The Chinese are the largest consumers of red wine in the world and is poised to be the largest consumers of wine in the world. Their demand is shaking up the entire market for wine especially red wine, constantly setting new record high prices for premium fine wine in particularly the French red from Bordeaux and more recently Burgundy.  The popular options from Bordeaux like ‘Lafite’, ‘Latour’, ‘Margaux’, ‘Mouton Rothschild’ as well as ‘Petrus’. However in recent years, there is a shift in taste from Bordeaux to Burgundy options like ‘Romanee-Conti’ and ‘Leroy’. The more serious investors are buying up vineyards in Bordeaux. I think another shift is happening, not only is the market in China and Asia Pacific still growing but the Chinese consumers are still evolving by becoming more open-minded and sophisticated, they are keen on exploring and try out newer options not just limited to red wine , not just French red. They are looking inwards as well to domestic options produced in China. The first bottle of Chinese wine I tried was a bottle of ‘Changyu Golden Valley Ice Wine, Gold Diamond Label’ and that shock me as well as awaken me to the world of Chinese wine. That bottle of wine was one of the best wine I ever tasted. It was better than any of the Canadian ‘Inniskillin’ Ice wine I tasted before and it was about a fraction of the price as well or less, definitely very value for money. Ever since that moment, I have been looking and exploring the world of Chinese wine. Taiwan is able to produce some of the best whisky in the world, China has lots of talented people as well and China is a vast country with all sorts of terroir available. Terroir is very important in winemaking. China possessing many different terroirs and hardworking, talented people would definitely be able to produce great wine. Generous funding would enable Chinese wine to compete with the best wines globally. According to Euromonitor International, China is likely to come of age as a producer. With major international houses investing heavily in production in the country, Chinese wine exports will soon make their presence felt on the international stage. Mr Christophe Bourrie, Managing Director of Prestige Brands at Moët Hennessy, comments, “I would say luxury Chinese wines will be coming into the market in the near future.” The LVMH group had set up the Ao Yun Winery in Yunnan, a region that is also known as Shangri-La. Ao Yun, which is Mandarin for ‘flying above the clouds’, is a reference to the Himalayan foothills in which the grapes are grown. They released their first vintage the Ao Yun 2013 back in 2016. Jeannie Cho Lee tried both and said that Ao Yun Proves China Can Produce Wines That Can Compete With The Best. Domaines Barons de Rothschild started the Lafite China project, known as Domaine de Penglai, near the city of Penglai on the Shandong Peninsula will make its debut  this year. According to Cult Wine, fine wine has an extended period of compound annual growth rates in the region of 10-20%, fine wine possesses a remarkable track record as an investment. The fine wine market is a consumption based market with a perfectly inelastic supply curve. Over time as bottles are consumed the price of the remaining bottles in that vintage rise in value. This market has been proven to provide strong risk adjusted returns over the medium to long term and has been proven to have low correlation to traditional financial markets. While fine wine investment is no new phenomenon, today market liquidity and price transparency have evolved to a point where investors of all levels can profit from this expanding market. The luxury aspect of Fine Wine has meant that in recent times a new breed of wine collector has appeared in the market. Due to the increasing wealth and proliferation of HNW individuals in Asia Pacific, this new demand for fine wine has put further strain on the acute supply/demand imbalance, placing greater pressure on liquidity and prices. It is safe to invest in blue chips like Lafite and Romanee-Conti but the greatest investment is to find those wines that are emerging and has the potential to be the next blue chip. I think wine from China has immense potential and specifically the red wine from ‘Ao Yun’ and the ‘Lafite China’. Ao Yun and Lafite China has access to talent, expertise, marketing and funding from established companies like ‘Louis Vuitton Moët Henness’ and ‘Domaines Barons de Rothschild’ which produce some of the best wine in the world, also they are produced in limited quantity. Wine experts like Jeannie Cho Lee has confirmed that Ao Yun is able to compete with the best in the world and ‘Lung King Heen’ the 3 star Michelin Chinese Cantonese restaurant in Hong Kong is offering several Chinese wines in their wine list. I am betting that the next great red wine will be a China Red.

By the time this article is up, it would’ve been two weeks since the infamous Joe Rogan and Elon Musk interview. If you, the reader, haven’t yet listened to the extensive two and a half hour podcast, I highly recommend parts of it,(no, not the portion where Elon Musk puffs a blunt), especially where they discuss artificial intelligence. Now, assuming that you have a brief understanding of their discussion, I will also like to present the intent of this article. I felt that everybody was consumed by the smallest actions and too focused on the drop in Tesla stock that they forgot to step back and comprehend what was said. Listening to them casually talk about incredible advancements in technology I couldn’t help but wonder how is it that they live in such a different world from me. What is it that makes progression in different industries so disproportionate. It just seems rather unfair that we are able to consider breaking the interface barrier between us and our phones but are still struggling to provide in-house toilets to one-third of the world. For me, this thought came as a very strong priority check. Whilst this article is not meant to undermine the importance of technological advancements, or what people choose to invest in, I just merely want to state the contrast and inequality that is now more present than ever. Firstly, it is important to settle what we actually mean by a firm that is in a technological industry. As such, think about Testa. Is Tesla a car manufacturer or a technological firm that just happens to also build cars alongside self-driving technology? As technology progresses, any firm can more or less be integrated into the technological industry. At the present moment, a formal definition states that a tech company is an entity that primarily focuses on delivering technology as a manufacturing good or as a service. Current industrial economic theory puts together some key factors that could be the basis of the difference in dynamics: knowledge, technology, firms, demand, and institutions.  At first glance, it seems that the technology industry has hit the jackpot when it comes to all of those. It feeds the need for innovation and curiosity in such a way that it creates excitement. An older TedTalk explained this rush we get from technology as being related to the interconnectivity it provides. So it seems reasonable that we are invested in always creating something better and “more human”. To put things into perspective, the R&D spending in the technology industry by far tops any of the other sectors. The amount of money is estimated be enough to wipe out Italy’s entire debt, end world hunger, invest in your favorite stocks whilst still have enough money that you wouldn’t really know what to do with them. How you see this number is entirely up to you. For many tech enthusiasts it can be too little, yet for somebody who is more “old-fashioned,” it can be frightening. On the other hand,  when you look at education spending as a percentage of the world GDP we are merely talking about 5%. Of course, this number depends on every particular country, but it is way less than expected from a society that keeps on claiming progress. Wasn’t progress and innovation a product of knowledge and specialization? How is it that whilst we are keeping on creating and innovating, the school system seems to stagnate in another era. It seems rather unfair and wasteful that there is a perpetuation of this cycle of poverty and not enough initiative from any of the directions. Of course, education is costly and doesn’t show much short-term profit, but it brings high returns on the long-run for everybody involved. Many people see the problem of education as a distant one that is mostly related to the developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, but unfortunately, it is also present much closer than one would think. Most European nations are experiencing complete inequality in actually directing children towards good employment or further options. It seems that most schools are focusing on short-term exam results, rather on the actual importance of education and this mostly comes from bad incentives and a system lacking progress… There is nothing wrong in promoting progress and innovation through the technological industry. It’s rather unbelievable to think how many advancements have been made in such a short period of time. It is, however, extremely interesting to stop for a second and think about the differences that those advancements have created. Of course, those can largely be explained by the money motive, but when every slogan relates to interconnectivity and progress, it is interesting how we are willing to overlook such big differences between the passes of our general development.

