From the 14th of February onwards, not only a tax evader is responsible for the damage caused by tax evasion, but also the trust agency and its employees who helped the tax evader. This was stated in the judgment published by the court of Amsterdam, in the case between the tax authorities and Tradman, which was a former trust agency active between 1991 and 2008. From 2004 onwards, it has been known as Tradman, before it was known as B.V. European Trust Services Amsterdam and Amicorp Netherlands B.V., and in 2008 it became part of TMF Group. The tax evaders were Jos and Joop Geerts. They owned approximately 160 companies, and in every company the shareholders and board members changed extremely frequently. In 2004 an investigation was started on one of the companies of Geerts. In 2007 all the companies owned by the duo went bankrupt, and the tax authorities stated that these companies did not pay 22 million euros of corporate tax. Eventually the tax authorities discovered these tax liabilities, and in 2008 the trial began between the tax authorities and Jos and Joop Geerts. In 2013 Jos Geerts was sentenced to 30 months in jail, and Joop Geerts with 24 months in jail, however, after appealing to their sentences, the Court of Den Bosch decided in 2017 to decrease their sentences to 21 and 16 months respectively. There is still a possibility that Geerts might go to the Supreme Court, so the sentence might change. But what was the role of Tradman with these shady activities? Tradman took care of the administration of the companies of Geerts between 1994 until the end of 2006. Based on these documents, which were seized in 2009, suspicion rose that Tradman was not completely innocent in this case. The trust agency itself, a former director and manager helped the brothers with a particular kind of tax evasion, namely cash companies. They had many companies that were only companies by name, which were not engaging any business activities. The only thing those companies did do, was to store a lot of money, and of course, tax liabilities had to be paid over this money. The tax evasion took place by avoiding these tax liabilities. The tax liabilities would disappear if the money stored in these cash companies was used for large investments. A particular case was a fake investment in a holiday resort in Montenegro, which was only done to avoid corporate taxes. The tax authorities missed out on 18 million euros due to this fake investment. On paper, Geerts wrote that he did these large investments, but in reality he was channelling away these money flows. Tradman knew that the main purpose was to evade corporate taxes, they also knew most of these investments were fake. Furthermore, Tradman also helped channelling away revenues from the sale of patents and ships. When you know how involved Tradman was, it seems logical that Tradman is also held responsible for the tax evasion. Surprisingly, this was not the case. In addition, this is the first time that a trust agency who helped tax evaders is severally liable for the tax liabilities caused by the tax evasion. Several liability means that the trust agency is held completely responsible for the liabilities towards the tax authorities, caused by the tax evasion. The reason why this time the tax authorities even tried to collect the cash from the trust agency is very simple. The tax authorities were unsuccessful to collect the cash from the tax evaders themselves, so they tried a different way. Namely, a civil procedure against the parties who helped. According to the court of Amsterdam, Tradman had the duty, due to its social position in business and their professional expertise, to investigate whether her advice services could lead to any kind of tax evasion. The outcome of this trial, that Tradman is severally liable, will change the role of trust agencies when they are in dispute with the tax authorities drastically. Before this judgement it was extremely difficult for the tax authorities to bring trust agencies, who helped with tax evasion, to court. But this trial will probably function as a precedent, meaning it will be used as an example for other trials in the future. Therefore, many trust agencies will be more careful when creating new constructions or giving help with channelling away money flows. Of course, it would be lovely if this trial would not have to be used as a precedent for any future cases, but there will always be tax evaders and there will always be trust agencies or any other institute to help them. Therefore, I believe that in the future this case will be used, more often than we would like, as a precedent.

I think most of us are familiar with the following words: “Less than 1% of the water on Earth is readily accessible for human use, and it needs to be shared among 7.6 billion of us.” It is the usual catchphrase used by environmentalists advocating for water conservation. However, despite the extreme figures that they present here, it is still hard to wrap our minds around a reality where water is not readily available as it is right now. To me at least, the mere thought of a life where water is no longer running through our pipelines seems like the plot of a sci-fi movie. Tragically, within a few months, this situation might become more palpable than ever, as Cape Town, a city in South Africa, approaches “Day Zero:” the day in which they would become the first major city in the world to run out of water. What is Day Zero? Day Zero is the way local politicians and most media sites have been referring to the moment when the city’s water levels drop below 13% of its capacity, and the municipality turns off the water supply. Although the city won’t literally run dry, potable water will only be available to essential services like hospitals, schools, houses for the elderly, and such. The rest of the 4 million citizens will have to queue for their water ration (6.6 gallons per person per day) on one of the 200 collection points created by the government. Concerns have already risen regarding the distribution of the supply, given that this would mean a total of 5000 individuals per point, that if only one person per household collects the water. This scene is the result of 3 years of successive drought in South Africa, which already ranks 30th on the list of driest countries in the world, and its effects have been aggravated by climate change and a rapidly growing population. As of now, Day Zero is expected to arrive in July, but this might be subject to change given that it has been pushed back several times before. Currently, authorities are hoping that the rainy season, which is supposed to arrive around June, will grant them more time in order to figure out other ways to provide water to their citizens. Prevention measures At this time, the city is trying to fight Day Zero by advising their citizens to limit their water usage to 13 gallons per day, a very low figure, especially when compared to the 100 gallons per day consumed by the average American. This amount of water roughly translates to, a 90-second shower, one toilet flush, about two liters to drink and some to wash a few clothes or dishes. Many citizens have become very involved with the water saving efforts, something that can be appreciated on the amount of water saving tips shared on social media, which range from suggestions on how to reuse water, to a Spotify playlist full of two-minute long songs. Even Hotels have joined the battle, taking away water plugs from bathtubs and making their guests carry conspicuously large rubber ducks to the lobby whenever they want to take a bath. But, regardless of these efforts, it has been reported that the city is still consuming about 600 megaliters per day which are far above the targeted 400. Was this avoidable? In 2007 a study was published regarding the water supply system of the Western Cape region of South Africa. It basically stated that if the water consumption levels remained the same, by 2015 the government would need to start investing in projects that would provide more water to this area. However, in 2013 and 2015 the city witnessed unusual high levels of rainfall, thus making it look like their water savings campaigns had been more effective than they actually were, and that there was more water available than initially thought. Which, subsequently led them to announce that extra water supplies would only be needed by 2022. This overconfidence made them push the much-needed investments further into the future and is now the reason why the city is not prepared for the current long-lasting drought. Besides not complying with the advised prevention measures, the national government allocated 40% of the Western Cape water supply system to agriculture, a decision in which the local authorities had no say in. On top of this, in spite of the severity of the circumstances, it has been reported that there has been no funding allocated to drought relief from the national government for this year, which means that provincial government will have to keep taking care of the problem on its own. In fact, last year Cape Town mayor Patricia de Lille appealed directly to the Department of Water and Sanitation for the much-needed financing. But, regardless of the alarming data she presented, her plea was rejected because the city was “not yet at crisis levels.” Possible impacts These conditions have already taken a toll on the levels of tourism in the region; activity that provides around $3.4 billion to the provincial economy every year; This occurs because many people refrain from going to the city to avoid creating even more water demand. Besides, it has been said that many businesses will be forced to close their doors once Day Zero arrives. And, combined the high levels of time and resources that will go into the distribution of the supply, this event is likely to have far-reaching effects, not only in the local economy but also in the national GDP. All in all, what we are seeing in this events are the clear effects of climate change, with which most of the cities in the world will have to deal in one way or another as the temperatures in the world increase. Ideally, people become more efficient with a scarce resource. But, until then, it is very unlikely for all of us to get in the same boat and change our consumption habits for a cause that is still seems so far into the future. Therefore, it is the duty of central and local governments to make sure that cities have the correct infrastructure to deal with the environmental problems that lie ahead of them.

