. There is no denying that before industrialization, much of a country's economy was built upon its farming ability and agricultural scene. This opened up trading opportunities. However, geography fails to explain for much of post industrialization gentrification (as this chapter pointed out). Hotter and humid climates don't necessarily affect workers nearly as much, as jobs are less labour intensive with the help of technology. Therefore, while geography may contribute slightly towards economic development, it most certainly is not a decisive factor.

An article from the Atlantic, written by Derek Thompson, cites an insightful testimony from a person living in poverty, and unpacks the most moving messages from that interview. Thompson explains that those in poverty feel much more safe with a instant satisfaction, and suggests that it is not preferable to save money in the faint promise of something better in the distant future. Thompson goes on to explain that the longer the wait, the less attractive it is to save your money. There are more psychological factors playing on the mind than economic. The person living in poverty (unnamed), stated that "Poverty is bleak and cuts off your long-term brain... You grab a bit of connection wherever you can to survive. You have no idea how strong the pull to feel worthwhile is. It’s more basic than food."

disadvantaged individuals commonly report feelings of low psychological agency, often making comments like “we have neither a dream nor an imagination” or “we live only for today” (Bernard, Dercon, and Taffesse 2011, 1). In 2010, randomly selected households were invited to watch an hour of inspirational videos comprising four documentaries of individuals from the region telling their personal stories about how they had improved their socioeconomic position by setting goals and working hard. Six months later, the households that had watched the inspirational videos had higher total savings and had invested more in their children’s education, on average.

This relates back to one of the key issues that was discussed in class, regarding how "the poor" are less likely to plan for the future based on present bias and the idea of "delayed benefit". People stuck in a poverty trap extend this loop by lacking the foresight to invest in education and savings. This is due to the fact that the benefit of education is not instantly gratifying, instead it takes many years for it to finally have pay off. Even then, it doesn't always turn out to be a success. Furthermore, the idea of putting a sum of our meagre salary in a savings account is less attractive when you may instantly be rewarded by spending it.