Given the fast increasing average price of Japanese whiskies, it is no understatement to refer to the prized beverage as liquid gold. Earlier this year, a bottle of Japanese whisky was sold at 343,000 USD in Hong Kong setting the record as the world’s most expensive Japanese whisky ever sold. The bottle in question was a limited edition bottle of a Yamazaki 50 year old single malt that was auction off at Sotheby’s. This shows that the market for Japanese whisky and whisky in general is booming and still going strong. These days, the general consensus appear to be that the best whiskies are made in Japan and no longer Scotland. Japanese whisky has been gaining prominence ever since Nikka’s 10-year Yoichi single malt won “Best of the Best” at Whisky Magazine‘s awards back in 2001. Ever since then Japanese whiskies have won awards for being the best in the world in various categories. This caused a boom in demand of Japanese whisky, especially the aged varieties. The huge soar in global demand is causing a crisis for the major producers of Japanese whisky like Suntory and Nikka as demand far outstrips their supply of whisky. This problem originated back in the 1980s when the economic crisis of Japan caused everyone in the country to have a downbeat view of the economy thus causing spending to decrease as well as demand, causing the decline in sales of Japanese whisky. The producers then , faced with the reality of the economic crisis and also not anticipating the boom in demand for their whisky, made the decision of decreasing the production of their whisky. This resulted in the situation of there not having adequate stock of aged whisky. Suntory have discontinued the Hibiki 17 years old and Hakushu 12 years old recently because of this. This crisis is causing a massive rise in prices of aged Japanese whisky. Back in 14 May 2018, a bottle of Hibiki 17 years old was selling for €190.5 and as of 2 June 2018 it has increased up to €999.85 due to the news of it being discontinued. That is a more than a 500% increased in value. This phenomenon also affected all the whiskies in the entire Hibiki line that includes the 12 year old and 21 year old to increase in value as well. Your jaw would drop even further when u know that the original price of this prized Japanese whisky was way lower. The above example is just one incident but in general prices of Japanese whisky has been rising year after year. The potential of the market is still massive. The question is, is the price sustainable? Has it reached its peak? China is still growing and look at how the Chinese have driven up the prices of French Red from Bordeaux and Burgundy. The Chinese market is getting increasingly sophisticated. Judging from other Chinese dominated Asian countries such as Singapore (the largest consumer of scotch whisky in the world) and Hong Kong, China is sure to follow and fall in love with whiskies, the drink of kings. When the time comes, there is no doubt that the already high price of Japanese whiskies will shoot up even further. The best things in the world do not come cheap but at those prices, it’s better to keep it as an investment instead. If the past trend is anything to rely on, it would be wise to stock up on these whiskies, in particular the aged variety of Hibiki and Yamazaki.”

You must have surely heard something about plastic straws being recently banned in different parts of the world. The whole city of Paris will progressively remove plastic straws in all its municipal establishments from September on. Some U.S. cities (Seattle, San Francisco) have also passed some laws about it, and every time more companies are taking action to reduce straws and other single-use plastic utensils. Why all this attention to plastic straws? How have they become the spotlight of all social media? I first thought that stop using my beloved straws once in a while would not make a real difference. I changed my mind when I learned that plastic straws represent 4% of all waste found in the sea. It is not about taking a radical approach to the issue, but rather a conscious one. Plastic straws, still plastic The focus on plastic straws began in 2015, when a video of a small turtle with a plastic straw stuck on its nose became viral. The video is certainly heart-breaking (the animal suffers when they try to get the waste away from its body), but for me, the cause of it is even more heartbreaking. We have a plastic problem. A million plastic bottles are bought around the world every minute. A trillion plastic bags are used worldwide every year. World plastic production has increased exponentially from 2.3 million tons in 1950 to 162 million in 1993 to 448 million tons by 2015. How have we become so addicted? Plastic really became an important element during WWII. The war demanded a great expansion of the plastic industry, but when the war ended, plastic companies needed to find alternative ways to outlast, and from the mid-century, plastics started to be mass-produced. Due to its malleability, the substance could be moulded in every kind of shape; unbreakable, water-resistant, this became the ultimate convenience material for making everything, from medical equipment to clothing. The synthetic material brought improvements in hygiene and enabled the distribution of clean food and water. However, few considered the consequences of plastic’s longevity. It is unclear how long it takes for plastic to completely biodegrade into its constituent molecules, but estimates range from 450 years to never. In addition, about 8 percent of the world’s oil production is used to make plastic. Bear in mind: ocean plastic is not as complicated as climate change. It is not a problem where we don’t know what the solution is. There are ways to pick up, dispose and recycle the plastic waste. Instead, it is a matter of building the necessary institutions and systems. From the 8.3 billion tons of plastic that have been produced since the 1950’s, only 9% is recycled and 12% incinerated nowadays. The rest, most of the times accumulates in landfills or ends up in the oceans, where they are ingested by the sea fauna, or build up in the form of islands, like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. Some countries, like the U.S. and China have some plastic trade agreement (where the U.S. sends part of its plastic waste to feed China’s industrial boom), but these are declining with time. But again, why straws? In 2017, an international coastal clean-up collected 643,000 plastic straws in beaches all over the world. In fact, according to the association Ocean Conservancy, this element is the 10th waste element most found in the sea. The plastics that our straws are made from might be in theory recyclable, but most aren’t. Due to its small size and lightweight, these elements often cannot be captured by modern recycling equipment, and instead they end up dumped in landfills. Reducing our use of plastic straws won’t solve our whole plastic problem, but as always, it is a good way to start. There are certainly many other ways to approach the issue, and many other harmful actions that should be treated soon. But, if saying “no” to these straws will reduce the amount of plastic accumulated in our coasts, then why not? It is not that easy. Sometimes it might be difficult to find the best alternatives to plastic, and legislation progresses slowly. If we get some of the major brands, namely Starbucks, McDonald’s, Coca Cola, to take ownership of their contribution to the plastic problem and alter their business practices, they can be leaders in the matter and truly make a change. Nevertheless, we, as individuals and as consumers, should try to reduce our own plastic consumption in order create an incentive for these companies to change with us.