China’s economy has become synonymous with growth. Since the 1980’s liberalization of Deng Xiaoping, China’s leader from the late 1970s to 1997, China developed to be the world’s largest manufacturer. It combined high amounts of export with massive domestic and international investments that were made capable by its economy being largely state-run. Between 1980 and 2016, the average growth rate of GDP was 9.7 percent per year, multiplying the size of its economy 30 times. Villages became huge cities with millions of inhabitants and mighty skyscrapers. Hundreds of millions of people were elevated from poverty. China grew from an impoverished agricultural society to a serious competitor for the leadership of the world. The Chinese economic miracle can largely be attributed to its political structure. The Chinese government, which is led solely by the communist party, has a strict grip on the economy. Despite its liberalizations, there are still clues that remind of the radical communist past. For instance, the Chinese government still formulates five year plans. This centralized control allows the Chinese government to employ resources on a grand scale and force economic growth. However, from the moment China got a communist regime, in 1949, this centralized control was mainly used to oppress. Only when Deng Xiaoping started liberalizing the economy, the centralized control proved to be a useful tool for China’s growth ambitions. Deng took advantage of the globalization wave that erupted in the 1970’s. Businesses internationalized their supply chain, and the low wages of Chinese workers drew them in. However, unlike other developing countries, China kept strict control of its major industries. This meant large Chinese companies, which in many cases are state property, were supported as they started competing with the more efficient western companies. Where many developing countries saw their young industries being crushed by foreign competition, China only created enough room for its economy to grow, but it’s government remained firmly in charge. This recipe for growth allowed China to perform an economic miracle, and is to an increasing degree an example for other developing countries. But the recipe is starting to show cracks. The growth rate of GDP is stagnating. In 2016, GDP grew by 6.7%, which seems really high, but is significantly lower than the 10 percent average. One reason is the huge increase in wages. Chinese wages have grown 64% from 2011 to 2017, and have surpassed most Latin-American wages.  At the moment they are approaching wages in European countries such as Portugal. This is decreasing the competitiveness of the Chinese economy. Add to this the demographic pressure that comes forth out of the aging population. This will decline the working population, which again, will increase wages. This development will and already does make producers move their production facilities to cheaper developing countries or automate production at home. The Chinese government is trying to replace these production jobs with service jobs, but has difficulties in creating enough white collar jobs to replace the blue collar ones. Then, there is the growing financial instability. The IMF stated in a recent report that the Chinese economy faces three main financial challenges. Firstly, the rapid increase of corporate and private debt, that results from the spending sprees that fuel much of China’s growth. This has caused the Chinese debt-to-GDP ratio to rise to 257% in 2017. By comparison, Greece had a debt-to-GDP of 180.8%. Secondly, the underdeveloped nature of China’s financial sector (from which some companies greatly benefit, as this article desribes) results in the development of risky financial assets that are largely unregulated. Thirdly, the guarantees that the Chinese government implicitly gives out. Since companies are financially supported, this promotes excessive risk-taking. All these problems can be led back to the growth strategies the Chinese government adopted. Add the fact that, according to the IMF, 27 of its 33 largest banks do not have sufficient capital to withstand a ‘high stress scenario.’ This situation can be illustrated by its cities. On the one hand, asset prices are rising to extreme levels in major cities. When compared to the median income of its inhabitants, Shanghai is more expensive than New York and London. This is not due to a foreign capital influx, like in London. Real estate is seen as one of the few ways to invest capital since China’s financial markets and capital outflow to other countries are restricted. Billions are poured into what is most likely a price bubble. At the other extreme, complete cities are built that have so little inhabitants that they are called ‘ghost cities’. When growth targets aren’t met in predictions, the standard answer of the Chinese authorities is: build. This anticyclical policy has been very effective, China seemed immune to international economic crises. But, as becomes increasingly more apparent, it has saddled China with massive debt. In the past decades, China could easily spend itself out of an economic slump. But this spending is getting less effective and less feasible since debt is reaching disturbing levels. The Chinese government therefore hasn’t got an easy way out of this difficult situation. Whether it finds a solution matters to not only the Chinese, but to us all. The integration of the Chinese economy in the world economy has provided many opportunities, but is now making the whole world vulnerable to a Chinese collapse. For instance, the EU-Chinese trade makes up 14.9% of EU trade. Many developing countries are growing increasingly dependent of exports to China. Chinese financial interests have spread throughout the world and companies have invested in China. This article isn’t meant to make you worried. Although China has big problems, it’s putting it’s best and brightest to work to make up solutions. The last five year plan is aimed at solving the problems mentioned above. But whether the Chinese get out of their economic trouble or not, one thing is certain: Chinese growth isn’t as obvious as it was in the past.

