Are we a “modern consuming society”? According to Global Footprint Network’s  “How many Earths?” research, If we keep consuming at this pace, the US would need the equivalent of 4.6 planet Earths to provide the resources and absorb the waste of the consuming citizens; while Japan would need 2.4 Earths and Europe, 2.3. Those numbers indeed make sense as the population of the “consumerism locomotive” global middle class is expected to rise from 1.8 billion in 2009 to 3.2 billion by 2020 and 4.9 billion by 2030. Which means by 2030, a number of people almost corresponding to today’s whole world population will have resource-intensive lifestyles. So yes, we are a consumer society and the planet is actually on alert. Except for when we find ourselves in the middle of nature, we are bombarded by offerings we would potentially buy throughout the day, in almost whatever we do. The message is clear: “Every product or service is worth to be consumed in one way, so why not just come and buy it?” But to be regarded as a “consumer”, a person actually needs to have three things: the product/service, need/want and the resource to buy that product/service. Today, a typical middle-class member possesses all three. But who offered the modern middle class that money, those needs, and those products in the first place? If we said capitalism, we would take the easy way out. What specifically? The world was at war just 70 years ago. while capitalism was making the USA  a “modern consuming society” all over, Europe was in a post-war devastation. Berlin, Warsaw, Vienna, Dresden and major Asian cities were in ruins, and economic wounds were no better than the city ruins. Before the war, the UK was the largest creditor in the world, after the war, it became the largest debtor. Factories, workshops, fields, forests and vineyards in Europe were ripped into pieces. Leave consuming aside, an average European was able to have only 1000 calories a day. Europe needed an economic reconstruction and the US couldn’t help but think this economic devastation could push Europe into the hands of “Communism”. After the UK cut the aid to Greece and Turkey, two countries geographically very close to Iron Curtain countries, it was time for US President Harry Truman to initiate the Truman Doctrine. In his own words, the aim of the Doctrine was “to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures (Communism). I believe that our help should be primarily through economic and financial aid which is essential to economic stability and orderly political processes.” The US Secretary of State George Marshall, a World War 2 veteran, inspired the idea of Marshall Plan as a part of the Truman Doctrine. In his speech at Harvard University, he mentioned the reason as: “The modern system of the division of labor upon which the exchange of products is based is in danger of breaking down. It is logical that the United States should do whatever it is able to do to assist in the return of normal economic health to the world …. Our policy is not directed against any country, but against hunger, poverty, desperation and chaos.” So does the aid influx begin in 1948 under the official name “European Recovery Program(ERP)”. Seventeen European Countries received a total of $13 billion, 20% as loans and 80% as supplies, food, machinery etc. between 1948-1952. Here is a tick to the checklist for a potential consumer: the resources. The US aid liquidated in European economies helped those countries balance their budgets and repay massive loans taken out during World War II. The aid was allocated to very strategic aspects of the European Economy. Basically, the USA distributed the cards and each country drew its own card from the deck. Modern assembly lines sent to Italian Fiat factories revived the Italian economy via production and freedom of transportation. Greek villagers received dozens of Missouri Mules which were much stronger and durable than Greek mules leading to an agricultural-based economic upsurge in Greece. In 1949, American International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (IT&T) reorganized the Greek telegraph and communication system, leading to the formation of modern Greek Telecommunications Authority. Turkey was given the role of a “raw materials exporter” as 80% of the country’s population were farmers. So more than half of the aid allocated to Turkey was as modern machinery, fertilizers, and cheap loans to farmers. Even more strategically, Turkey had to fulfill a condition to receive loans for building a road infrastructure in the country: buying cars made in the US. Also, Minneapolis Malone tractors, which were given`away to Turkish farmers were being assembled under a US-Turkish partnership enterprise. So the US private sector was directly involved in Marshall Plan practices too. George Marshall couldn’t think of an economically recovered Europe if Germany was left out, so a total of $5 billion was allocated to Germany between 1948 and 1952. The aid was allocated as 36% supplies, 52% industry raw materials and 12% freight payments. 40% alone was allocated to the coal industry. So the allocation was done in a way that would shape the principles of a modern production-based Western German economy with a free market. So here is the second tick at the consumer’s checklist: the markets that offer products/services created not only by strategically allocated loans but sometimes US private sector itself. After World War II, while the Marshall Plan was shaping Europe against a Communist military and economic influence, it was also the key front in the cultural war for the US against Communism. Exhibitions for well-furnished modern homes containing household miracles like electric washing machines and vacuum cleaners were sponsored like many other consumer goods propaganda promoting an “American Way of Life”. Also, Coca-Cola and Hollywood movies were heavily promoted in Europe. As being divided into East and West, and by Communist and Capitalist status quo, Germany was the epicenter of exhibits and conferences promoting industrial productivity, tariff-free trade and mass consumption. The Berlin Industrial Fair in 1950 was the most impressive of them. In a State Department memorandum, it stated: “It showed large machines being produced by the West at a time when Eastern factories were suffering from dismantling by the Soviets and when raw materials in the East were in extreme shortage ‘…’ The progress made in Western Europe in developing consumer goods was designed to raise the standard of living of the average family”. All of the 6000 products in the exhibition like kitchen gadgets, garden equipment and furniture were extremely modern in design and were manufactured solely in a Marshall Plan country (or the US itself). Between 1948-1954, the ERP psychological propaganda campaign included pamphlets, posters, radio broadcasts, traveling puppet shows, and over 300 films, promoting the American way of life. Factory workers eating steak after work, an average American citizen owning a house and a car… “Reject Communism, American capitalism would give you a better life standard.” So the last tick for a potential consumer, wants or needs were created that way. By the time the Marshall Plan ended in 1951, economic output in Western Europe had risen 35% above the pre-war levels. Even when the European population increased by a mind-blowing 25 million until 1952, national incomes per capita in ERP aided countries managed to increase 10 percent above pre-war levels. This was not just a rubber band effect as the trend of growth in ERP aided economies remained still until the 1973 Oil Crisis. Booming production in Europe created a surplus of goods, decreasing overall prices. Surging wages and falling unemployment in proportion to skyrocketed production made these goods available to a large variety of socio-economic classes. Non-farming population in aided countries increased by 80.7% in total, forming the consuming middle class. This socio-economic outbreak blended with the propaganda of materialism created  “a modern consumer society” which would define itself only by what they possess. The Marshall Plan transformed not only the economies but the foreign policies of Western European countries. Those countries were deliberately pressured by Washington to reduce tariffs, facilitate the integration of markets and to initiate liberalization programs. The USA was integrating the Western countries into a common structure bonded by a laissez-faire mindset. An idea of Franco-German-centered free-market Europe later shaped the foundation of European Coal and Steel Company (ECSC), subsequently evolving into European Union(EU). Winston Churchill defined George Marshall’s initiative of reconstructing Europe as “the highest level of statesmanship”. Also on practice, looking at the outcome, US well reached its aim in drawing European countries to capitalism, reviving the European economy and creating new markets for its industries. As a result, George Marshall was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1953, after stimulating the creation of a massive consuming society and freezing up the World into the years of Cold War.