Trade Unions played an essential role for the working man and woman. They helped improve working and living conditions for millions of people. First, by providing collective insurances that assured families a small income if the breadwinner passed away. Later, by collectively bargaining for higher wages and better working conditions. They stood at the base of the modern middle class. But today, the role of trade unions has grown smaller. In the United States, the percentage of unionized workers has plummeted from 35 percent in the 1950’s to around 10 percent now. A similar trend can be seen in the chart below, where the union membership of some European countries and the US is plotted. The trend is clear: workers are turning their backs to trade unions. Trade Union Density as a percentage of the workforce. DATA SOURCE: OECD. The exception to the downward trend in Europe seems to be Scandinavia. Here, union membership has maintained stable at levels of 50 percent (Norway) and just below 70 percent (Finland, Denmark and Sweden). These high and relatively stable numbers are correlated with the historical good protection for workers in Scandinavian countries. And it’s not just workers turning their backs to trade unions. Economists are also very dismissive of them, branding them disruptive. Take the minimum wage, one of trade unions’ major accomplishments. This is effectively a price control which decreases demand on the labor market, increasing joblessness. Trade unions are also bad for the competitive power of an economy, pushing wages to levels higher than affordable for many corporations. To many economists, trade unions are merely seen as the reason more people are unemployed than necessary. But the positive economic effects of trade unions are not often recognized. They are much needed for a healthy labor market and a well-functioning economy. In this article, I will explain the negative effects of the declining influence of labor unions. For this, I will look at recent empirical research on the effects of the decline of organized labour. Stagnating Wages Average wages in the Western world have stagnated since the early 1980’s. As economist Thomas Piketty has pointed out, wealth inequality has grown and owning capital now yields more than working. Even now GDP is growing in most countries and there are shortages in employees, real in most of the Western world haven’t risen much. This fits in a trend that started in the 1970’s. The growing discrepancy between real wages and productivity in the US. GRAPH SOURCE: Economic Policy Institute. As economist Jared Bernstein points out, wage growth exists, but only nominally. When adjusted for inflation, employees often see no effect on their pay. In the US, real wages have declined by 0.3% in the last year. This is especially remarkable since unemployment is breaking record low’s, which means the demand for labor is exceeding the supply. And this doesn’t just happen in the US. The OECD (an economic organization for the industrialized world) has shown its worries about the slow growth in real wages in its member countries. While the average real GDP growth in 2018 in OECD member-countries is predicted to be 2.55%, real wages only grow by about 0.5%. The OECD also points out that stagnating wages affect lower paid workers more than highly paid workers. Employees who are better paid tend to be more mobile, which means they’re less bound to their current employer. They ,therefore, can more easily switch companies when they’re unsatisfied. This gives them a stronger bargaining position. Lower paid employees are more often bound to the employers in their region. Power imbalances There are multiple possible explanations for these stagnating wages. One of the major ones is the decline of influence for trade unions in the wage-setting process. In particular, the power imbalance that has emerged as the influence of organized labor declined. The Classical economic theory states that there is no such thing as a power imbalance in a competitive labor market since the laborer can just go to another supplier of labour when treated poorly. The worker is not dependent of the employer, which creates an efficient equilibrium wage on the labor market. The Reality, however, is a lot less simple. In his speech for the Jackson Hole Economic Symposium (a gathering of the world’s central bankers and leading experts in monetary policy), Economist Alan Krueger of Princeton University stated that the growing power of corporations in the labor market pushes wages down. This is because corporations collude to keep wages lower than the actual added value of the employee. But corporations aren’t allowed to collude. That is why the collusion is implicit, this is called ‘tacit collusion’. As long as our competitors don’t increase wages, we won’t either. The knowledge that employers do this is as old as the economics science itself, even Adam Smith wrote about it. Having less suppliers or demanders in a market makes it easier to collude, since there are less players to adjust your actions to. Empirical evidence shows that in markets with less employers, the wages are indeed lower. As mentioned before, lower paid employees experience this the most. Often, there are only one or a few major firms where a large proportion of the population works. This leaves these employees no choice but to accept, since moving for a lower-paid job is often not an option. For a long time, trade unions were a counterbalance to this tacit collusion. They allowed workers to bargain collectively for their wages. You might say that this makes the union a kind of monopolist on segments of the labor market, since they control all the supply. Yet still, this is a mere counterweight to the demand side of the labor market. Since employers are tacitly colluding, they are effectively creating a monopsony (a market with just one buyer.) Trade unions thus create something of a level playing field. And it’s not just power imbalances in the labor market, but also in the general political arena. Trade unions are also effective lobbyists for policies that benefit working people in general. This means that they use their political influence to push tax reductions for lower-paid employees or increase their benefits. In this way, they counterbalance the lobbyists from the corporate world that advocate corporation taxes and taxes on capital. As a result of the diminishing influence of trade unions, changes in taxes have been curbed towards the owners of capital and those who already earn more. Take for instance the recent tax reductions implemented by the Trump administration which disproportionately benefit the wealthy. The current Dutch government will abolish the dividend tax, after fierce lobbying by Shell and Unilever. This is a tax that is primarily levied on foreign investors, and it costs the Dutch government 2 billion a year. This all shows the diminishing political influence of trade unions, which typically push tax reductions for lower paid employees. Changes in labour shares in G20 countries (plus Spain) (1970-2014). GRAPH SOURCE: OECD You might wonder, if the wage share of income is diminishing in corporations, where is the money going? The answer is simple, to those who have gained power: corporations and the people who own them. This is seen in this graph. The share of GDP that flows towards wages has decreased in these Western countries, Japan and South Korea. And it is not like corporations don’t have the means to increase wages. Especially large companies are swimming in cash right now due to the current worldwide GDP growth. But instead using this cash to increase wages, it is used to buy back stocks. Goldman Sachs estimated that this year corporations will buy back 1000 billion dollars in their own stock, an increase of 47 percent from last year. This way, economic growth is used to boost the value of financial assets, and not the purchasing power of workers. The need for stronger trade unions can be summarized in an economic and a moral argument. Economically, trade unions combat inequality. This has all kinds of negative effects, like  social effects, more volatile financial markets and inequities in (economic) power (a subject that deserves a whole library of research on its own). Morally, we should ask ourselves if it’s fair that workers increase their production but that they don’t get the benefits of it. The proceeds of economic growth flows primarily towards those who own, not those who produce. Trade unions have the potential to equalize these inequalities (again.)