Stephen Colbert, Trevor Noah, Seth Meyers and Conan O’Brien are some of the top players in the competitive late-night comedy business. With Trump’s election, the material they have covered has become strongly political, with daily monologues about Trump’s antics. And they are not at fault. Trump indeed has provided fodder for jokes, case in point, eating burgers in bed at 6:30 pm. And people like to laugh at him because his cabinet is considered incompetent and fraudulent. These comedy shows have also become the main source of news for a lot of people, given their entertaining and simplistic method of relaying information to the audience. However, the extent to which these comedy shows “boil it down” for their audience is a matter of concern. The media is considered to be the 4th pillar of a democratic state. It acts as a watchdog and a messenger of information. There are different channels through which it happens, such as newspapers, television channels etc. And of course, not all media is objective and neutral in nature. However, the impact of this biasedness is unquantifiable. There needs to be a clear distinction between objective reporting, and subjective intercourse and the audience should be able to recognize that. The unpopular show “Fox and Friends” is an example of blurring the lines between these two areas. As described by The New Yorker “… (it has a) trademark brand of folksy, disingenuous outrage”. And unfortunately, Donald Trump is a big fan of the show. Trump even tweets about the things mentioned on the talk show, as if they were facts. What goes amiss is that this has implications on geopolitical relations and the international community, not to mention domestic affairs. If the morning news show discusses something, and Trump tweets it, it also affects how his voter base views the issue. There is absolutely no filter for the base, except for the fact that their president tweeted it, thus jolting millions of Americans. On the other hand, there are the late night shows which leave no stone unturned to humiliate Trump. By now, it has become an art. The positive effect of this is that the audience is informed about the latest happenings with the White House. For example, Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison, Omarosa Manigault’s firing was very well covered, and these shows also threw light on how she was also in Trump’s NBC TV show The Apprentice, satirically suggesting a correlation there. Also, the whole fiasco about Pizzagate, a conspiracy theory which suggested that several high-profile Democratic candidates (such as Hillary Clinton) were involved in a human-trafficking ring was operated through pizza stores, was also covered by these shows. In my opinion, the sheer absurdity of a topic like this deserves to be ridiculed by the media. However, issues with deeper implications such as the North Korean–United States missile stand-off are stripped down to jokes, which is when the audience misses the different layers of such a grave problem. Also, Trump is portrayed as “evil” (not to say that he’s not, he definitely is not great, given his actions and comments). Robert Mueller is seen as a “hero”, because of his investigation. As much as people would want to believe that, the brevity of the whole issue is diminished. It is viewed as a story, with a protagonist and antagonist. It is not viewed as the president of the most powerful country in the world is facing charges of obstruction of justice. Just imagine, if this was the kind of coverage for the Watergate scandal or Putin’s power dominance in Russia. And it is not helped by the fact that Trump is so sensitive to his media coverage. “Fake news” is anything that Trump does not want to hear. Any coverage that is negative about him, his life and his cabinet, is branded this term. This has bothered him so much so that he even set up the  Fake News Awards for a host of media outlets, ranging from CNN to Late Show with Stephen Colbert. What Trump does not understand is that it only trivializes his presidency. He himself has been caught lying numerous times, to the extent that his lawyers do not want him to testify against Robert Mueller, just in case the President of the United States of America is caught lying. It remains to be seen how the rest of his presidency spans out. It will have its fair share of “I have the bigger button” tweets, which will halt the world at a critical standpoint. It will have its fair share of embarrassing revelations about him. However, the people should laugh a little less about his antics and worry a bit more about the direction the country’s heading towards. Come mid-term elections and the 2020 elections, and if he is still in power, Americans will have a lot less to laugh about and a lot more to cry about.

In the modern political agenda, governments are responsible for numerous elements that are directly involved with their citizens’ lives. As the legislative body of the country, the main duty of a government is to acknowledge the power they hold, and use it in the most optimal way possible to increase the wealth and wellbeing of the people they represent. Fiscal policy, which is how a government adjusts its spending levels and tax rates to monitor and influence a nation’s economy, plays an important role in making sure that governments can stay flexible enough to successfully bring their plans and ideas into life, as it is directly involved with the budget a government sets for itself. A successful fiscal policy must aim to cover certain things to benefit both the government and the citizens of a country. Policies that are too lenient or too strict can cause the overall happiness of a country’s citizens to decrease, and may even cause a domino effect to  negatively impact economies by causing changes in the money supply. A consistent fiscal policy can help investors and businesses foresee what the near future holds. Therefore, in the era of opportunities, successful investments, whether it is done by governments or independent business, are a must for economic growth. While this bombardment of formal info on fiscal policy may help understand the magnitude of the responsibilities a government holds, it sadly falls short of providing an accurate picture of the volatility of some governments around the globe. Regardless of all the theory that can be provided on how a successful fiscal policy must pan out, many governments prioritize self interest over overall welfare in their countries. For this article, I believe it makes sense to use my native country of Turkey as an example for volatility in fiscal policy, having lived through it myself for over 18 years. While debating over the economic situation of Turkey, it is important to keep in mind the situation of the Turkish Lira (TL). The currency was introduced by the newly formed government shortly after the formation of the republic, and has been subject to interesting debates, as it was announced as the least valuable currency in the world by the Guinness World Records in 1995 and 1996, and again from 1999 to 2004. While this may sound like a fun trivial fact for the sake of making this article more colorful, it actually gives an accurate representation of the history of the currency, as it has been subjected to shifts in large magnitudes regarding the value of it. Let’s look at things from an international standpoint. As of 15th of February, 2018, 1 Euro is equivalent to  4.71 Turkish Liras, which is 250% higher than the valuation of 2.05 Turkish Liras at the end of 2010. It is important to keep in mind the value of the TL against currencies such as the Euro, Dollar or the Yen, as Turkey is a country that is heavily dependent on imports in booming markets, such as the market for vehicles. Owning a vehicle is considered a must for the average Turkish citizen. The country is built on long autobahns and countless car roads, as distances from point a and point b are usually too far away to cover by walking or biking. With addition to this, luxurious automobiles are at high demand, as many citizens prioritize the prestigious status they provide to their owners and even go as far as taking bank loans to complete their purchases. The need for cars have taken its toll on the daily life of citizens as well. Istanbul, which is the most populated city in the country, on it’s own holds 4.3 million of the registered cars in Turkey, and the total number reaches as high as 22.3 million registered cars. Ever since reports started to surface regarding the amount of cars in the country reaching a level of discomfort, the government has been increasing the taxes for owning a motor vehicle. While this may seem like a reasonable method of combating the problem, it left a few question marks unanswered for me. One major question left unanswered for me was regarding the level of increase in the tax itself. While increases in the prices of privately owned products are subject to change every year, Turkey has been subjected to drastic changes over the past few years. At the end of 2017, the private consumption tax for cars was increased to a whopping 110% by the Turkish government, a change from around 60% that was announced at the end of 2016. Something similar regarding alcoholic beverages occurred as well. Because of the heavy taxation on alcoholic drinks, Rakı, a Turkish alcoholic beverage, has more than doubled in price, and is being sold for lower prices in The Netherlands as an imported good, when compared to Turkey. So the question that dawned on me was a very simple “Why?’