Introducing the interviewees On the 13th of November Room for Discussion is hosting an interview about the integration of refugees with Leo Lucassen and Eva Degler. Mr. Lucassen is a professor of Global Labour and Migration History and director of the International Institute of Social History (IISH). His research focuses on global migration history, integration, migration systems, urban history, and others. Mr. Lucassen wants to stimulate interdisciplinary research on migration history and contribute to the public debate on migration. Mrs. Degler studied sociology and political science, focusing on migration, minority rights, and citizenship discourses. Currently, she is migration policy analyst at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Mrs. Degler is working on how policy can render labor markets and education systems more inclusive for immigrants and their children. Facts and Statistics One key (legal) problem for states is how to define a refugee. While we all have an idea of what constitutes a refugee, a definition is needed to make states able to make agreements with each other on how to help persons that seek refuge, for example by laying out minimum standards for the treatment of refugees. The central treaty that sees to this, and other aspects of refugee protection is the “1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees”. The treaty defines a refugee as someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylum seekers defined as people who “left their country of origin, have sought international protection, have applied to be recognized as a refugee and are awaiting a decision from the host government”. In 2017, there were 22.5 million refugees worldwide, most of which were under 18 years of age. More than half of refugees come from three countries: Syria (5.5. million), Afghanistan (2.5 million), and South Sudan (1.4 million). 1.8 million refugees have arrived in the Europe Union since 2014, more than 1 million of them in 2015 alone. Close to 1 million of these refugees have requested asylum in different countries, with Germany being the primary destination. Figure 1 from Mihaela Robila’s paper on “Refugees and Social Integration in Europe” illustrates the asylum applicants coming to the EU. The largest groups are coming from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan. In 2016, the number of first-time asylum applicants in the EU from Syria was 27.8%, Afghanis accounted for 15%, and Iraqis for 11% of the total number of applicants. Figure 1. Asylum Applicants in EuropeIn terms of countries of destinations (Eurostat, 2016) In Europe, the largest groups are headed to Germany, Italy and France (see Figure 2). It is commonly said that more collaboration is needed so that the integration of refugees into different countries in the EU can be better coordinated. Figure 2. Number of Asylum Applicants by Country of Destination (Eurostat, 2016) Figures 3, 4, and 5 illustrate the top five destination countries for asylum seekers from Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. In 2016, 85% of Syrian and Iraqi and 77% of Afghani asylums applied in Germany. Figure 3. Top 5 Countries of Destination for Asylum Seekers from Syria (Eurostat, 2016) Figure 4. Top 5 Countries of Destination for Asylum Seekers from Iraq (Eurostat, 2016) Figure 5. Top 5 Countries of Destination for Asylum Seekers from Afghanistan (Eurostat, 2016) Nowadays, fewer people applied for asylum relatively to the peak in 2015-2016. The UNHCR says that this year Spain has welcomed 9,500 migrants, Greece 12,000, and Italy 15,300. But the underlying factors of migration have not gone away; most observers believe it is only a matter of time before the number of arrivals rises again. Refugees’ Social Integration The level of integration and adaptation of refugees depends on a number of factors, including remigration experiences, the departure process, and the post-arrival experiences and environment. Many refugees and asylum seekers have experienced severe pre-migration traumas, including mental and physical torture. The departure is also a complex endeavor, many times associated with life-threatening risks. Although arrival in a safe place provides initial relief, frustration sometimes develops as new problems emerge, such as family separation, language barriers, legal status, unemployment, homelessness, or lack of access to education and healthcare. The integration programs differ among the countries but all of them aim at making the integration process to the culture and work easier for refugees and immigrants. Taking a more theoretical view, immigrant integration refers to the incorporation of new elements (immigrants) into an existing social system. Integration is described as a multi-dimensional concept, with structural and cultural aspects. Structural (socio-economic) aspects of integration refer to education and employment.  Social and cultural aspects refer to cultural adjustments, shared norms and social contacts of immigrants with natives. The structural and cultural dimensions of integration are strongly related; migrants with good social positions (a high education or a stable job) have more informal contact with society and therefore are more able to include themselves in the new society. Integration Programs Migrant integration is one of the key challenges currently faced by the EU Member States. The Stockholm Programme (2009) took a step further in the evaluation and monitoring of integration by identifying key indicators that serve to measure integration with. These indicators are: Employment: employment rate, unemployment rate, activity rate; Education: share of low achieving 15-year-olds in reading, mathematics, and science; the share of 30-35-year-olds with tertiary educational attainments; the share of early leavers from education and training; Social inclusion: median net income; at risk of poverty rate; health status (good/ poor); property/non-property owners; Active citizenship: share of immigrants acquiring citizenship; the share of immigrants holding long-term residency; the share of immigrants among elected representatives. Refugees integration remains high on the current international political agenda. United Nations General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants (2016), which focuses on the international refugee regime and represents a commitment by the Member States to strengthen and enhance mechanisms to protect people on the move. What are the most effective policies to make refugees well integrated, productive and profitable members of society in the most efficient way? What are the current policies within Europe? How to measure their success? And what is the future of these policies? These and more questions will be posed to Mr. Lucassen and Mrs. Degler during the Room for Discussion interview on Tuesday 13th November. The interview will take place in the E-hall at the Roeterseiland Campus (Universiteit van Amsterdam) at 13:00. Read our next article after the interview!

I’ve always had the feeling that talking about communism is rather taboo in Romania. The academic year would always end before we reached 1947 in history class. As such, I am reluctant to dive into such a sensitive subject. But here I stand, after reading an interview from a dear family friend that was a political prisoner in the early 1950s, understanding that such things have to be shared so that they do not happen again. By no means do I claim to understand or ever be able to understand what happened in my country before I was born, but I am able to take further the memory of those who do. The Danube is the biggest river in Europe. If flows from Germany to the Black Sea which makes it a rather important route for maritime transport between the Black Sea and the North Sea. The river forms a delta in Romania which was considered historically hard to navigate. With the general geographic idea settled, it is time to introduce the grand project of constructing the Danube-Black Sea canal. Serious talks about the construction of the canal started in 1829, initiated by the DDSG (Donau-Dampfschiffahrts-Gesellschaft), which argued that it would be prosperous for the development of maritime transportation on the last 100km of the Danube. The idea of economic prosperity brought around by the canal was kept alive in the heart of Central Europe until finally being materialized in 1949. Communism was installed in Romania in 1947 with more reluctance that it is usually believed. Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party, believed that the best way to ensure its success was to stop anybody who even remotely opposed it. The mentorship relationship with Stalin was a determinant in his policy, and it is believed that Stalin himself suggested the start of the construction of the Canal by drawing a red line between Cernavodă and Năvodari. Combining the two, Gheorghiu-Dej named the construction of the canal “the grave of Romanian bourgeoise”. Finding the middle ground between imprisonment and economic prosperity through maritime transport, labor camps were created in the site of the canal. Filled with Romanian intellectuals, peasants who were not willing to give out their land, and numerous members of the clergy, the number of political prisoners as a percentage of the workers for the canal rose from 19.7% to over 80% in just three years. Little food, the harsh Romanian winter, and the miserable working conditions brought around the death of thousands. Numbers vary with sources, but regardless, it created much pain and suffering. In a period of post-war famine and poverty, Romania was not prepared technologically and economically for taking on such an ambitious project. The techniques used to dig the canal were plain rudimentary. With shovels, axes and any other materials that the Soviet Union handed in, the construction of the canal was in effect, what Dej planned from the start: a communal grave. The February of 1953, brought around the death of Stalin and a complete shift in the Romanian-Soviet relationships. Thus, the work was suspended for 23 years, and Gheorghiu Dej started following a semi-autonomous policy. Unfortunately, this was not the end of labor camps and unjust imprisonment, strict supervision of the population being the instrument of choice for regime stability until Dej’s death in 1965. A sequence of reforms and political tumult followed in the Romanian Communist Party ( Partidul Comunist Român/PCR), which ultimately resulted in the instauration of the Ceausescu dictatorship. A situation which was at first seen as a small step forward ended up being two backwards. The oppression slowly escalated until the fall of communism in December 1989. During 1973, a proposed plan from PCR to finish the construction of the canal was accepted. The canal became fully functioning in May 1984. Its cost was 2.2 billion dollars and a spot of blood in Romanian history. “Dupa cum veti vedea, nu este vorba de un simplu canal, unde curge apa si pe unde se fac transporturi ieftine, ci este vorba de un complex de lucrari menite sa transforme total aceasta regiune care va fi scaldata de acest canal” (“As you will see, it is not just a canal that will bring cheap transportation. It is a complex work with the intent of fully transforming the region in which this water flows” ) -Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, in ministry meeting, 25.09.2018- The canal not only changed the region of Southern Dobrogea, but it changed the whole country. It was a weapon in a relentless war against free thinking and opposition. Instead of only the flow of shifting the flow of the Danube, it changed the flow of the downward spiral in which Romania was to enter for 42 years. Today, the 100km canal is in need of further restoration that has an estimated cost of another 1.5billion dollars, and no projects seem to have been initiated for any reparations. In 2015, it reported a considerable profit and was expected to experience further growth. Maritime transportation is still one of the cheapest ways of shipping goods, but at the rate of technological advancements, it is hard to say it is still sustainable in the long term. An idea that could have been so economically beneficial during XXth century Europe managed to become a terror instrument in an unwanted regime. Like many instances throughout economic history, human sacrifice seemed to have defined the image of what could have been an ambitious project. As such, the Danube-Black Sea canal did not deliver as promised. The region was not flooded by economic prosperity and industrialization, but flooded with the blood of those who had the courage to oppose. Like all the other communist projects in Romania, the walls of the canal are a ruin and a scar of a forced industrialization era.