Have you ever noticed that after you browse the internet for a holiday for new clothes, you’ll get chased by ads on other websites of similar or even the same products? It can make you feel like someone is watching you. Of course, this isn’t the case. These websites have constructed a user’s profile of you, based on your previous browsing history, and now show you personalized ads. This can be very convenient. Nobody enjoys digging through a pile of stuff they don’t like. If algorithms point me towards the things I like best, that’s a win. But is there a trade-off for this convenience? The types of ads you see are determined by algorithms, a buzzword you hear everywhere these days. However, few people actually know what they are. An algorithm is a set of consecutive orders that lead to a certain goal. It takes in information to determine what choice it should make. This information can be collected directly or inserted into a prediction model. The models used in, for instance, marketing are often statistically very complex. They use the information from millions of users in order to derive correlations, to make predictions such as when you buy these shoes, you will probably like those pants. The algorithm takes in this information and then makes a decision, for instance, which kind of ads to show you to have the maximum effect. In this way, online marketers have revolutionized the world of micro-targeting, which is advertising at a personalized level. Thanks to the Internet and the exponential growth of computing power, data about individuals are analyzed in such detail that has never been achieved before in history. Algorithms are getting better at knowing you, as more data is ‘mined,’ and models are improved. Predictions are getting more accurate and therefore more intimate. What if the algorithm knows things about you don’t want others to know anything about? For instance, American supermarket chain Target uses a system in which a customer’s purchases are tied to a user’s account. Based on previous purchases, algorithms determine what coupons should be sent to your home. When a dad of a teenage girl found out she received coupons for baby accessories, he angrily went to the supermarket. His daughter was still in high school, how dare they send these to her? Later, he found out that his daughter was indeed pregnant. Indeed, the change in her purchasing pattern had triggered the algorithm, which predicted the pregnancy before her dad knew about it. This example shows that the data we unconsciously give away tells more about us than we realize. We often think we are quite unique, and thus a general algorithm can’t say much about us. However, when data of millions of individuals is gathered and processed, chances are there are many cases of people that are in the same circumstances as you. In this instance, teen pregnancies might not be common in your direct circle but are seen often in all of Target’s customer database. With the massive amount of data and the statistical means to process them, even the slightest change in behavior is enough to make a remarkable difference for the algorithm. This way, algorithms may someday know us better than we know ourselves. Now, what is free choice? When you make a decision, does it always feel as if you made it completely consciously, unimpeded by outside factors? It can be hard to swallow, but our free will is probably more limited than we would like to admit. It is quite easy to manipulate people into doing something they do not consciously want to. This sounds really evil, but it happens all around us. Take the look at how a supermarket is arranged, how shopping carts are getting bigger and how the smell of bread is artificially pumped into the store to make you feel hungry. All this is done so you’ll buy more than you initially wanted to. If you think about it, we function as algorithms as well. We perceive, which is the data input, and base our decisions on that data. People’s behavior can, therefore, be manipulated by controlling this input. If the data input is the smell of freshly baked bread, you’ll feel hungry and want to buy more. If the data input is the sight of an aggressive dog attacking you, you’ll run. The big difference between a human algorithm and a digital algorithm is that data algorithm itself. Both, however, are just as dependent on the input data to function. If you don’t perceive the dog attacking you, you will not react. When you understand an algorithm well enough, you’ll know what inputs trigger a certain action. You now only need to control the inputs and you can manipulate the algorithm into doing anything, whether a digital or a human one. An area where this has become particularly influential is politics, especially in how voters receive their news. During the last US presidential elections, the split between Republicans and Democrats was wider than ever. You probably recognize how you can’t even imagine how the other side can even believe such insane things. Are they crazy? The answer that’s often given is that the American population is split in half, each with their own new sources. Therefore, they perceive the world in a completely different way. One side sees Donald Trump as a savvy businessman who wants to save the working class and keep criminal immigrants out of the country, the other side sees him as a sexist, racist crook that’s completely incompetent for office. As algorithms get better at predicting political behavior, political parties can now micro-target voters. The messages they receive shape their perception of the political world in the most effective way. And as the ‘filter bubble’ now only shows these messages, their worldview is enforced again and again. They will believe they have made their choice for Trump or Clinton voluntarily. Yet the information they have received, which often includes fake news, was solely aimed to get them to make that choice, and the conflicting information was filtered out. If others decide what inputs to put into your algorithm and you decide upon these inputs, is that free choice? The troubling thing about the rising use of algorithms is not that they force us to do things we don’t want, but they make us want to do things we might not have wanted otherwise. When the algorithm decides what we see and knows how we work, it’s only for the owner of the algorithm to decide what we should do. But does this all matter? You get fitting clothing advice, more suitable partner advice and a tailor-made political orientation. And these all fit you better than the choices you would have made without the help of digital algorithms since they know you so well. The age of worrying about scarcity is almost over, those decisions are bound to be made for us. And the best thing about it is, you’ll still believe you’ve made those choices consciously. You don’t know about all the things that are kept from you. There is no need for contemplating whether your beliefs are really right because all information you receive is tailored to reinforce those very beliefs. Whether we go to a society led by digital algorithms is a choice. We currently stand at a crossroad to our future, so choose wisely. And remember; the easiest way is often not the best one.