. What magnitude of government spending could cause an increase like this? The second question I was left unanswered with was regarding the possible alternatives that the government provides in transportation. While the public transportation systems all around the country are available nearly 24/7, they cause inconveniences for citizens, as most of these vehicles still share the same roads as individually owned cars, and are subject to traffic just as much as they are , while not providing enough comfort for the citizen. With this, electric cars, which are favorable options when trying to avoid pollution, are subjected to similar levels of taxation as regular cars, in fact higher,  at 110%. They are also not being imported as much as they should be, which further tarnishes their availability to the citizens. Several other transportation options such as bikes also hit the inconvenience wall, as distances are too grand to cover and bike roads in large cities like Istanbul stands at total lengths around 34 kilometers. Looking at the situation at hand, it can be said that the Turkish government is still struggling to find a harmony between their goals and what they are doing to achieve them. While the increases of taxes for motor vehicles have slowed down the demand for luxurious items such as cars, phones and even alcohol, the pricing has been set too high for majority of the citizens to continue their lives comfortably. The unbalanced and exaggerated tax increases have also been subjected to criticism and accusations regarding corruption as well, which has further tarnished the reputation of the current administration. A forward thinking approach that focuses on finding investment opportunities, attracting foreign investors, improving relationships with countries that are close by, and helping the Turkish Lira seems like a must for the Turkish government to be able to find the flexibility they are searching for;  while also keeping their citizens happy.

When you grow up in Romania, there is a saying that you will hear anytime you want to go outside at night: “beware of the black van”. The saying revolves around the often discussed issue of kidnapping and human trafficking. The black van will stop near you while you are walking on the street and nothing will be heard about your existence ever again. However, this scenario is as Hollywood like as it sounds. You would expect that the country with the highest percentage of human trafficking victims in Europe would have a more realistic saying about what goes behind this 33 billion dollar industry. But, truth is, the causes are not nearly as impressive as most of us have been told. Romania has one of the highest rates of relative poverty in Europe. More than 23.6% of children live in a household with an income of less than 50% of the national average. The increased rate perpetuates the cycle of intergenerational poverty, as the children are rarely educated and mostly concerned with finding something to eat. Imagine now, that you are a 17-year-old girl that has heard about the wonders of the West and everybody in your village has at least one relative supporting the family from abroad. One day, a “loverboy”, whom you most likely met while walking four kilometers to school, stops you because he is head over heels in love with you. He promises to marry you beneath the Eiffel Tower and, tired of working the fields, you believe him. This is the story of most girls that ending up as human trafficking victims. They grow to trust their “kidnappers” and are lured by the promise of a life that Romania will never be able to offer. Thus, most of them cross the border voluntarily and are only realizing the situation when it was already too late. Once in the system, it is nearly impossible to get out. However, the question still remains why nearly 1000 people are so determined to leave the country, that they are willing to blindly trust any opportunity that comes to them. As mentioned before, relative poverty is a concerning issue. The accelerated economic growth, praised by the majority party is fast, but from many points of view, not sustainable. Going on to read the latest data, I observed clear differences in opinion from one source to another. As divided as the country is, on the economic and political front, it is hard to say whether future decreases in relative poverty will be seen, or not. However, one thing is for certain, more than 50% of children still face the risk of poverty. The stories of the victims often sound alike. Most of them experienced dramatic cases of domestic violence and abuse. They did not receive education or familial support. Most dropped out of school during their secondary years. Some joined state-owned orphanages and other social welfare programmes. There is little talk about what goes beyond the walls of such social welfare institutions. Most children report unimaginable conditions and say that toilet paper and soap are considered a luxury. Authorities often do not comment on such accusations, but the funds allocated to children homes are indeed minimal. There are NGOs that help such victims of the system, but their work is limited by the strict bureaucracy and harsh laws. When growing up in such an environment, the prosperity of Western Europe seems magical. The little education and the past traumas make it even easier for traffickers to sell their story. On average a “loverboy” might gain the trust of his victim in a matter of months, if not sooner. Promises of marriage and a life of luxury are extremely attractive and offer the long-awaited gate. Having nothing holding them back at home and lacking the basic education to get a job in Romania, the victims put their lives in the hands of the attackers. Once in the “destination” country, they are told they have to be sexual workers for a bit in order to save money for the wedding or a house, unfortunately, this will be their lives until managing to escape. The story then continues with exploitation, misery and little chances of getting back home again. However, the situation is not as dark and gloom as it sounds. Romania did manage to reduce absolute poverty to half of the rate it had immediately after the fall of communism. Isolated communities have been provided with buses that take the children to school and projects supported by European funds renovated many rural educational institutions. Non-profit organizations that have been working on social reintegration programmes are starting to get more help and publicity. They have been impacting the lives of considerable numbers of children, which could have ended up as human trafficking victims. The situation is getting better, but there is still much improvement needed. The country still lacks a reliable infrastructure and the progress made by the authorities seems to be slower than ever. Current educational reforms are not focused on offering equal chances to education and are not tackling school drop-out rates. Other improvements have also been made in reducing the number of victims affected by human trafficking. The exact number of rescued people varies around 500, which is considered to be close to 50% of the people affected yearly.is uncertain as many cases are never discovered. Exact numbers are hard to give as many cases are never discovered, thus progress is difficult to analyze and track. Furthermore, NGOs such as “eLiberare” and “Reaching out Romania” help raise awareness about the current situation and have made a considerable difference in providing the victims with social and financial help. All in all, the relative poverty experienced by many ex-communist countries is the main cause of human trafficking. Solving the problem takes time and sustainable growth and reform. The current efforts are making a small difference, but are not addressing the long run causes. It is not only up to NGOs make this change, but also up to the politicians. Discussions and acknowledgment of the situations are largely ignored, and many of the representatives are hiding behind more trivial problems. Maybe next time you are enjoying the rapid development and cheap beer of East European countries, think about what happens beyond the walls of the capital.