Tea is the most consumed beverage in the world. And although it is produced widely around the world, the best of the best teas are all still produced in China. ‘Long Jing’, ‘Tie Guan Yin’, ‘Pu’er’ are all legendary teas steep in history with a matching flavor profile. Not many would also know that ‘Pu’er’ is able to age like fine wine and because of this, it is suitable as an alternative investment. Many Chinese invested in Pu’er tea as an alternative investment much like how the western world and also much of the world right now are investing in fine wine as an alternative investment. The Chinese fascination with Pu’er actually resulted in a bubble forming in the Pu’er market and it burst back in 2007, since then it has recovered.  In 2009, the China Construction Bank launched a Pu’er tea investment product—where investors are able to receive annualized 7-percent return in tea or cash. Pu’er is a tea that is only produced in specific parts of Yunnan, China mainly because of the terroir and like champagne, it is protected and only tea made from the specific areas would be able to name their tea Pu’er. Tea produced from more well-known regions and producers would tend to cost more, as does tea plucked from older trees and tea that has aged for a longer time. There are Pu’er tea dating back all the way to the 19th century or the days of the Qing Dynasty. It is not possible to get a good gauge of the price of the aged Pu’er as the selling of the tea is really exclusive and it is not something that you could buy even if you have money. The sellers of these old teas would have to deem you worthy first and then you could talk privately afterwards. The Chinese fascination with tea is like their obsession with jade in the sense that it is only something that the Chinese understand and appreciate but times are changing. If the Chinese could learn and are willing to pay top dollars for the best red wine out there, I think likewise for tea, the west could learn much about it from them. This is evidently seen in several Michelin star fine dining establishments where they are now offering tea pairings for different courses instead of the usual wine pairing. Also in recent years, Matcha became really popular throughout the world. This are indicators that the world is getting more interested in tea. Pu’er field in the Yunnan province. PHOTO SOURCE: Morgann There is a reason why tea drinking has flourished for thousands of years, is an integral part of Chinese culture and life and also the mass proliferation throughout the entire world. No one is able to quite do tea like the Chinese. After many years since the end of China’s Monopoly on tea production, they are still the powerhouse in the industry, the best is still Chinese tea Through extensive interviews with local farmers, Selena Ahmed, an American ethnobotanist, has compiled a detailed record of tea prices in Xin Banzhang, where high-end Pu’er is grown. In 1985, farmers in Xin Banzhang were paid 45 cents for a dried kilo of spring Pu’er tea. In 2000, it had increased to $1.46 cents. By 2010, the price for a kilo of spring tea was $220 — a 150-fold increase in a decade. By spring 2015, the farmers in Xin Banzhang were hauling in $713 per kilo — roughly $200 more than a kilo of silver. From the 1990’s until the burst of the bubble in 2007, speculators from Taiwan, Hong Kong and Guangzhou started buying up huge quantities of Pu’er tea when it was worth peanuts. After securing the supply, they started marketing it throughout China, creating greater demand for Pu’er and with them restricting the supply. When the price starting peaking, they started releasing more supply into the market and they cashed out during the peak of 2007. Subsequently, the market crashed during the same year. When the prices of the tea were near the peak, many people in other regions started creating fake Pu’er tea to get in on the action and according to some, that was partly why the market crashed. The market subsequently recovered and during 2008, the government passed a law to indicate that only tea produced in Yunnan, China can be considered Pu’er. After the crash, you would be glad to know that the market is not controlled by a few individuals anymore. The older it is, the more valuable Pu-er becomes. If you are considering investing in fine wine to diversify your portfolio, you could also consider adding Pu’er tea. As more Chinese are getting richer day by day, they would want to invest or spend their newly earned capital on the finer things in life. Whether it be property, fine wine or tea. It’s a roller-coaster ride but it is definitely going up. Pay attention to what the Chinese are doing as these days the Chinese are the ones paying record-breaking prices auction after auction, not just for fine wine and whisky but also in something closer to their hearts: Pu’er tea.