We are living a paradox. On one hand, globalization is steadily increasing. Free trade, international agreements, technology development, they all contribute to this rapid growth which we are experiencing and which could get even stronger. Because of this growth, company “giants” such as Amazon, Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., have risen, increasing our living-standards significantly. As consumers, we have a globalised behaviour. We like to buy in international companies, have access to whatever we want in any part of the world, and of course, we like cheaper prices, cheaper holidays, cheaper goods. On the other hand, most of us identify ourselves with a concrete culture or country. Globalisation has a big impact in our lives but it has not yet erased the boundaries across cultures. We therefore tend to have a national identity, and in an aim to persevere our cultures we rely on language and traditions: an increasingly discussed topic – populism. As citizens, we are going back to a populist behaviour. While we are living on this globalised peak, we still want to have an identity, reinforce it and prove that is better than the rest. Of course globalisation has given us a whole new international mindset (50 years ago we wouldn’t even have considered to study abroad) but it has also made us aware of our own identities. Where do we really belong to? First of all, we should ask ourselves what populism is. Populism is defined by the Oxford dictionary as a “political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups”. Unlike any other political currents, populism is not inherently left or right; what populists have in common is not their political inclination, but the way they conduct politics: populist politicians claim to represent the interest of average or working class citizens. The idea behind populism is to recover the national identity, which often implies an idealisation of the past. With globalisation, boundaries are blurred, and cultures tend to blend. Populism in Europe, however, has been found to show in general terms an inclination towards the right: A Bloomberg analysis of decades of election results across 22 European countries showed that support for populist radical-right parties is now higher than it’s been at any time over the past 30 years. The more populist radical right parties in Europe have combined populist, nativist, and authoritarian strains which, according to the academics, show clear commonalities. Its largest impact has been in Eastern Europe. Scandinavia has had a relative success with 20 percent of the votes breached in several countries. In France, the National Front has had a strong impact on those areas with strongest anti-globalisation sentiments. In Germany and Austria, right-wing populist parties reflect the anti-immigration sentiment that has been developed over the last years. Overall, there is a powerful populist shift emerging in politics around the world, and Europe is not an exception. So how has this surge in populism developed? Job instability has been one important factor. The decline of the industrial working class (partly because of the technological progress, partly because of globalisation) has created the need to readjust, resulting in migration and immigration. All in all, this opening to the world has brought cultural changes of various kinds. These cultural changes and the economic factors associated with the decline of the Western middle class increased disaffection among citizens, but according to many economists, it was the global financial crisis that led to the populist surge. In fact, it has been found that after the Great Recession of 2008, those countries which were most adversely affected have now a strongest populist surge. Populism has many social and political consequences, name racism or xenophobia. But it also affects the state of the economy. A notable consequence of populism nowadays is the rise of protectionism and the trade barriers such as tariffs or quotas that a specific country can impose in order to protect its national economy. Since our markets follow a globalised pattern, these trade barriers can harm some other markets. If the harmed countries decide to retaliate against these tariffs and impose their own ones, a so-called trade war originates. Increased protection causes both nations’ output compositions to move towards their autarky position (i.e. economic systems of self-sufficiency and limited trade). But are tariffs or quotas beneficial within a country? A difficult question to answer, and as always, it might depend. A trade war raises prices for imported products right away and it gives a competitive advantage to domestic producers of the taxed product. Certainly, rising tariffs can protect a country’s industries from international pressure, but without foreign competition, companies within the national industry don’t need to innovate and may decline over the time compared to foreign production. Another factor to consider is that in limiting trade, a government risks making the product too expensive for its people to afford. Finally, protectionist trade policies have been one of the primary factors cited for deepening the Great Depression; in the long term, trade wars slow economic growth, since they create more and more layoffs as foreign countries decide to retaliate. We can illustrate this issue with several examples: In 1886, Italy raised tariffs to a 60 percent to protect its industries from French competition. As a response, the French government threatened the Italians with punitive tariffs if Italy did not lower its own. Tariff retaliation followed tariff retaliation. Both nations felt the costs of the trade war, but the damage extended more widely. Franco-Italian trade fell drastically, followed by dislocations in countries where they got supplies. In another example, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 (a piece of U.S. legislation raising import duties to protect American businesses and farmers), raised duties on hundreds of imports. Canada and Europe responded with tariffs increases as well. This retaliation has been cited as one important factor that added economic strain to countries during the Great Depression. As shown by these two examples, it can be seen that tariffs and quotas have a great impact on the economy, not only nationally, but also internationally. Protectionism is one of the principal measures populist parties try to take in order to rise the economy of their countries, but if it is important protect a nation’s economy, it is also important to be aware that nationalistic politics do not overwhelm the wider interest in an open trading system. Anyhow, the world is constantly changing. Anti-globalisation sentiment is growing in politics, and identity politics, whether over ethnicity, language, religion or sexuality, is fast displacing class as the defining characteristic of contemporary politics. Some political scientists describe populism as a malfunction of democracy; is it maybe a response to irresponsible democracy? Because of the diverse world we live in nowadays, the rise of populism is understandable, but we should be aware that the pride of our own country does not blind us from the fact that we only have one world, one that we all share with each other.

Humans have been searching for the fountain of youth since the beginning of written history. Whether a Greek historian, or a Spanish conquistador, all believed that far-away lands hide the mystical water source. Today, with the world map fully explored and a much better understanding of the causes of aging, it appears that eternal youth is not that far from reach. Researchers at different biotech foundations around the world are looking into combating age-related diseases and making us live longer. Their progress and work could make one believe that, in the decades to follow, we could experience a drastic increase in human lifespan. With proteins that reverse the aging process in cells and technological advancements that are far beyond any predictions, the only question left is how the world would look like in this futuristic scenario, in which life expectancy has more than doubled. From a social, economic and political scenario, I will attempt to depict the centenarian lifestyle of the human of the future. Socially speaking, what we consider normal today might be completely reformed. One of the most frequently addressed issues when word of the work in combating  aging came out, was the issue of children. As concerns over overpopulation grow each day, people living more than 140 years might not seem such a good idea at first. Recent research has, however, shown that there is a maximum limit to which the human population might grow and UN statistics estimate a drop in the birth rate of developing countries. As economic growth increases, a negative correlation with the number of children per household can be observed. Therefore, a drop in average birth rate is expected even without any interference from the biomedical gerontologists. An increase in average life expectancy would only further accentuate the process. But, one might never know, it could also mean that childbirth will be strongly regulated, which from China’s experience we know has certain unwanted moral and long-term repercussions. Our perception of time could also change. A longer life means, in effect, more time. It is likely that perceiving our life as passing slower could result in a more calibrated living pace with a different approach to our work day and our daily routine. Increased family time, more patience and possible a better self-understanding could all lead to increased welfare and a more satisfactory life. Old age is generally associated with longer work experience. Therefore, the employer might take a different approach towards the aging employee. Such a trend is already happening as the “Baby Boomer” generation is approaching retirement. Employers look for more experienced workers as a stabilizer of the fast-paced younger generations. The unsustainability of retirement funds is also one of the factors that speeded up the process. The aging population of the European Union would largely benefit from a better integration of senior workers and, in the future, alongside the increased lifespan, we might see that they become the backbone of the workplace. Thus, this idea brings us to the likely economic change. On a positive note, more time and more years to focus on one task will most likely result in increased specialization. As Adam Smith always tells us, specialization is the pillar of economic progress. More focus on one task means increased productivity and better technological development. The centenarian lifestyle might bring about a whole new job sector and would largely allow more focus on education and research. New jobs will likely arise from the anti-aging market created by the supposed medical advancement