Migrants’ and refugees’ voices should be heard as well, which requires developing systems to channel them in ways that ensure representation and accountability. Low- and middle-income countries—including origin countries for economic migrants and refugee-hosting countries—can also form constructive coalitions to get their perspectives better heard and defend their interests.

An epiphany for me is that there are many people advocating for these immigrants and increasing their living status in other countries. In fact, there are many pieces or media that portray immigrants' journey to a new country, but face much challenges. There are many voices for migrants and refugees, and they are definitely heard as we have learned about this at school. But none (or few) of these media focus on the destination country, where the destination countries are conflicted due to economic costs and benefits.

When migrants do not bring skills and attributes in demand at their destination, the costs to destination countries exceed the benefits. If there are gains for migrants and origin countries, these gains are not sustainable unless destination countries take action to reduce and manage their own costs

A question this brings up is exactly what are the costs of migrants being in a country? If they don't bring skills and attributes in demand, they aren't taking up any jobs, what is the cost of a migrant being in the country? Other than social costs, what other costs are there? Are there more practical costs, such as costs of maintaining refugee camps and providing food, water, and shelter? What makes the costs of migrants so high? And how can countries manage these costs?

In many countries, however, the controversy is not about economics; it is about the social and cul- tural impacts of migration. When migrants stay for an extended period of time—or permanently—the question of their integration becomes central. Sociocultural impacts are a function of the size of the migrant group, its origin, its socioeconomic standing, as well as the perceptions of citizens toward migrants—and sometimes their racial prejudices.

I think what the author is trying to say here is that countries sometimes reject immigrants due to social or cultural controversies. An example of a social/cultural controversy is racism, as immigrants generally have different race to the citizens, such as Mexicans (Hispanic/Latino) in the face of US citizens (Caucasian) In the previous paragraph before this, the author mentions how migrants can contribute to a country's efficiency and growth. What the author is saying here is that countries reject citizens due to social controversies, while they should actually focus on the economic benefits of immigrants.

Thus far, U.S. and EU measures against Russia have focused on the country’s financial sector while largely sparing its energy industry. Tough sanctions on oil and gas sales, by far Russia’s most valuable exports, will be politically difficult because markets are tight and the Biden administration worries about the impact on domestic gasoline prices and inflation. The EU, meanwhile, needs Russian gas to make it through the winter.

Annotation 3

This is an epiphany for me, because the US and EU have not taken all means to stop this war. This sort of shows that the opportunity cost of sanctioning Russia was damages to themselves. This opportunity cost shows that they value themselves over peace. It also shows the impact of globalization on this world, as both parties are affected by their sanctions on Russia.

On Thursday, after Putin ordered a full-scale invasion, Washington used that cudgel again against VTB, Russia’s second-largest bank.

Annotation 2

To this day, I'm still not entirely sure why Russia wants to take over Ukraine. Exactly what makes them want Ukraine that badly? Why do they value Ukraine over the economic damages they have caused? Also, how does the US attack on their banks affect the Russian economy. It has been two years, and is Russia especially suffering consequences form this attack on the bank?

In the weeks before these measures were announced, the Biden administration hinted that it would target Russia’s state-owned banks and impose a bevy of technology-related export controls. It has actually gone further than that, imposing debt and equity restrictions on large state-owned enterprises in virtually every important sector of the Russian economy, including gas, diamonds, and rail transport.

Annotation 1

This talks primarily about what consequences Russia has received after moving troops into Ukraine. Primarily, it focuses on what the United States have done to sanction Russia for invading. While the United States had hinted at targeting techonology-related exports, they decided to target all of the important sectors of the Russian economy.

Was China recovering in 2020? I was there and it seemed like they pretended there was no pandemic, and then realized their mistake and got their prevention methods ready. What does the author mean by recovering here, exactly?

I was in China at the time of the pandemic. This is an epiphany exactly because of that. I remember a huge amount of masks being brought home from my dad's work because the company he was working for provided a ton of them for the employees. What I did not know that was that the government bought all the masks produced domestically, and hobbled other countries' response to the disease.

I think the author is trying to say that if there is too much specialization, a risk with that could include a major global economic collapse if that sector is damaged. So if only country A produces laptops for example, and that sector is damaged by a global pandemic. It would cause many harm due to a severe productivity reduction in one of its sectors

This is an epiphany for me because the most 'optimal' way to decrease climate change is to use methods that only gradually change. Just like the skill at a particular thing, it is gradual. Even though we need to solve the problem immediately, the most cost-efficient way to do it is over time. This is a dilemma countries and people go through, when they need to do something immediately but it isn't efficient.

I think what the author is trying to say her is that fighting climate change is expensive. It is often inefficient and substantially lowers productivity, and therefore output. This is a huge dilemma for countries. We talked about in class about the saying: "First get rich then get green". Developing countries like China or India simply will not use more resources to slow down economic growth, because it hinders their process as a country. Whereas on the other hand, developed countries like the US or EU often have huge competition across the globe, so tax on emissions may slow down their process to compete with other countries.

Question: How do you exact measurement on how much emissions you make? How much money per gallon of emission? If not possible, would the government tax you on how much energy you use?

Annotation 1 "The theory that hot countries are intrinsically poor, though contradicted by the recent rapid economic advance of countries such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Botswana, is still forcefully advocated by some, such as the economist Jeffrey Sachs. The modern version of this view emphasizes not the direct effects of climate on work effort or thought processes, but two additional arguments: first, that tropical diseases, particularly malaria, have very adverse consequences for health and therefore labor productivity; and second, that tropical soils do not allow for productive agriculture. The conclusion, though, is the same: temperate climates have a relative advantage over tropical and semitropical areas. "

I feel like the author is trying to say that geography matters in economical growth. This adds on to the previous part about Montesquieu's theory about people in tropical climates were more content, and therefore lazy and lack inquisitiveness. Here, Sachs adds on to Montesquieu's theory about tropical climates leading to more poverty. He states that tropical diseases have huge consequences for health and labor productivity, which damages the human capital of that civilization, and that tropical soils don't allow productive agriculture. These theories claim that tropical countries generally are poorer.

Annotation 2 "Is the culture hypothesis useful for understanding world inequality? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that social norms, which are related to culture, matter and can be hard to change, and they also sometimes support institutional differences, this book’s explanation for world inequality. But mostly no, because those aspects of culture often emphasized—religion, national ethics, African or Latin values—are just not important for understanding how we got here and why the inequalities in the world persist. Other aspects, such as the extent to which people trust each other or are able to cooperate, are important but they are mostly an outcome of institutions, not an independent cause."

This makes me wonder whether there are truly any ways to completely understand world inequality. Is there truly one reason or theory that can generalize everything? Or maybe, they all are true, but simply play a part for a larger thesis? I feel like there are many outliers to every theories.

Annotation 3 "Industrialization in England was soon followed by industrialization in most of Western Europe and the United States. English prosperity also spread rapidly to Britain’s “settler colonies” of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. "

In class, we learned that there are diminishing marginal returns for industry and capital. The start of industrialization for England also meant that they would start growing faster. This is an epiphany for me because the start of industrialization influenced their colonies to do the same, and therefore today, many countries that were once colonies to England are one of the richer countries in the world. Not only that, countries around them also followed suit. This kind of reminds me that people can influence other people in different ways, whether good or bad. Not only that, it also reminds me that competition brings out the best in people, as it pushes them to keep moving forward, to best their rivals, as can be seen with England and the rest of Western Europe.