During this Christmas, I came to read a newspaper article that caught my attention: in Spain, my country of origin, pets are no longer going to be personal custodies as of December 2017. This means that in case of a divorce, agreements can be reached to share the custody and the costs of pets between the couple. Just like children. Up until today, the question concerning to which extent should animals be treated as human beings has been still diverse in opinions. Under the European Commission, animals are considered as “sentient beings” but some countries in Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France, Portugal and now Spain) however, have gone one step further by changing national laws and recognizing animals as living beings to improve their welfare. Yet animal welfare associations may cheer in those mentioned countries, new controversies concerning animal treatment have risen: which animals are pet animals, and which ones are not? We could make a big list of pet animals right now, from dogs to fish, from snakes to pigs. But aren’t pigs also a kind of animal kept for farming purposes? (at least in my country we do eat a lot of pork meat). So how to determine the difference?  Some associations like the Great Ape Project (GAP) emphasize the similarity of some animals to humans (i.e. in this case, great apes), and therefore aim to grant them additional rights and protection over other types of animals. Parallel to these approaches, some argue that this lift of animals rights makes it more difficult to establish moral boundaries when defining what distinguishes human beings from animals. As a result, animal welfare has become an increasingly visible matter of public debate and, to some extent, marketing strategy: some firms might use the issue to differentiate their products or services claiming they are more “morally responsible.” Nevertheless, animal welfare regulations may be accompanied by an increase of costs for enterprises or an increase in the prices for the consumer participating in any activity related with animals. To the present day, the European Union has been following five aspects of animal welfare under human control. This set of animal welfare standards are called “The Five Freedoms”, and they include: freedom from hunger and thirst, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and diseases, freedom to express normal behaviour and freedom from fear and distress. As it was said before, some countries have gone one step further regarding animal welfare regulations, but these standards have been approved by several international organisations in the European Union along with the U.S and the U.K. We have been seeking to improve animals’ welfare, but what about animals’ rights? It is important to be aware that animal welfare and animal rights are not equivalent. Animal welfare is defined as “a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well being” (i.e. proper housing, management, disease prevention and treatment, etc.). Proponents of this trend believe that if humans interact with animals for entertainment, sports or industry, the interaction should be regulated in order to maintain the well-being of the animals. Animal rights defenders, however, follow a philosophical view that affirms that, intrinsically, animals have equal or very similar rights as humans. For this reason, proponents of this view are against the use of animals in entertainment activities, sports or any kind of industry, including medical research and selective breeding of pets. We could affirm that hardly anyone thinks that all animals (name flies, snails, termites, head lice) should have rights; the question is where to draw the line. Some affirm that only higher animals (those that are conscious, can remember and can plan and act in regarding the future) should have the same rights as humans. Others declare that animals and humans should not share the same rights. Against this point of view, animal right defenders claim that any discrimination towards animal’s rights is a form of speciesism, which involves the assignment of different values, rights or special consideration to individuals just on the basis of their species. In either case, by accepting that animals are sentient beings we have to accept that their welfare is internal to them. And accepting that animals have rights means accepting that human beings should not exploit, kill or treat non-human animal as objects. In the end, this would restrict us humans, and hence animals’ rights proposals have been roughly criticised: main arguments claim that the research medical industry would face a real challenge if animal’s right to live was incorporated in our laws and put into practice. The issue can be controversial: even if scientific research can be done on the animal’s conscience, the question of animal welfare is frequently subject to our own perception. How do we know what “type” of animal welfare is best? Anyhow, as human beings we should be aware of our need to behave morally. We know that some things are morally wrong and therefore should not be done, regardless of whether the victim has rights or not. For this reason, the argument that animals should be treated properly could be approached from the perspective that humans should behave in a morally responsible way rather than measuring the animal’s rights specifically in respect to us. All in all, as societies change, laws must as well be changed. New issues of all kinds may emerge consequently but we should be ready to deal with them in order to find the most satisfying solutions and improve the well-being of our society.

On December 20th, 2017, after the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the federal corporate tax rate is now reduced to a flat rate of 21%, effective as of January 1st, 2018 in the United States. This is the largest tax cut in the bill, with the top rate being previously at 35%. Changes were also made in business interest deduction, accounting of new investment purchases, net operation losses and R&D expenditures. While the senate Republicans claim that the bill would be practically paying for itself by the growth it will enable the American businesses – and at the same time benefit lower-income Americans; it is still a controversial subject for people all over the world. Main criticism of the renewed legislation is that rather than helping the common people, this bill is allowing the rich to become richer by dodging billions in taxes. In reality, there are two main ways in which a corporate income tax cut can positively affect a blue collar worker: either higher wages or lower prices resulting from lower costs of business with the tax cut. Will the benefits of this cut reflect to the workers, or will it be a favor from Donald Trump to his golfing buddies? Only time will tell. According to the Senate rules, changes to the corporate taxes are permanent. That is, they are not going to expire after 2025 like the changes in individual tax rates within the bill, making this an even more intricate issue. Politicians and economists alike are arguing what this bill would mean for the taxpayers and the US and global economy. Taxes are now a very “now” subject with never ending tax avoidance schemes surfacing one after another, from Panama to Paradise Papers. It is no doubt that this new bill will be just as notorious. A tax cut by itself is pretty straightforward; it is a reduction in the rate of tax charged by a government. Its long term effects, however, are not as predictable. Immediately after the tax cut, the real income of the taxpayers increase and real income of the government enforcing the tax cut decreases. It all comes down to how the additional income that was created through the tax cut is made use of. Taxpayers might use the additional income to stimulate economic activity such as expanding their businesses or making new investments, but they could also choose to simply save it. CEOs of multiple large corporations including Pfizer, Cisco, and Coca Cola declared that they would pay dividends or buy back shares of stock with the additional cash, instead of hiring more employees like Trump presupposed. Skepticism from all sides stem from this unpredictability and the newly set into