How we see the world determines how we act. This article considers the significance of indigenous economic systems in contemporary society. It argues that such systems should be considered in a more systematic way than thus far in considerations of pure romanticism and utopia. The traditional indigenous economy in the Andes acts in diversity and knowledge that permits the usage and management of that diversity, along with a wide range of strategies. In which it is required to have an appropriate acquaintance of ecological, environmental and cultural conditions. Indigenous communities practice sharing apart from the interdependence and reciprocity that distinguish this economy, mainly in household production, agriculture and subsistence activities. The Core of The Indigenous Economy in The Andes The paradigm of the Andean economy lies on the fundamental value of Life Breeding and is considered as a bi-dimensional concept, empirical and symbolic. Preceding to the definition of economy, according to indigenous peoples, is paramount a philosophical reflexion about their worldview and thinking, embodied in the ethical values of indigenous cultures. The basic allegory of their societies is life, in all its forms, one and multiple, human and animal life, vegetal and spiritual life. Life acts as the central core. The objective of its economic activity is a meta-economic value, due to its final goal does not lie in the augmented capital and power, but to ensure and consolidate the Sumak Kawsay (the good living: in harmony with our communities, ourselves and the co-existence with nature). Differing in how development is defined, seeking for less emphasis on production and consumption and more on human development. Besides, native peoples see humans merely as an integral part of the Pachamama (Mother Earth). Instead of considering an anthropocentric worldview, where the human is the peak of the pyramid and the Pachamama, an object of domination by the human being is abandoned. Economic features. There is no logic of a progressive linear process, but rather the concept of circularity: the time that is governed by the natural cycles, the movement of the planets and seasonal and agricultural cycles. Its economic rationality is not one of accumulation but of a harmonious relationship with the environment and respectful use of natural resources for the well-being of the entire community. Therefore, in the indigenous economy, the principles of reciprocity, collaboration, sharing, and redistribution apply so that all members of the community have access to the same levels of well-being. The economic activity to be achieved implies a triple attitude: one technical, one ritual and one ethical. For example, the farmer knows that preceding to a new cultivation of crops, the land should rest to restore its balance after the harvest like a pregnant woman gave birth, while the farmer fertilizes the land to thank the Pachamama for its gifts. From the indigenous economy to the economy of markets. The indigenous economy has commenced to lose its traditional nature. At first, the indigenous economy is engaged in a stage of adaptation, trading with the small surpluses of their production destined to self-consumption. Eventually, it begins to rely on the consumption of foreign goods (clothing, food, and even weapons for hunting or territorial control). This creates a need for money, decreasing exchange and barter with other communities. At this stage, the community falls apart and individuals or families independently sell their products for which they must migrate to cities for longer and longer periods. This generates a huge social cost, as the reciprocity system is weakened. The sustainable forms of coexistence with nature disappear (limited hunting, fishing and gathering to what is only necessary for family or communal subsistence), and they leave causing growing differences among families, due to their links with the external world, generating divisions within communities and organizations. Many indigenous territories have suffered much damage because of the invasion of mining activities, logging, and commercial agriculture. Native people have been forced to resort towards harmful practices affecting the environment due to high growth rates of population. Indigenous peoples always demand the conservation or restoration of their natural resources as a precondition to participate in other development efforts. How does the indigenous economy influence the preservation of the environment? Indigenous communities constitute an estimated of 5% of the world’s population. They are considered as the principal guardians of the environment due to their great expertise on ecosystems management. Traditional indigenous territories cover 22% of the earth’s surface and represent the 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity. One-third of forests of the entire world, crucial for reducing carbon emissions, are primarily managed by indigenous peoples, families, communities, and farmers. The ways and means implemented by native people may serve as the understanding of the conservation of natural resources, sustainable agriculture, an economy of subsistence and the co-existence with the environment. They acquire abundant knowledge about the natural resources of their surroundings and adopt methods and techniques of great complexity to manage their habitat in a sustainable manner. Their agricultural practices are resilient to climate change. Throughout the centuries, indigenous peoples have developed agricultural techniques that adapt to extreme environments. Take for example the creation of terraces in the high altitudes of the Andes, which impedes soil erosion, conserves soil, conserves water and reduces the risk of disasters. Currently, the world depends to a large extent on a small set of staple crops: wheat, rice, potatoes, and corn that signify half of the calories we consume daily. Native alimentation expands their limited food base and diversifies diets, for example highly nutritious aliments such as quinoa, oca, and moringa. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations considers indigenous population invaluable partners in the fight for the eradication of hunger and in the search for solutions to climate change. What has been disappearing while economics developed? Most of the contemporary economists have been uninterested or overlooked the importance of land (Pachamama). The difference in worldviews between humans belonging to the land and the land owned by humans is much profound. For the first worldview, the Pachamama has a spiritual dimension. Thus, people have responsibilities towards the Mother Earth involving practical knowledge and act as a guide. On the contrary, according to the economist Michel Hudson, the modern economy is mainly dominated by the FIRE sector: Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. Therefore, in most industrialized economies, the inherent feature of development declined the ecological knowledge of the society. Here, economics describes a world in which the main assumptions of the economy of markets consist of individuals seen as driven by self-interest. They connect with each other in competition over scarce resources and their spending is the fuel of the economy. All in all, we should consider a strategy that articulates the indigenous economy to the market economy, rather than thinking the indigenous economy and the economy of markets as completely opposite. Defining an overlap between the two spheres in which development initiatives can be settled. Initiatives that enhance the comparative advantages of indigenous culture by responding to the demands of the market with a logic of efficiency and economic viability. An intercultural model could be conceived for the conservation and sustainable management of natural resources.

In recent years a lot of effort and money has been invested in finding alternatives to fossil fuels, such as solar- or wind power, but until now this is unfortunately still only the peak of the iceberg considering that even in Europe energy consumption from renewable sources contributes 17% to the total energy needed. Located in France, the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) could change the way we think about energy generation in a way most of us would never even imagine to be possible… Since October 2007, 35 countries have decided to actively increase this number by founding one of the biggest research projects that has ever been put into construction. The duration of the construction is scheduled to be completed by 2035. Estimated construction costs were estimated to be $5 billion U.S. dollars, but his number is most likely to be exceedingly higher by the time ITER will be ready. Basically, ITER is an enormous, complicated, and very costly physical experiment designed to test if a controlled nuclear fusion – an atomic reaction that has been used by Robert Oppenheimer in World War II to build atomic bombs, and the same reaction that is happening all the time on the sun – can be used to generate a huge amount of heat. Heat that could then be used to generate clean and sustainable electricity. How does it work? Theoretically it isn’t that hard, you take two isotopes of hydrogen, crush them in each other, and out of a sudden you will get a helium atom and a subatomic particle containing a lot of energy. Albert Einstein knew this already and eternized it in his famous equation E = mc2. The main lesson from this is that a small reduction of mass results in an incredibly high release of energy. There is only one problem, to create an atomic fusion you need a lot of heat. The fusion that takes place in the center of the sun requires a temperature of 15 million °C, in addition of having this immense gravitational pressure. Without having this pressure, say in fusion machines such as the ITER will have one, it requires ten times more, therefore 150 million °C. To be able to withstand these incredibly high temperatures, the ITERs fusion will take place in a doughnut-shaped room which is called tokamak. In this chamber the reaction happens, inside a plasma in a cloud of ionized hot atoms in which it can be done but only by incredibly strong fields of magnetism. Just try to imagine how extremely advanced these materials and technology have to be that will be used there. The process, step by step: The process of creating such a huge amount of heat includes basically five steps, mimicing what can be observed at the sun. In the first step the heating process has to be started. This is done by inducing a current into the plasma, using the central magnet. As a result, the two hydrogen isotopes that are within the plasma start to heat themselves up – the heating process begins. In the second step the researchers use the magnets outside the plasma chamber to limit the plasma as radio waves as well as microwaves to create the required temperature of 150 million °C. As soon as this temperature has been reached, and therefore the plasma has its proper density, the isotopes start to collide with each other, which will finally let them fuse. This fusion results in the release of high-energy neutrons. To explain this a bit more in depth: Deuterium and Tritium heated up to a 150 million degrees Celsius collide and fuse, resulting in a Helium atom and one high-energy neutron. (step three) In step four these neutron start to hit the blanket of the plasma chamber, which converts this high energy into heat. During this process, the Heluim and the impurities are getting removed with the help of a diverted which takes place at the bottom of the chamber. In the fifth step, which is also the final step, this heat that has been created (assuming that the Project ITER will be successful) will theoretically be used to create a steam that would be directed through a turbine to create rotation, which in the end, will generate electricity. Overall this project has been enormous complex in every way possible, nevertheless, once the ITER is done, it is planned to product around 1000 megawatts of electricity. Putting that into perception, such a big amount could power roughly 500.000 British houses. Even though 2035 might still seem far ahead for many of us, Dr. Bigot – the general director of the ITER – once said: “People consider that it’s long,” he said, referring to critics of the project timetable. “But if you want full control of quality, you need time.”