and new biotechnologies. Coming back to the present, the trend might already start peaking. Estimated to reach a value of $191.7 billion by the end of 2019 and growing at a CAGR ( compound annual growth rate) of 7.8%, the anti-aging sector is experiencing rapid and constant increase. Companies such as Calico and Human Longevity Inc, are already focusing on the long-term goal that stays at the basis of this article, and the firms are confident and optimistic in their attempt to – “tackle aging”. Sticking to the labour market, switching careers, while currently common, could become the norm. With double the life expectancy of the average human today, the human of the future might be tempted to pursue more than one career path. This might, in the long term, allow for a better allocation of resources, as many do not fully employ their capabilities and knowledge. However, there are a lot of assumptions to be made if the previously mentioned advantages are to become reality. A fluid job market, access to job training, education and a faster rate of job creation compared to technology development are only a few of them. Furthermore, we also imply that all the people living until the turn of the century are still fully capable of work and are not in need of extra care. How governments perceive this possible change in demographics is also of paramount importance to how anti-aging technologies will shape the future. From a political perspective, it is hard to determine how our society will evolve given the longer life span. The only certain thing is the imminent reform that will be implemented. Increased political stability would be a prosperous and advantageous outcome. Our political leaders would have time to remedy mistakes and governmental policies might be better implemented in the long-run. Of course, the exact opposite might happen, increased government power in the hands of people that do not have the long-term good of the population in mind. As always, any drastic change that revolutionises humanity’s perception, such as a considerably longer life-span will have both advantages and disadvantages. According to Audrey de Grey, one of the leading researchers at SENS Research Foundation (non-profit organisation researching the application of regenerative medicine to aging), there is such a thing as “longevity escape velocity”. The concept implies that, in the hypothetical situation where anti-aging treatments have already been developed, the rate of development of related technologies will be exceeded by the rate at which life expectancy actually increases. How we handle this futuristic situation is the basis of how the day to day life will look like. No matter how optimistic you are, there is still a long time until any discoveries will be made. However, this does not make the possibility of the situation and the efforts of the scientists any less reputable. Whether you believe in a magical treatment that could bring you eternal youth, a Black Mirror like scenario where our neural connections will be forever imprinted on a hard drive, the prospect of the future of humanity is always an exciting discussion topic. Of course, the possibility of humans living for centuries might remain a sci-fi movie scenario, but like with anything future related, you never know. Assuming gerontologists are right and the discovery will be made, how we will handle a rapid increase in human lifespan is hard to asses. If used right, it could bring generous investment opportunities and increased economic growth. After all, hoping for the best usually motivates us to take action and a few extra years to visit the country you always wanted to go to might not be such a dreadful idea.

During the 15th century, the Spanish caravelas required an alternative route towards its colonies in Peru. The usual trip would go around Cape Horn, surrounding the South American continent, only to follow north once the Pacific Ocean had been reached at the very bottom of Chile. The trip was not only long but also expensive. The passage through Portuguese territories involved high payments of tariffs to every vessel. The Spanish Empire, aware of the short length of some Central American countries, became to wonder if it was possible to create a manmade waterway from one ocean to the other. Little did they know that the idea of such route was not only possible, but also profitable. It was only still ahead of its time. A couple of centuries later, the French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps raised massive amounts of financial support for a canal that would unite both oceans. Panama was the chosen location due to the climate and soil conditions. A 77- kilometer strait would be demolished with the intention of building a colossal engineering project to accelerate the flow of supply goods. Lesseps was confident about the plan mainly because of the incredible success of his last related project; the Suez Canal. Although the French were the first to become interested in the Panama Canal, all of their engineering designs failed due to high death tolls left after excavations, diseases and accidents in the Panamanian jungle. In the 19 th century, the United States tried to take over the project. Theodore Roosevelt pursued a construction concession with the recently independent Great Colombia (at present day Panama, Ecuador, Colombia and Venezuela). At that time, proud of their recent independence, the then president Simon Bolivar rejected the North American offer and tried to focus on the well being of a newborn society. However, this rejection yielded disagreement from the Panamanian territories and notions about a separation from the Great Colombia were born. With the help of US intervention, Panama had its independence from Colombia in 1903, and the interest about linking both oceans, arose again. The canal would not only serve as a passage from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean and vice versa, but will also involve massive amounts of revenues and a forever shift in the supply management logistics of the Western Hemisphere. The shortcut would relatively plummet shipping times and the trading process will be shortened, opening the door to a faster globalization. Before the shortcut, a trip between New York and San Francisco would normally had to sail around South America. With the canal, that same trip would be sliced by almost 13,000 km, making it only around 6,000 kilometers long. After the Panamanian independence in 1903, the US obtained immediate authorization to begin the project. After various legal issues, accidents, doubts and more than 5 thousand deaths, the canal was finally opened on August 1914. Since that moment, the canal began to operate under US control. The Panama Canal was the trophy that the United States needed to show off its potential as a new world power. International journalism sent the signal: “The Americans have just achieved what the French could not”. It was a message to the world that a new powered-economy was emerging, and old were the days with Europe as the only dominant continent. A manmade waterway of that size meant a new step forward for humanity over nature. It was the beginning of a new order within international trading. The US delegated control of the canal to Panamanian authorities in 1999, following the Torrijos-Carter Treaties. Nevertheless, after the transition of administration, the Panamanians followed a different operative path. Instead of using the canal as a cost minimizer to increase the amount of crossings, the Panamanians chose a profit maximizing approach. The total price to cross the canal has risen by 66%, and its surroundings have been modified from a military zone to a touristic area. The Panamanians were determined to extract as much wealth as they could from that beautiful piece of engineering, and after 17 years of self-managing, they even managed to expand it in order to increase capacity. As a result of the outstanding success of the Panama Canal, the idea about a second canal came to float. The Nicaraguan Isthmus became the favorite location for a new shortcut. An isthmus consisting of 278 kilometers from one coast to the other. The Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega, organized a contest between the interested investors. Wang Jin, a Chinese billionaire won the contest by proposing a $40 billion dollar project. Ortega, convinced of the economic gains surrounding a transoceanic canal, commenced to facilitate the conditions required. Since the project needed the support of the Chinese government, Jing used as an argument the reduction in maritime tariffs from Venezuelan oil. Due to diplomatic disputes between the Venezuelan and US governments, the US had used its immense influence over the Panama Canal to try to halt the export of Venezuelan fossil fuels as much as possible. China in turn, being one of the largest oil loyal customers of Venezuela, desired an alternative route, or an alternative canal. The existence of a second bridge linking the two most transited oceans will mean another shift in international trade. The prices of the supply of goods will be set by a competitive game between two trading doors. It will be inevitable for both canals to maintain below market prices due to increased competition, therefore yielding a massive increase in trade flow once again. Chinese involvement in a region previously known as the United States backyard has been considered a signal by the Chinese to show off its constant increasing influence. A new step in the staircase of Chinese domination and a message sent to the rest of the world implying that a new economic power is emerging. Just as once, the US did. The Nicaraguan Canal is only one example of the recent increase in Chinese influence over Latin America. President of China Xi Jinping stated that more than 250 billion dollars would be invested in Latin America from China over the next decade. China has already surpassed the US as the largest export market of Brazil, the strongest Latin American economy today. Many economists begin to wonder if this new economic dependency will have similar results to that of Europeans or North American imperialism. China has proven them wrong. It has become an attractive investor because of its non-interference approach, staying away from the domestic affairs of its partner countries. It is important to mention that due to poor governance and heavy corruption, most of the countries in Latin America have a hard time securing international financing, but China extracts benefits not only from direct revenues. They build desperately needed infrastructure and later use it to transport raw materials for their own growing economy. It is a win-win situation. The time is optimal for a fit between these two economies. Expect an even higher increase of Chinese involvement in Latin America, while the world welcomes a new economic, political and cultural power.