motion TCJA is objected on many fronts. Main opposing arguments include: TCJA will be increasing debt and the budget deficit even more. The tax cut is predicted to add 1.5 trillion US dollars to debt held by the public in the next decade and increase the debt to GDP ratio even more. TCJA will increase taxes for the middle-class, eventually. To set off losses in result of tax cuts for the corporates, middle-class will be having increased taxes by 2027, according to the Senate version of the bill (though, they were not as straightforward with the reasoning behind it). TCJA’s expected effect on economic growth and wages is inflated. The Administration is pretty confident that the lower taxes will bring with it higher investment and higher wages. Economists are not as self-assured. Federal Reserve Bank of New York CEO, William C. Dudley commented: “While this legislation will reduce federal revenues by about 1 percent of GDP in both 2018 and 2019, I anticipate the boost to economic growth will be less than that. Most importantly, most of the tax cuts accrue to the corporate sector and to higher-income households that have a relatively low marginal propensity to consume. This suggests that a significant portion of the tax cuts will be saved, not spent.” TCJA benefits the privileged, including the Trump family and some Republican congress members, increasing the income and wealth inequality. The bill is criticized for its focus on eliminating taxes that target people in the top tax brackets such as the Trump family and many members of the congress. An example to that is the estate tax which the TCJA eliminated, applicable to people who inherited a wealth above 11 million US dollars as a married couple (not an everyday event for most Americans). Pre-TCJA taxes are already below global tax standards. Reports by the OECD show taking into account of both individual and corporate taxes, measured as a percentage of GDP, the US tax burden is below average. China reflected that they were well aware of the overseas impact of the tax reform when it was first introduced, and pledged to taking proactive measures to make sure it would not impair China’s global competitiveness. The objections to the bill echoed in Europe as well, a letter was written to the US Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin by the governments of the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy, voicing growing worry on how the TCJA may be detrimental to global trade. According to the letter, the tax reform is in violation of the World Trade Organization rules. The list goes on, and yet the bill is already signed into law on December 22, 2017 by President Donald Trump. The real consequences of the bill, be it good or bad, is to surface throughout this year. Nevertheless, a shift this size in the tax law is bound to have some repercussion on the American legal precedent and economy, long after the bill has been deep in history’s pages.

Constant economic growth is not doing the planet any favors. ‘Global average temperature has already risen by 0,8°C,’ ‘[a]round 40% of the world’s agricultural lands is now seriously degraded’ and ‘over 80% of the world’s fisheries are fully or over-exploited’ (Raworth 2017: 5, based on: Climate Action Tracker 2016; Global Agriculture 2015 and FAO 2010), to name just a few facts. Mainstream environmental economists argue that these problems are not caused by our market-based and profit-driven system of production having gone too far. In fact, it is said that these problems are externalities that result from the market not having expanded far enough. The reasoning is simple: if you own a resource, you will want to maximize its current and future stream of revenue to the best of your ability. If you overexploit, your revenue may peak now, but as the resource is left degraded or depleted, future revenues will go down quickly and eventually dry up completely. If resources are commonly owned, however, the dynamics change completely. In this situation we get a race to deplete the scarce resource as quickly as possible, because ‘if you don’t, someone else will.’ For this reason, most fish, for instance, would have completely disappeared from the sea if it wasn’t for regulation. If the fish that fishermen depend upon for their livelihood are going to be hunted to extinction anyway, they would rather have the profit of that catastrophe for themselves than to allow the competition to take it. We thus end up in a situation that no market participant wants, while they all feel compelled to work hard to bring it about as quickly as possible. A real tragedy, known as ‘the tragedy of the commons’. This tragedy can be averted if property rights for all environmental goods and services are defined and enforced. This may not be all that easy in practice. One would have to set up a series of contracts where e.g. exclusive rights to exploiting a certain resource would be auctioned off to the highest bidder, who can resell those rights at their discretion. Thus, someone exploiting the resource, will take care to leave it more or less intact for fear of lowering the price of their exploitation rights too much. If you would really want to organize – say – fisheries this way, you would not only have to sell exclusive rights to fishermen for fishing edible species, but would also need to sell stewardship rights to selling the services of the surrounding ecosystem in the B2B market. Those that secure a good stake in the management of coral reefs for instance, would have a good business case. Coral reefs are the sea’s nursery and if they thrive, many fishermen would see an uptick in profits too. So it would be rational for governments to mandate them to pay a fee slightly below the uptick experienced to the coral reef management firm. (Governments must mandate this, because of the free rider problems that would otherwise occur.) Given that we do not know many of the complicated interrelations in the ecosystem, however, any such system is likely to be incomplete, transferring the burden to an overlooked part of the eco-system. But even if a complete system could indeed be set up, the mountain of contracts, rules and regulations governing it, is likely to be insurmountable. In the paper world of economic models, the idea nevertheless seems very appealing. Even in this paper world, though, a nasty snake is hiding just beneath the grass. That snake is called the discount rate. As every freshmen economist learns, money has a time value. Most people would rather have a Euro more today, than two Euros in 10 year’s time. This is the whole justification for the existence of interest rates. Applying this reasoning to degradable or depletable resources however, implies that we shouldn’t really care whether the resource is still here in a 100, 150, 200 or so years. A rational entrepreneur securing exclusive rights to exploiting a resource, is supposed to coldly calculate how to maximize the net present value of the future revenue stream of the resource, given some discount rate. At any positive discount rate, it is rational to over-exploit. So even if property rights are expanded to include all of our life giving systems, making all of nature’s services into regular commodities, profit oriented firms would still deplete and degrade them, albeit more slowly. So this ‘solution’ will still eventually drive all edible fish to extinction, force all breathable air out of this world, make sure all rain forests are gone and so on and so on. Maybe the last human on earth will find an economic textbook in the rubble and as he spends his last breath browsing its pages, he will be shaking his head in disbelief and exclaim sarcastically: ‘Look around, this utter devastation was rationally created.’ Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that. But to prevent it from happening, we cannot have trust in markets. Environmental markets may help, but I hope that most people realize that ‘money cannot be eaten’ and that killing is wrong, let alone killing on a planetary scale. If something is that wrong, it is more rational to forbid it, then to set up markets for it. The latter inevitably give the wrong message: it is only a little wrong and if you pay enough, it is fully O.K.