Who is Jordan Peterson? Well, In short, he is a very controversial man. Having started his career in psychology as a common professor, a giant turn of events meant that he now leads a fan base of over one million people, who appraise him for having improved and even saved their lives with his YouTube lectures and his latest book; “The 12 Rules of Life” where he acts as a self-help guru, and even a father-like figure, sharing ideas about topics ranging from feminism and gender to race. Peterson kicked off his career just like any other scholar. He received a PhD. from McGill University; one of the most prestigious college institutions in Canada, and was then hired by Harvard University, where he worked as a professor. Peterson is currently employed by the University of Toronto, as a clinical and research psychologist. But, how does one goes from being a common scholar to an actual celebrity? Well, that can only be explained by the power of YouTube. Although his work in topics such as personality assessment is very respected in the field of psychology, it has little to do with his fame. In fact, Google searches for his name didn’t start to rise until October 2016, after his appearance in the debate surrounding bill C-16. A Canadian bill that adds gender identity and gender expression to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The video where Peterson is shown debating this bill with trans students, went viral. After this episode, his online lectures and writings began to capture a larger audience, and he basically became a regular guest in public talks and television shows. Peterson speaks and writes about a wide range of topics. Whether it is feminism, social hierarchy, climate change or how to raise your kids. His supporters say this speaks of his intelligence and broad knowledge. On the other hand, critics suggest that he speaks about topics he does not know enough about, which leads to many generalizations and simplifications in his statements. For example, after his attacks on bill C-16, experts of Canadian law stated that his interpretation of the amendment was actually incorrect, and that his refusal to call a person by their preferred pronoun would not lead him or anyone to be prosecute as he had asserted. Nevertheless, this type of inflammatory and in multiple cases misinformed stance is rather his trademark approach to public issues. This, as expected, results in a lot of controversies, even at UvA. In an open letter; employees and student organizations asked Room for Discussion to change the format of the debate to represent a contradicting opinion from an equivalent opponent. Peterson responded to the open letter on his website. Philosophy and Politics Peterson is a big advocate for traditional gender roles, stating that there are biological differences playing a decisive role in a person’s interests and behaviors. According to him, these organic traits make women more “agreeable” than men. Consequently, translating into completely justified differences regarding remunerations and positions in the workplace. His logic rationalizes a patriarchal order and a hierarchical society, an order which should not be disturbed by groups seeking for equality of outcome. In fact, according to the Canadian journalist Jesse Brown, “He tells his fans that these so-called marginalized people are not really victims at all but are in fact aggressors, enemies, who must be shut down”. Another important element of Jordan Peterson’s philosophy is his search for “the meaning of life” and with that, his battle against ‘chaos’. In this, he is heavily influenced by Christianity. Peterson claims that the structure of Christian values is used to provide a created purpose. He likes to mention Nietzsche’s quote; ‘God is dead’, to which he adds that Nietzsche thought that with the diminishing influence of Christianity, our moral base would perish. This is why he seeks to reinstate some of this structure through his search of our mythology. In this, he not only follows Nietzsche, but mostly psychoanalyst Carl Jung, who believed men are incapable of making up their own morale since we are not slaves to ourselves. Instead, we should seek our own mythology. Peterson sees our mythology as being a truthful individual who takes responsibility. This is the true meaning of life, the antidote to chaos, and the element that so many people miss nowadays. Peterson also has a lot to say about contemporary events. He is a fierce and vocal opponent of what he calls ‘Postmodernist Neomarxism’, a combination of postmodern thought and the egalitarian and -in his eyes- totalitarian ideology of Marxism. Peterson ascribes Postmodern and Marxist views to a lot of university professors (the UvA-letter will not help to curb that view) and in general to most of the modern left. These postmodernists are against Western culture, he claims, and even wants to destruct them. This accounts for his role in the debate surrounding political correctness and emancipatory movements like feminism and LGBTQ-activism. Peterson, a big believer in individualism himself, claims these movements are highly collectivist and authoritarian. Popular and controversial It is clear then, why he has become such an important figure within the online community. He fits perfectly in the current political and social circumstances. The spike in social movements such as “Me Too” or “Black Lives Matter” has put on the spotlight multiple social injustices and inequalities. However, if you are accustomed to privilege and injustice, this turn of events in which others get a fairer deal, might actually seem like oppression. Peterson justifies and takes advantage of these feelings of resentment and anger from a declining social status. For example, he criticized feminists, claiming that they have “an unconscious wish for brutal male domination” and compared trans-activism to neo-Marxist authoritarian leaders such as Mao Zedong or Stalin. This might explain why 80% of his regular viewers on YouTube are male. In less than two years he has managed to create a massive platform of over 1.3 million subscribers on YouTube and 900k followers on Twitter. This massive online community that he has gathered grants Mr. Peterson around $80k per month just through donations on his crowdfunding account on Patreon. They feel educated by the broad range of topics he discusses. He is believed to be the voice of reason in a time where emotional identity and politics dominate the public debate. To many of his followers, Peterson is more than just a guy who says sensible things on the internet. He is their mentor, who tells them what they have been doing wrong and how they can fix it. This explains the title of his latest book: Twelve Rules for Life. Young men feel like Peterson has given them a purpose to live in a world that seems to lack direction. As he says it himself, these young men never get an encouragement to step up for themselves and take control of their lives. Peterson says he is the first one to say that to them, which is very impactful. As a thank you, they write him letters, thanking him for bringing them back from their own ‘destruction’. This might explain why Peterson’s followers tend to be very defensive of him. For this, you only have to look in a YouTube comment section from a video that merely mentions him or even the Facebook-page of this Room for Discussion event. His followers make compilations of Peterson ‘destroying’ feminists and ‘SJW’s’, and many YouTube channels are devoted to propagating Peterson’s philosophies. This is very significant for young people, since a large part of their political education is on the internet. And I deliberately say political education, since a lot of what Peterson says has a strong political undertone. In his much-spoken-about interview with Cathy Newman, Peterson says Mao and trans activists can be compared because “the philosophy that guides their utterances is the same philosophy.” Although he says not to strive for it, he claims that these are sure to spark controversy. Jordan Peterson is a guest at Room for Discussion on Wednesday, October 31st at 13:00. This Introduction will be followed by two articles on Rostra discussing Peterson’s appearance at Room for Discussion and his thoughts in general. These articles will debate each other as a way to create discussion within the student community of the University of Amsterdam. Make sure to read them!