The earth is getting warmer. Whether you believe that this is merely a natural process or the effect of human actions; it is a fact that this increase in temperature is meddling with our weather. As a result, natural disasters have been steadily increasing both in number and strength over the past years. This is the result of the renown “greenhouse effect” in which increased levels of CO2, trap too much of the sun’s heat inside the atmosphere, warming up the planet at an alarming rate. Studies have established that developed economies which make up about 15% of the total world population, constitute for about 45% of greenhouse gas emissions, while the poorest 37% creates only about 7%. This means that there is an extreme disproportion on the origin of this issue, but a bigger problem is the fact that, there’s also a significant imbalance regarding the ones who bear the greater costs of climate change. Spoiler alert: it’s not the rich and wealthy. The relation between inequality and climate change has been described as a “vicious cycle.” This is because inequality is the reason behind the disproportionate impact of natural disasters on these groups, which by itself increases the hardships faced by underprivileged communities. Widening the gap between the rich and the poor even more, in both the local and international scope. The local impacts that climate change has on the wealth gap between members of the same community is quite straightforward. People with reduced resources are more susceptible to natural disasters. This is because they often live in areas with outdated infrastructure, which are less resistant to the current severe weather conditions. For instance, the house of a high-income family is more likely to be made out of brick and concrete rather than some other weak materials, which makes it less likely to be completely washed away in the event of a flood, and allows the wealthy to undergo less damage during any given hazard. On top of this, disadvantaged groups are also less likely to be able to afford insurance, which means that often, they have to cover the complete costs of their material loses in such event. Making the recovering process that follows a natural disaster even harder. This circumstance could be easily appreciated after hurricane Mitch in Honduras where those living in poverty endured thrice as much loss in their assets than other parts of the population. On the other hand, if we move on to the international aspects of this phenomenon then, it has been stated that developing countries will be more severely hit by climate change because their economies are more likely to depend on agriculture and farming. However, it has even been argued that agricultural yield could rise in rich temperate countries as some of their winters become less deadly. Meaning that there will be an uneven distribution of losses within regions, and the harshest effects are expected to occur in low-income countries. Some have pointed towards migration as a viable solution to this issue, but wealthy nations are not known for having open borders when it comes to impoverished migrants. And in addition, researchers have also concluded that this opportunity is mostly available for middle-income countries given the high cost of moving. The effects of climate change are very much uncertain. But from the events that we have already witnessed on the past few years such as hurricane Irma and South Africa’s drought, it can be easily stated that their price tag won’t be small. Therefore, prevention measures and safety nets are to make sure that, in the future, as floods become more frequent, and droughts become more intense; the poor won’t become even more vulnerable — especially if they are the least responsible for these events.

Recently the New York Financial Times published an article showing that there is a significant increase in student applications at Deutsche, UBS, Citi, and other banks. This is an interesting observation since banking has become a less appealing job to students in recent years. Big tech giants like Google and Facebook are attracting more talents from campus, but also start-ups (which frequently speak more to the Millennials desire to make a positive impact on the world) and consultancy firms are being viewed as desirable by the modern student. Google is, unsurprisingly, a popular place to work. Reports have indicated the company gets about one million resumes every single year. EY, each year, recruits 500 undergraduates and 900 graduates from all degree backgrounds only in the U.K. Nevertheless, the traditional banks’ reports show the increase in the applications and positions for graduates. Deutsche Bank had hired 619 graduates globally last year and expected that the number would increase this year. Morgan Stanley attracted about 100,000 applications for about 1,000 places on its summer analyst program for undergraduates and associates program for MBA students. Morgan Stanley said that the number of the applications are growing by 8% on year to year basis. Barclays International will hire about 500 graduates this year, up from 450 in 2017. Citi drew 60,761 applications for its corporate and investment banking programs globally, up 12% year on year. So how can the increase in student applications at banks be explained? The changes started after the Great Recession in 2007 that has caused the collapse of the banking system. The banks lost the trust among the population and time was needed to convince people to trust the banks again. Once the banks failed to deliver the expected stability, they were viewed as a less respectable workplace. The popularity of the traditional banks among the top universities’ graduate was falling. The banks’ bad reputation made them unable to aiming at attracting the top students from Ivy League or Oxbridge pools to become their employees. Manolo Falco, Citi’s head of EMEA corporate and investment banking, said that banks found the solution to the problem but loosening the requirements for the graduate applicants and making the demand wider. The banks started looking for the human resources in a variety of places. This wider spectrum of the banks’ hiring opened the door to the bigger pool of graduates. The trust in the banking system started returning to the banks that channeled the flow of the applicants too. However, recently, more significant changes have started that influence the decision of the applicants. The mentality at traditional banks has been changing. Instead of trying to attract students with pay, nowadays more attention is being given to the quality of the function (being challenging and exciting). Post-financial collapse, Wall Street firms like Morgan Stanley are attracting college graduates who want more than just a high-paying job. Matt Fitzpatrick joined Morgan Stanley after graduating in the age of 23 because of the emphasis the company has made in the career prospects. Fitzpatrick says “They talked more than any other firm about a culture of giving back to the community, and that is what made me choose the firm over other banks.” The tendency can be observed among other banks: applicants are choosing value they can create over the payment. Jimmy from Hong Kong who is an analyst started working for Deutsche Bank because he “wanted to be working with smart, ambitious people on cutting-edge technologies, and make a positive impact…Deutsche Bank could offer this kind of environment”. Portfolio manager Tessa who is working for Barclays in London emphasizes “I think private banking is different because there is a focus on soft skills.” The work-life balance, a commonly heard concern amongst Millennials, is also an important factor the employees are looking for. Creating a flexible work environment, prioritizing a healthy culture, and cultivating a happy workplace environment promotes work-life balance. When