As the final whistle was blown in the US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis, the fifty-second edition of the Super Bowl witnessed the underdogs Philadelphia Eagles miraculously defeat ing the New England Patriots by the score of 41 to 33, also one of the most controversial games ever played. And yet, while the sport is only exclusively followed by Americans, it somehow manages to attract hundreds of millions viewers every year that escape beyond the influence it has in the United States. The biggest winners from the hosting of this event is the National Football League (NFL, the organizer of the league), the businesses. The losers, evidently, the taxpayers. However, the NFL and state politicians promised that all of the expenses for the event would be repatriated from the income during the course of the 10-day event which can be distributed in the long term. So, in the end, is the hosting of Super Bowl beneficial for the city? What needs to be done to host the Super Bowl? Cities will usually be selected three to five years in advance to make an adequate preparation for the event. In order to be considered as the potential candidate for organizing the week-long event, the cities have to fulfill a set of strict (and excessive) qualifications in order to be considered the host venue. These include ensuring an adequate market, attendance and viewership for the entirety of the event, appropriate infrastructure for the visiting teams, NFL working personnel and the attendees. Cities must of course firstly build a football stadium, in which both the indoor and outdoor facilities should meet the majority of the criteria set by the administration committee. The US Bank Stadium in Minneapolis was only finished last year which cost around $1.06 billion, in which the taxpayers’ contribution (the income tax, that is) to the facility amounted to $350 million, per estimation. After these conditions are satisfied, the National Football League (NFL) will guarantee that in a predetermined year, the hosting of the Super Bowl in that city would take place. For Minneapolis, a financial analysis conducted by the NFL estimate the benefits of the event to be around the vicinity of $350 million to $400 million as incomes for the states. This can be seen as a moderate gain if public finance is only taken into account. All seems well enough, isn’t it? Sports economists do not think so. Is it good or bad to the local economy? In one of the rare studies of sport economics, Baade and Matheson (2010) attempt to investigate the significance of this premier sport event on a city and thus attempting to clarify the controversy surrounding this issue. In order to do that, he investigates the impact of Super Bowl on the economy of a region, from the period of 1970-2000 by deciphering the economic growth into numerous factors by aiming to do a regression analysis. This model also takes into account the changes in population, wages and taxes of individuals in each city, as well as other cyclical growth factors such as the oil crisis and the dot-com bubble. Their main findings suggest that despite positive economic growth is observed across cities who have hosted the Super Bowl, its effects are hugely exaggerated by the NFL executives. The results show that only a fraction of the number that the NFL studies suggest, and in fact, only one-quarter (about $92 million) of the estimated benefits are collected by the host cities during the period of 1970 to 2001. The probability that the economic benefits that a city receive that exceeds $300 million is only 5 percent. Since the NFL is a private and commercial business, it would want to persuade skeptical cities that hosting such an event (and building an NFL franchise) will make economic sense. So, why is there a discrepancy between the reports made by independent scholars and the NFL publications? If we consider the feasibility of a certain financial project, not only should we analyze the absolute returns from the investment, it is also required of us that we take into account the opportunity costs that are yielded from the alternative options. As such, the figures should have indicated the deviation from the normal daily economic activities in the cities. For example, if it were not due to the event, hotel accommodations would still be booked by business travelers, restaurants would still be reserved by casual tourists. Of course, there would definitely be price hikes of these services due to the event, but these are only marginal contributions to the income of the states as a whole. Furthermore, while the regression model by independent scholars take into account those factors, the reports by the NFL do not. The figures by the NFL are thus highly exaggerated and should have been treated with caution. So, why is it still strongly endorsed by state politicians? While the net benefits might not be justified based on academic studies, politicians still have the incentives to push for hosting an event of such scale. It is, of course, all about the intangible effects that are associated with the event. The city will have a majestic type of an architectural building to be treasured for generations. Because of the stadium, the city might have a future football franchise on the way that our local people could cheer for every week. Because of the Super Bowl, more businesses, more household names or superstars coming to the city. And of course, it has always been the artificial hype that the media builds up with the event and the city, although it only lasts for a short period of time. Most importantly, the tenure of a politician in the United States typically last only a handful of years (and maybe a reelection of a second term). Many projects with short-term benefits will be much more attractive to politicians, as they are usually considered as the benchmark to evaluate their accomplishment in the eyes of the public. As such, alternative investments in other projects such as education and public infrastructure will thus be overlooked. It is still, nevertheless, difficult to estimate how much of the effects of such an event on the entirety of the local economy. In this instance, the deal that is agreed upon between the state of Minnesota and the NFL is more than just football. The standing Mayor of the state of Minnesota, R.T. Rybak, asserted that his deal also supports more funds to other facilities in the cities, which will not be attributed to. The expansion of these facilities is expected to encourage the development of the downtown area. Even if there is economic development in the metropolitan area, whether the causes of this growth depends on the construction of the new stadium remain unclear. Furthermore, hosting the Super Bowl, a one-off event, only contributes marginally (about 0.15%) to the annual economy as a whole. Therefore, instigating an investigation into the impact of the Super Bowl is more difficult than just a mere regression analysis, especially if the contractual agreements go beyond than just the hosting of a sporting event.