It’s Friday night at the Sotheby’s hall in London. Just another day in the busy marketplace. The auction house is dispatching artwork after artwork. Frenetic bids are made, deals are agreed, and businesses prosper. In a few seconds, million-dollar trades are being conducted. As a result, new owners will amass new artworks, expecting to turn them into profitable investments. Meanwhile, purchasers are looking at their phones and some brokers are speaking by telephone. Well-off market participants paint an exuberant picture of luxury and high culture. Suddenly, tedium is replaced by surprise. Immediately after Banksy’s Girl with Balloon image is sold for more than £1m, the painting drops through the frame and it is automatically shredded. The unbelieving audience is perplexed. As it was later revealed, some years ago the anonymous artist introduced a shredder into the frame in order to destroy the picture when it was eventually sold. Banksy’s dig has shocked the world of art and, to some, it recalls Marcel Duchamp in the early XXth century, the Dadaist artist who first placed a urinal in a museum exhibition. Again, street art takes revenge on the official art of the establishment. Along with the main vindication of street and urban art, Banksy’s provocation is aimed at confronting the traditional, discriminatory vision of art. Thus it advocates that art is not to be in museums but rather in the streets, where the true meaning of democratization of art is realized. Art is not to be traded with, nor it is to be reduced into business terms. That’s why, after revealing how he managed to put a shredder in the picture, Banksy published, in his Instagram account, a quote of Picasso: “The urge to destroy is also a creative urge”. These words prove that the auto-destruction of the Girl with Balloon was the final highlight of that artwork, defying that, unlike money or material objects, art has no worries about destruction. Shredding a million-dollar picture in the middle of its auction is the greatest criticism imaginable against mainstream art. Some art critics pointed out the polemical and irreverent tenor of Banksy’s performance. However, it also signals a dismal outcome. As the British art critic Jonathan Jones phrased in The Guardian, “the only real rebellion left is for works of art to destroy themselves the moment they are sold”. Otherwise stated, auto-destruction of a work of art may at first appear subversive, but, unfortunately, this turns out to be the only possible way of rebellion. Therefore, art is condemned not to have other means of rebellion but self-annihilation. Indeed, the following events have shown that Banksy’s heroic display seems to be rather a Pyrrhic victory. Some days after the fatal destruction, the picture’s value is presumed to have doubled (according to My Art Broker company). Market forces, thus, have twisted the artist attempt to beat them. Back in the 1960’s, the Marxist philosopher H. Marcuse already noticed this phenomenon and coined the expression “artistic alienation” to signify the capacity of capitalism to subvert any kind of radical purpose in art. Subversive art is steadily assimilated into the logic of capital. Whereas the genuine function of art used to be the liberation of human being, this pretension is eroded in the consumer society and art is downgraded to a mere commodity. Thus, the broad scope of capitalism repression becomes patent. In allusion to the title of Marcuse’s masterpiece, One-Dimensional Man, the culture cannot elude the risk of being reduced to one single dimension. All this process of repression implies the absorption and invalidation of any kind of rebellion, to the extent that the reality is shaped in a totalitarian manner. In the past, the so-called “high culture” (the elitist art displayed in museums and in theatres) at least represented a break in day to day normality, a transcendence to another dimension. But the modern mainstream art no longer implies this opposition, since democratised art (say urban or street art) is defined by the transformation of all productions and experiences into commodities, the new unique dimension of reality. In the battle for persistence, consumerism defeats art. In the light of this repressive force of capitalism, Banksy’s insolence has fallen into the trap of the market. Let only be mentioned the fact that the owner of a £40.000 copy of the Girl with Balloon shredded it similarly, meaning to double its value, but it ended up dropping until £1. It is straightforward that only a truly “assimilated” artist can provoke such an increase in the value of an artwork. Not for nothing Banksy is one of the most valued artists of the scene, possessing an estimated net worth of 20m$, according to Forbes. Don’t forget that being an anonymous artist does not exclude having a legal personality, from which profiting in contracts and sells. Moreover, the artist took off his mask when he published in Instagram a video of the moment of the destruction, that is, he wanted to make a show of his trick and so it was. Currently, the raising debate is not whether urban street art is to be considered art or vandalism -or even terrorism-, but whether art is inevitably condemned to banality. While the one-dimensional art is devouring genuine art, the girl with balloon is but wondering: is the balloon coming back? #Art #Capitalism #Marcuse

What is it that makes movies great? Or let me rephrase, what was it that made movies great? Actually, according to several film critics, in terms of quality, not much has changed in the last decades. By looking at most of the reviews they so vividly write, one would say we’re in the golden era of movies. Far from it. Not to mention, attributing a certain, irrelevant number, the movie score, given by certified, accredited, awarded, experienced and respected experts to the movie itself is the supreme fallacy. Even so, had this widely used hypocrisy been done truthfully and according to real and not invented values, it would have still been acceptable. The problem is, obviously, that it is not. Lately, it appears that one only needs a renowned cast, decent acting and some “sensible” themes, such as the nightmare of being part of a highly individualistic society or (even worse) the struggle of becoming famous in today’s film industry. Also, if you throw in a superhero or two and conjure a funny trailer you’re all set, the movie is already a certified blockbuster Let’s say this is all fine (although it’s not!). But now we turn to “la crème de la crème”. The absolute best movies of the year. They promote cinematographic excellence, allow the viewer to transcend into the 25th dimension and feel something that was never felt before, by being connected with ideas that are higher than themselves on so many levels they can’t even count and by raising interest in a wide variety of ambitious, exalting, noble themes. That’s what one might think when watching the annual award ceremony and witnessing all preparations, fancy dresses, red carpets and all that pretentious nonsense. Unfortunately, that’s what the Oscars have become in the last few years; a nonsense. Among most of the fallacies that were nominated for last year’s awards (or even worse, managed to win an award), most of them are not worthy of any comments. However, there is one particular movie that I would like to comment on; namely A Fantastic Woman. Without any shadow of a doubt, this was the worst movie I had to sit through in my recallable movie-going experience. I did not, however, despise it because of the approached subject: the struggle of transgender individuals in a society who just does not accept them. But when a movie that only impresses the viewer by the insurmountable chunk of clichés, terrible acting, cheap dialogue and non-existent cinematography is then considered as “an important step in the development of cinematography” and is even seen as “a small masterpiece”, this gets too hard to endure. By the way, it won the Oscar for the best foreign language film. Looking at the way the golden figurines have been awarded throughout recent years, you would definitely not be surprised. I can, however, take a wild guess about the Academy’s reasoning: “So, listen up people, we cannot really hand in the Oscar for best picture or best actor/actress in a leading role to Call me by your Name because that would raise a rather huge controversy since those particular subcategories raise most of people’s interest. So, to show our support for minorities, we should hand in the Oscar for the best foreign language film to A Fantastic Woman. Even though it’s a really bad movie, we want to show some political correctness. There won’t be any controversy, since the audience does not care about foreign language films anyways, and we’re going to be perceived as nice humans.” Not to mention, the other nominees were quite decent and definitely infinitely better in terms of promoting cinematographic excellence. Thus, if you beg for an Oscar, at least do it in an honourable way, bring something to the table, rather than expecting the Academy to just crown you for the sensibility of the approached subject alone. Again, I am not against promoting movies that propose such themes, but quite the opposite. Consequently, I would enjoy seeing a movie which does so in a principled and respectable manner, rather than being pathetic and begging for awards in such a pitiful way. I get it, the Academy cannot always hand the awards to the best actors, best movies and so on, because of certain social, political, and other pressures. For instance, there is an (ongoing) scandal about the voting members of the Academy (surprisingly), which will probably continue for a time now and that will probably influence future editions. While this is, let’s say, understandable (although it’s not!), the extent to which it is being done is becoming a little annoying, to say the least. An important question to be asked is when will it stop, or better, WHETHER it will stop. Unfortunately, we got to a point in time where it seems that the large public is not interested in actual quality in terms of movies (or just doesn’t care or can’t recognize it), but rather sees movie-going or watching as the perfect opportunity to chill and to catch up with their friends’ activity throughout the past week. Not to mention, what better occasion to post an Instagram story with the screen, the drink and eventually the popcorn clearly visible, so that it can be clear-cut that you are a movie goer? But let’s get back to the discussion about Oscar movies. It’s not that the winning and nominated movies are necessarily bad, but rather that standards have decreased vertiginously in the last decade, and a lot of mediocre movies are being unjustly praised. Think about a basic fact; in 1995 among the nominees you could have encountered movies such as Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction, or even The Shawshank Redemption. Unfortunately, only one won the Oscar. While it is true that even now, some of the nominated and winning movies are actually worthy of such an award, the majority is still constituted by a timid shadow of what cinematography was. In recent years modest movies keep getting Oscars and ratings similar to those received by legends in the past, but the only memorable thing they promote is… well, nothing. For that matter, there was one dialogue between Quentin Tarantino and some irrelevant TV host, where the latter was trying to convince the former that his movies are bad for the society as a whole and especially for young people, since they promote nothing more than pure and unjustified brutality and bloodshed. The director, when asked why he would create such a movie like Kill Bill: Vol. 1, notoriously said: “Because it’s so much fun!”. Although this case only emphasizes the stupidity of that particular TV host, I’m quite certain that there are other Kill Bills that are criticized for their violence, while a way greater number of billboards (in different shapes and forms) are being unscrupulously praised. So you might ask, how can we identify and watch those recent movies that promote cinematographic excellence and are actually great? The answer is that you can’t really do that easily. Unfortunately, on the one hand, online streaming platforms are not helping users to do that. In fact, why would they if they’re making such hefty profits in the current situation? My advice is just sticking to the oldies. On the other hand, the death of independent cinemas, at the expense of huge, commercial cinema chains has also affected this supposedly novel experience of movie-going. Accordingly, we get bigger cinema theaters, worse movie quality (a lot of bad commercial movies and very few movies that actually have something to say) and an increasingly diminished sense of community between the people in that room. Taking part in a screening was supposed to not only mean a passive engagement with the ongoing movie, but rather an implicit spiritual pact that all viewers accept when stepping foot into the theater. It involves an active channeling of thoughts that one is supposed to undertake, a special kind of bond with the characters themselves, anticipation of future actions which would supposedly intricate and yet fascinate one’s mind. As a result, while the film unravels, everyone comes up with a different perspective on the same ongoing chain of events. Those active reflections are part of every particular theater now, and will only leave along with the watcher, after the movie concludes. But until then, there is a continuous clash of ideas, attitudes, viewpoints, angles and, most importantly, enthusiasm into the air, which one cannot see, but feel. That is what I experienced not long ago, at one of Amsterdam’s independent cinemas, during a screening of Pulp Fiction. Unfortunately, with the emergence of cinema chains, this has greatly diminished, with isolated cases persisting but only in a few communities. Coming back to reality, the film industry is nothing but a shadow of its past. The worrying aspect is, however, that there is no light at the end of the tunnel. It’s only darkness.

