1)What was the difference… Not that much! When you break down countries, you can actually see that some cities are as far advanced as major countries appear to be as a whole -He also said that by breaking down these countries you can see how and where to help these countries to advance along as a whole to the rest of the world 2)Which comes first, wealth or health? Describe healthcare and education and why are they important to development. What was the example that Rosling gave? They are important because they are sort of a baseline for developing a country. Health should come first, because how can you be wealthy if people can’t really afford to take care of themselves in the first place. Rosling showed a scatterplot of how when you focused on increasing health, then you would be able to increase your wealth quicker than if you put wealth second.

1)Intro reading: what is development? He says that development means increasing your freedoms as well as gaining the ability to participate in more of life’s events that you want to be included in. 2)What are some of the sources of unfreedom development requires being removed, and why are free and sustainable agency a keystone of development? One big source of unfreedoms is the inability to provide for yourself and your family and having to put yourself in a situation where you are in danger. Another big one was the prevalence of slavery, and how this was one of the most egregious unfreedoms. Free agency is essential because every area has different needs to be met in order for a society to advance 3)What does it mean to be generically against markets and freedom of speech? When he talked about being against markets, he said essentially that it is an absurd viewpoint, as the markets produce some of the fruits of life that people use and are their livelihood. With the restriction of freedom of speech, it is similar to being generically against markets, freedom of speech allows people to interact and actually live their lives. 4)Who were condorcet and malthus and who is going to be right? Condorcet was a 18th century French rationalist who believed that fertility rates would lower with the progress of reason (greater securtiy and education for example). Malthus was also sort of a philosopher who disagreed with Condorcet and said essentially that there was no evidence to back up Condorcet’s claims. I think that Condorcet should theoretically be right, as these economic indicators increase (education and wealth) then you wouldn’t have the need to have a bunch of kids to help around a farm for example.