It’s not up to debate that 2017 has been a year full of tension and uncertainty in terms of international relations, especially considering how the foreign policy statements of the United States are being revealed to us through Twitter: North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) 3 January 2018 The infamous tweet that lead to such fire and fury from news outlets is actually a bit more than a childish tantrum. Under Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s Supreme Leader since 2011, more than 80 missile tests have been carried out, and although North Korea was always considered to be a threat to international security, the strength and success of their tests have been rapidly increasing. The reason why that’s surprising is mostly due to the fact that most of the current sanctions against North Korea are a result of their first nuclear weapons tests in 2006, and these sanctions are one of the strictest in the world right now. As a member of the United Nations, admitted simultaneously with South Korea in 1991, North Korea has been the subject of much debate in the UN’s Security Council. Following the first test, the formation of the UN Security Council Sanctions Committee on North Korea was the first step in attempting to hinder North Korea’s economic development. What better way is there to stop someone from doing something you don’t want them to? Just grab them by the money. The sanctions in 2006 were only for military supplies and luxury goods. In 2009, after the second nuclear test, the sanctions were expanded and strengthened, but did not leave the military scope. This still didn’t seem to scare North Korea off though, as in 2013 they conducted their third nuclear test. The UN was quick to respond with sanctions on money transfers to the Democratic People’s Republic, and yet North Korea followed three years later with a fourth test. This time the UN decided not to hold back and commodity sanctions were implemented on coal and rare earth metals such as gold and titanium. You would think North Korea would give in and stop at this point. The geographical conditions of the region are simply not sufficient for efficient agricultural practices, which leads to external dependencies on food. Although the planned economy has taken this into consideration, and has attempted to achieve self-sufficiency in terms of staple foods, North Korea fails to feed its citizens adequately. With a history of famines and volatile crop output, the government could have sustained the needs of its population through imports from neighbouring countries such as South Korea, Japan, or especially China. With stricter sanctions, North Korea surely would agree to UN’s terms and try to alleviate the severity of the sanctions, right..? Apparently not! Continued efforts in launching missiles and more nuclear tests forced UN to ban the exports of coal, seafood, iron, and lead. The sanctions even went on to prevent any more North Korean labourers from working in foreign countries. Even China, who has been North Korea’s biggest trade partner and political supporter since 1961, had to bend to the knee and stop coal imports from North Korea. With Chinese-American relations seeing improvements through 2017, North Korea has been very vocal in their sudden distrust towards China. Unfortunately, even with international cooperation against them, North Korea’s cunning ways make it a bit difficult for the UN to impose these sanctions successfully. Regardless of the bans on seafood exports, a yet-to-be-released UN report details how the country has been able to overcome these sanctions. Even more interestingly, North Korea has been helping Mozambique with a joint programme on refurbishing military equipment and providing training. The combined valuation of these illegal transactions have been estimated at 200 million USD for the period from January until September 2017. Although the number seems minuscule at first sight, consider that the export revenues of North Korea have been estimated at 4 billion USD for 2012. The UN is certainly going to be imposing more sanctions in 2018, but North Korea’s resilience makes it obvious that the solution doesn’t lie at trade restrictions anymore. It has been two months since the last test, which broke records for North Korea in terms of both range and altitude. Experts estimated that even when fitted with an actual nuclear warhead that would make the missile heavier, it would still be capable of reaching most of the continental US. The big question we cannot answer now is when the next launch is, and what, if not sanctions, can stop it?

San José de La Parrilla, Durango is a five thousand people city in the north of Mexico. Its inhabitants can testify that it was one of the key areas that has been severely affected by the violence that comes along one of the most profitable, yet deadly businesses in the world: drug-trafficking. In Durango, Northern Mexico, after having driven south for over one hour and enjoyed splendid views of the Sierra Madre Occidental, one of the longest mountain ranges in the world, you would enter a small town that consists of a small plaza, a great cathedral, a dried river that reminds its people of colonial times and an almost-dried-up silver mine that hires vast amounts of citizens, keeping the town up float and donating a small piece of life to it. However, regardless of the beauty, history and traditions that it offers, the surroundings of this town were also home to large plantations of narcotics and some of the most transited routes of the Sinaloa Cartel. By being a keystone in the game of drug trafficking, La Parrilla was well protected from military units and other cartels trying to appropriate it, but this protection came at a high cost, and not necessarily a financial one. Only during the presidential period of Felipe Calderon (2006-2012), there were more than fifty narco-related deaths recorded in and outside the town, although in Mexico the word “recorded” does not share the meaning of accurate. San José de La Parrilla accounts for only one of the towns that have suffered the weight of a well-known war that has seen its own beginning but it is nowhere close to see its end. Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Acapulco are only a few examples of cities that have been hit by the fist of drug trafficking resulting in high increases in the amount of local murders and human disappearances. On one side of this war stand the drug traffickers—a.k.a. Narcos—enterprisers who run billion dollars organizations that go back to pre-Revolutionary times and have little to no interest in shutting down their operations just because the government recently decided to start a war. They are well prepared and do not hesitate on using the force when necessary. On the other side stands the Mexican army. It is the second largest army in Latin America but not allowed to deploy its full power over the traffickers. On a whole different side of this chessboard, stands a hidden player recognized for its chess expertise. You guessed it: The United States of America. According to Expansion magazine, about 70% of the weapons used by Mexican cartels are purchased in the neighboring country. Not surprisingly; there are over 6,700 stores in the US that hold a permit to sell firearms just a few kilometers away from the Mexican border, while there is only one licensed weapon store within Mexican soil (and it is not open to the general public). This is nowhere near to change. The current president of the United States Donald J. Trump holds a strong policy against stricter gun control protocols. So one may say that while drugs go north, weapons move south, and it turns into a nonstop trafficking border. Besides playing the role of weaponry supplier, the United States also plays the role of final consumer. In accordance with the Mexican political magazine Proceso, 75% of the drugs produced in Mexico are aimed at the North American market, while only 10% stay in the country for selling purposes. The southern country is considered the main supplier of marihuana and methamphetamines of North America. Drug trafficking however, has little to do with producing and manufacturing drugs; in fact, its main activity plays in the form of logistics. Moving the product from point A to point B while avoiding checkpoints and customs along the way. Point A is the supply side of the consumption chain while point B accounts for the demand side. In other words: Transporting the product from its manufacturer to its consumer, which in this war translates as: Moving drugs from Mexico to the U.S. Controversy has raised as it who it is to blame, the country that produces narcotics or the country that consumes narcotics. The supplier or the demander? As a result of the disappointing results of a useless and failed drug war, journalists and technocrats around the globe start to wonder if instead of using the Mexican Army and the DEA to violently eliminate narcos, governments should rather focus on preventing civilians in the US and Canada from using drugs. Research conducted by Rand Corp, a think-tank, shows that compared to other developed economies, the U.S. lacks funding in drug use prevention programs, even though these are considered to be the best way to reduce drug consumption in a country, after legalization. In spite of this, the United States Federal government insists on tightening customs control and increasing funding to DEA programs related to the capture of Mexican drug-dealers. A practice that some consider of short-term benefit but of high death toll cost. A vast majority of drugs imported to the United States are purchased with no other purpose but the recreational one; as a consequence, the lack of drug-related education in the United States is costing lives not only in Mexico, but also in multiple countries that have suffered a boost in production of narcotics due to adequate climate conditions and fragile political stability. From where the famous drug-related phrase was born: They get “fun”, we get the deaths. It is difficult to eliminate a market worth $60 billion annually, but it is harder to eradicate it when the fighter is also the financer and the consumer all at the same time. Let alone the importance of the arm industry to the United States and their little interest on decreasing the sale of weapons regardless of whom the buyer is. Mexican authorities are expected to implement drug-related policies, such as legalization in order to reduce production and consumption of the product, nevertheless the United States and other developed economies also play an enormous role in the evolution of this war.