When I told my parents that I wanted to study philosophy at the end of my last high-school year, I got an immediate and unanimous answer: “Why don’t you choose something that’s going to give you security on the job market? As a graduate in philosophy, you aren’t gonna starve, but you’re not gonna live very well.” – They said. Back then I accepted my parents’ opinion without questioning it, therefore – being good at maths – I chose to study economics. Now, as a BSc student, I’m getting more and more furious about the decision I made three years ago. Instead of being taught how to think critically and how to raise correct questions to challenge the status quo, I am being indoctrinated with “politically neutral” ideas that have failed to gain empirical support. The worst is that most students do not even seem to care about this. Something must be broken in the system of higher education, and neoliberal ideology is to blame. Neoliberalism is a socio-economic paradigm that sees markets as individually functioning entities, rejects governmental intervention in the economy, promotes materialism, consumerism and the commodification of public goods. With the birth of this worldview at the end of the 60’s, a new kind of relationship was established between corporations and universities. Institutions of higher-education begun to operate according to business principles, trying to gain revenue out of essential functions. A robust cooperative business network of universities and multinationals got formed, which allowed these two agents to trade the “end-products” of higher education – knowledge, and information – with no barriers in the way. Thus, the good of higher education is commodified, and it gets expropriated by privately owned corporations, hence their owners, the ruling class, even though the benefits generated by education should be distributed evenly across society since it is an investment funded by public money. Transferring public wealth from the many to the few is not the only problem. By creating a demand for specific information and knowledge, corporations can determine what the curriculum of universities has to include. This is a powerful tool in the hands of the ruling class to maintain control and to dominate the lower class. To analyze this situation we can use the work of Antonio Gramsci, an Italian philosopher, who would label this as a part of “the hegemonic project,” through which the beliefs and ideas of the ruling class become mainstream and the lower class adapts to the value system of the ones on the top. Hegemony leads to the awkward situation, in which people who are supposed to challenge the status quo – the intellectuals – are unable to raise the correct questions because they are so deeply indoctrinated with the views of the ruling class. This way they are rendered incapable of inducing change. With the words of Slavoj Zizek: “We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom”. The system of hegemony creation is not a conscious conspiracy, but a hidden process that happens without anyone acting on purpose, or anyone even noticing it. Neoliberalism penetrated our collective consciousness so profoundly that we came to believe that we live in an ideology-free world, and, as Margaret Thatcher said; we think that there is no alternative to it. As it was mentioned earlier, passing on information, which is “value-neutral”, became the norm in higher-education in the past 40 years, which assigns an even stronger role to universities in the hegemonic project. Lecturers try to stay away from stating their own opinion since “professionalism” turned into a form of educated neutrality. Thus, neoliberal ideology impairs the very principle of academic freedom. The message, which is being sent to students by this, is terribly harmful. It says that the classroom is not a space for debate, but a sterile conveyor belt of indoctrination. Eventually, students accept every idea that is given to them, because they falsely believe that those theories are politically correct and value-free. Besides, they do not even acquire sufficient tools for analyzing and challenging the methods that are being taught to them. Instead of graduating universities as critically thinking intellectuals, they turn into experts, who know a lot but are afraid and unable to challenge the world around them. Neoliberalism transformed not only the role of universities in society but also the values of students. In his study based on the results of the Cooperative Institutional Research Program, Alexander Astin shows how the goals of university applicants changed between 1991 and 2007. At the beginning of the 90’s, developing a meaningful philosophy of life was the most important aspect for students when it came to applying for college; about 80% of the respondents put this option on the top of their list. Being well off financially could only reach the sixth position, with 45% of prospective students labeling it as important. By 2007 these two goals swapped their places on the list. According to the same study, the main benefit of a university degree was “to increase one’s ability to create financial stability”. In the neoliberal world, one seeks education, not because of its intrinsic value, but one purchases the educational product because of its potential to improve the consumers’ economic conditions. My example can be used to demonstrate this: I ended up choosing economics instead of philosophy, not because I value that kind of knowledge more, but because I was expected to be better off financially after my studies. My situation is prevalent nowadays. Astins study shows that the number of students applying for liberal arts or teaching courses has plummeted drastically. Another study by Marteen Vansteenkiste showed that those who value extrinsic goals more than intrinsic ones are more likely to get depressed, anxious or narcissistic, they tend to have more conflicted relationships, and they are under threat of engaging in high-risk behaviors. This trend is even more severe when it comes to economics students that study the economic aspects of the neoliberal paradigm more in-depth. According to a study, which was made in Israel, merely studying homo economicus can change students. Homo economicus is the smallest building block of economic models, an oversimplified portrait of all humans. It says that humans are selfish, they can compare all possible options in their head and they always act rationally. After studying economic models with homo economicus in their core for years, third-year economics students are more likely to value altruistic traits, such as loyalty, helpfulness, kindness or honesty far less than first-year students. According to the same study, third-year economics students also reported far more selfish behavior than anyone else. With commodification of education, with corporations and the ruling class shaping our curriculums – thus our way of thinking –; not just academic freedom, the traditional role of universities, and our mental well-being are in danger. Neoliberalism threatens the very foundations of democracy. Us students, as the intellectuals of the future, are responsible for challenging the “hegemonic project”, which is trying to swallow us all. With our future at risk, we are obliged for not letting the road roller of money stomping on the last bits of intellectual freedom. The dictatorship of capital must be stopped before it is too late. Otherwise, we will become mindless servants of neoliberal ideology.