employees are happy in their roles, work will feel more like a second home, and less like working for a paycheck. Banks have stepped on the path of changing the workplace towards what graduates are looking for but there is a long path remaining to catch up this the environment in the tech giants. This does not mean investment banking has become a less demanding job, but it does show that the changing work ethics are being taken into account. Another aspect might be the trend that people are getting less skeptical about investing in securities on the market. The economy has been thriving after the crisis and the people have almost regained trust in the economy and banks. In order to achieve good investments, people nowadays prefer to invest in actively or passively managed portfolios rather than keeping their money in the deposit accounts. These portfolios need to be developed, managed and reviewed continuously to get the best results possible. In my view, a position in the investment bank like this is attractive to students, knowing the responsibilities are challenges attached. The working environment of tech-giants and banks are still very different, but banks seem to start making a come-back in the attraction of the students. Consultancy firms also remain popular. In the end, I guess it comes to personal preferences relating to the working environments and the purpose that you want to fulfill in your job. Would you apply at a bank? Or would you rather work for a tech-giant or a consultancy firm? I would be interested to hear your thoughts.

The United States of America has always been regarded as a land of opportunity. Throughout its four-hundred-year history, it has provided refuge to those fleeing poverty and persecution. To this day, millions of people travel there every year in hopes of finding a better life. According to data by the U.S. Census Bureau, net international migration levels stood at 1.1 million people in 2016. This perception of America as a beacon of freedom and opportunity is what gave rise to the concept of the American Dream. James Truslow Adams, the historian that coined the term in 1931, described it thus: “…That dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement… a dream of social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable… regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of birth or position.” In other words, in the United States, the level of success is solely determined by hard work and ability, and thus everyone has an equal chance at socioeconomic mobility. Ninety years on, this view is still popular with the American people. According to a 2014 study by the Pew Research Center, 57% of Americans disagree with the view that success is mostly determined by forces outside of our control, and 73% think that working hard is very important to get ahead in life. Unfortunately, it seems the late, great George Carlin was right when he said that “it’s called the ‘American Dream’ because you have to be asleep to believe it.” According to research from the Brookings Institution, only 58% of Americans born into the bottom fifth of income earners move out of that category, and just 6% born into the bottom fifth move into the top. On the other hand, 39% of those born to parents in the top fifth remain at the top. Additionally, a paper by Corak (2013), finds an intergenerational earnings elasticity between father and son of 0.47. This essentially means that for every $100 increase in the income of the father, there will be a $47 increase in the income of the son. In a society with perfect equal opportunity, a father’s income would have no relation to that of his son. It seems, then, that family background plays a significant role in socioeconomic outcomes in the United States. So what are the mechanisms behind this reproduction of inequality? In today’s highly competitive job market, academic achievement is one of the main determinants of success. However, not everyone in America gets the same chance at a quality education. Public school districts are run by local governments and funded through property taxes. Homes in poor areas have lower values and so local governments cannot raise as much money, which translates into less funding for public schools. Underfunded schools cannot afford enough teachers, guidance counsellors, textbooks or equipment such as laptops or projectors. This lack of spending greatly affects the educational and economic outcomes of pupils. According to a paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a 20% increase in per-pupil spending a year for poor children can lead to an additional year of completed education, 25% higher earnings, and a 20-percentage point reduction in the incidence of poverty in adulthood. There are other ways family background can affect educational achievement. For instance, wealthy parents can afford the high tuition fees of elite colleges, whereas poor students have to choose between cheaper, lesser quality community colleges or taking on massive debt in the form of student loans. It seems the former is generally the case, as a study found that only 1.8% of Harvard students come from a poor family. Wealthy parents can also afford the time to be more involved in their children’s education, as well as private tutors and extracurricular activities, all of which can affect academic outcomes. Another factor that plays an important role in the reproduction of inequality is inherited wealth. According to a paper by Kopczuk and Lupton (2005), in the United States, an estimated 35 to 45% of wealth is inherited rather than self-made. Wealth is self-reinforcing, as you passively earn money from it. Property will earn rent and increase in value, savings accounts will earn interest, and investments will earn dividends and capital gains. Consequently, the more wealth you initially have, the more your wealth will increase. This effect is exacerbated by the objectively lax estate and capital gains taxes in the United States. President Donald Trump’s new tax cuts allow individuals to inherit up to 11.2 million dollars without paying the federal estate tax. Similarly, the top federal tax rate on long-term capital gains (for assets held longer than one year) is a measly 23.8%. Clearly, inheritances give children of well-off parents an enormous—and unearned—advantage. Lastly, one has to consider the role that social networks play in determining socioeconomic outcomes. French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called this ‘asset’ social capital, and he defined it as ‘the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalised relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition.’ This is, in essence, about having connections. Obviously, this is less quantifiable in numerical terms. However, it is reasonable to assume that members of the same social stratum know and help each other by exchanging influence and knowhow. Thus, children of well-off parents are more likely to succeed thanks to their family’s acquaintances and knowledge. A good example of this are political dynasties, such as the Kennedy and Bush families. At this point, there are a few things that are worth mentioning. First, there are several other factors that can determine socioeconomic outcomes; among them are race, gender and luck. However, to my admittedly limited knowledge, the ones I previously mentioned are the most pervasive. Second, I realise hard work also plays a role, but it only gets you so far, as poor people working two or three jobs can tell you. Third, this doesn’t only apply to the United States, but to every modern society, to a greater or lesser extent. This is why, as future policymakers and researchers, it is our duty to work towards finding a solution so we can achieve true equality of opportunity; lest we continue living in a world ruled by privilege, and not by merit.