Robert Koopman was working in the United States International Trade Commission before his switch to the World Trade Organization. The difference between the two organizations is obvious: the former is focused on domestic issues inside the United States of America whereas the WTO has a broader scope on an international scale involving member 164 countries, including China and the USA. Mr. Koopman stated in his interview that he is happy with his current occupation in the light of the situation the USA and China are in. Theory of Trade: Is Ricardo’s comparative advantage still relevant? There are many theories, Ricardo’s comparative advantage was one of the first and it’s a very powerful and relevant insight but it is not the only one. It explains 20% – 25% of total trade but we should also not forget about the countries’ endowments, economies of scale and scope and maybe the most important, the consumer preferences and their love to variety. The Doha Round of the WTO Negotiation “The goals set during the Doha round were not achieved…the world has changed” Mr. Koopman The WTO is not a free trade organization, never meant to be. Its main purpose is to strive for freer trade in the world by organizing the rounds of negotiations. The Uruguay and perhaps the Doha rounds were centered around 20th-century trade issues but as we are rapidly moving into the 21st century the new issues arise. Significant 21st events like the rise of Japan and other Asian Tigers; the opening up of China which has grown at a great speed from a poor to rich and from a centrally planned to more market focus economy; the establishment of the new separate markets for the former Soviet nations; the opening up of India to the trade. The Doha round was not prepared for those. Conflict Over Protectionist Measures: Developed vs Developing Developed countries are trying to prevent developing countries from using protectionist policies like, for example, the agriculture subsidies. The developed counties through their own experience found out that such measures have big negative spillover effects on the world and actually do more harm to the agriculture industry than help it. The lesson learned from this is that developed countries are not preventing developing countries from using protectionist policies like agriculture subsidies but rather they are trying to prevent them from using techniques that cause big negative spillovers to the rest of the world. “Do as we said not as we did” the developed countries recommend to developing. The Largest Trade War in Modern Day History Trade is not decreasing, it’s hard to imagine that it can even stop, even though there is a heated debate around it. It’s not world trade in crisis but rather “the world trade order in crisis”. The tariffs implemented by the USA cannot be purely seen as the activist trade policy, it is rather the geopolitical politics for the power and world dominance. This trade war is a sort of political negotiation strategy by the USA and the USA is known for having good experience in such delicate political manipulations. Is There a Way to Prevent the Trade War? “I like to think counterfactually….In a world where China did not rise, the USA would be importing more from east Asian countries and Mexico” was Mr. Koopman’s answer. Going back to the reality, we saw that Mexico had a plan to actually move into producing electronics. China, however, implemented policies to enable values chains to flow into China. This policy affected not just the USA but other countries as well. 天高皇帝远 The Sky Is High and the Emperor Is Far Away China invested a lot of money into sectors like, for example, cement and steel that enables them to build infrastructures. There is a surplus of materials in those industries as China went too quick and too big, consequently, it overbuild. This resulted in the high complexity of the Chinese system and it seems that Beijing is not able to control everything that is happening in China. There is a Chinese saying “天高皇帝远” (Tiān gāo, huángdì yuǎn) which translates as “the sky is high and the emperor is far away”. Dumping of steel into markets overseas by China actually resulted in global steel prices plunging due to supply exceeding demand. Now, China’s plan is to move from investment-led to a consumer-led growth. Questions by Rostra What are your thoughts on the instability of the Chinese economy? – Nastasiia Sokil It is early to say that the Chinese economy is suffering from instability…news reporters are taking it too far. WTO IMF, WB, and OECD decreased the projections of trade down in the light of the trade tariff posted by the USA but the change is relatively little. The main concern lies in the investors and consumers declining confidence. The concern around financial markets (Turkey, Argentina) could become problematic when ECB and FED increase interest. The market fears another 2007 crisis. The WTO is closely watching the data to predict and take preventing measures. What are your thoughts on the USA’s strategy in Indo-Pacific? – Nastasiia Sokil The USA approach is about building alliances with various countries whereas China is about going at it alone. There is an issue now with the approach of China as countries in the Indo-Pacific are concern about preserving their severity from Chinese influence. Moreover, although China has some influence in that region, it should win the market there from the USA which requires more than just politics or power and is primarily about winning the hearts and minds of the people. Is the trade war about what will be made in China 2025, China intending to improve themselves, China moving up the value chain? – JianRong Ng China might not succeed in achieving this as it is a very complicated process. But if China does move up the value chain, this does not mean that the USA or other countries will experience decline and be poorer. A good example would be what happened to the United Kingdom after the rise of the USA, they remain relatively prosperous. The main thing we got away from the interview was that the world is dynamic and unpredictable in nature: you are not able to predict what happens in the 21st  century when you are in the 20th century. Trade is still growing and it is very difficult to stop it. It is not the world trade in crisis but more of the world trade order in the crisis. The trade war can be seen as the USA’s paranoia attack about Chinese intentions to move up the value chain that would threaten the USA’s industries and economy. But the thing is the USA might not decline or get poorer as China rises. Look at what has happened to the United Kingdom after the rise of the United States. To see the full interview check the Room for Discussion Facebook page.

Last Monday 8th October, the prize in Economic Sciences was awarded. The winners? William Nordhaus and Paul Romer, for “integrating innovation and climate with economic growth” (as declared by the Royal Swedish Academy). The prize this year has been shared between the two American economists for bringing long-term thinking on climate issues and technological innovation into the field of economics. But my focus for this article will be on William Nordhaus – I just happen to enjoy writing about climate and sustainability-related issues. Born in 1941, William Nordhaus is an American economist and Professor at Yale University. He started to work on the interaction between society and nature in the 1970s, as scientists became increasingly concerned about the combustion of fossil fuels resulting in a warmer climate. He demonstrated back then how a growing economy increases greenhouse gas emissions that are responsible for the warmer temperatures of the planet, and therefore cause economic damages in the agricultural sectors, coastal property, among others. Yet, he observed that the producers of those gases did not pay for the damages they cause. In the mid-1990s, Nordhaus became the first person to create an integrated assessment model that described the global interplay between the economy and the climate. The model integrated theories and empirical results from physics, chemistry and economics. What Nordhaus did was to incorporate climate change and climate policy into our general equilibrium models of economic growth. He then found ways to quantify the costs that everyone was thus far conjecturing about. He thought there could be some ways in which economies could adapt to climate policy and self-limit the costs that many were worried about. This model, yet actualised with new data, is currently known as the DICE (Dynamic Integrated Climate-Economy) Model and it offers a general approach to estimate the costs of climate change and examine the consequences of climate policy interventions. Up until now, it has been widely used by many institutions such as the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Nordhaus Contribution – The Nobel Prize In a few words, what Nordhaus’ research suggests is that the best solution to address climate change caused by greenhouse emissions is a global system of carbon taxes enforced by all countries. He shows that raising prices through a carbon tax is a far more effective and efficient way to lower carbon emissions than direct government controls on the quantity of emissions through regulatory limits. The justification for this is that higher prices will encourage firms and consumers to find alternatives to carbon-based products, therefore encouraging new technologies to make those substitutes competitive. The following diagram shows CO2 emissions for four climate policies, according  to his simulations: While progress has been far from what we would want (better said, what we would need), the improvement we have seen can be attributed to Nordhaus’ critical work. Despite the joy of winning the price, Professor Nordhaus stated that he had not succeeded convincing the government of his own country – “The policies are lagging very, very far — miles, miles, miles behind the science and what needs to be done,” he said shortly after learning of the prize. Personally, I am happy to learn about the motivation of this prize; climate change should be approached in every single possible way, and addressing it with governing policies is indeed essential if we want to prevent its effects. Unfortunately, this insight has not yet been adopted worldwide, and to certain extent, it is not a priority for many governments. As clearly stated by Mr. Nordhaus: “we understand the science, we understand the effects of climate change. But we don’t understand how to bring countries together”. For more information about the prize, you can see the Royal Swedish Academy press release here.