Humans are inherently social beings. As such social interactions shape the way we think and act; they structure our world. Social norms are one part of this process and have a decisive influence on our lives. After all, social norms tell us what is accepted by society and what is not, they are the unwritten laws of social groups. “Hustle culture” is a societal phenomenon that relies heavily on social norms to perpetuate its existence. Yet, while only a few social circles openly embrace this idea by its name, many underlying ideals of hustle culture (such as working long hours) are positively perceived throughout society. The stark contrast between such covert norms and present-day political developments, like the push for a four-day workweek, poses several questions: Are both these views reconcilable? What is the origin of these phenomena? Covert appraisal Before we can explore the origins of these developments in detail we should first define what we are talking about. Hustle culture” is generally understood as a societal trend valuing relentless work and the pursuit of success. This term is rarely used positively. People think of it as toxic, related to burnout, and materialistic. Few serious people use the term hustle culture to describe something appealing. Yet, even though the societal perception of those people openly following hustle culture is generally critical, I argue that their core ideas – of extremely hard and excessive work – are accepted throughout our society. To make this clearer, I propose a simple question: If you were working way too much – would you openly share it? And would you share with the same openness that you started smoking again or indulge in other unhealthy behaviours? Some of the things we know to be bad, we would rather keep to ourselves – others we share. This phenomenon I would call “positive stigma”; we know behaviour to be unhealthy, yet still we associate it with something normatively positive. In a way one might say that we idealise the suffering and sacrifice of some things, but not of others. But why? Why does this “covert appraisal” happen? Explanations for root causes of cultural phenomena like this can never be final or exhaustive. Instead, any explanation is always merely one possible perspective. In this article, I will focus on two such theories. Overwork as a result of ideology and overwork as a result of the systemic characteristics of our economy. Part 1: Overwork as a religious ideology One possible explanation for “hustle culture” emerges from one of the roots of Western thought, Christianity. Historically, a lot of Western life and thereby culture revolved around Christian ideas and traditions. Thus, it would almost be surprising if it did not help shape our societies’ way of thinking. Different people have characterised Christian moral in very different ways, yet here I will focus on Weber’s analysis. Max Weber's work on the Protestant work ethic underscores how certain Christian values, particularly within Protestantism, have shaped a culture of hard work and discipline as expressions of moral virtue. This manifests itself through general concepts in Christianity such as asceticism. Asceticism idealises values of self-discipline and abstention from indulgence. This ethic, which emerged from a religious imperative to glorify God through diligent work, has notably influenced the development of capitalism, extending far into people’s work life and emphasizing hard work as a form of moral virtue. Over time, the religious roots of this work ethic became less and less significant, but the ethic itself became ingrained in Western culture and reflected in our social norms. Thereby, upholding an overwork ethic where relentless productivity is celebrated as a secular virtue, decoupled from its original spiritual intentions. The relationship Weber describes between hard work and asceticism is one we can also observe in cultural movements tangent to "hustling". For example, people in communities like FI/RE (Financial Independence / Retire Early) aim to retire at 30 years old, through a mix of hard work and frugal living conditions. The reflection of religious thinking in hustle culture goes much further than just the same values. For example, how they imagine retirement. A notable feature of Christianity is its reliance on the afterlife to provide happiness: All earthly suffering is justified in light of this final salvation. This idea seems a bit odd these days – might people have realised the awkwardness of far-away promises? No, to my disappointment, early retirement movements seem to make a similar case to Christianity: Sacrificing one’s twenties, in the form of hard and long working hours with no rest, is justified through a greater good, one final salvation: Retirement. It does feel like one big materialist rephrasing of Christianity sometimes, no? Of course, the connection between today’s cultural phenomena and previous ideas is only correlative and not necessarily causal. Yet still, it is quite interesting to note how those who would laugh at the argument of a priest are in awe of the wise words of some “finance bro”. It shows the fading of Christianity as a religion did not necessitate the fading of all its norms. Indeed, especially now, in secular societies, we should be aware of our ideas’ origins. While some might be useful, others might harm us. Part 2: The structure of our economy The previous explanation, while important in its own way, entirely neglects the conditions of “the real world”. A second potential explanation examines how the underlying material conditions of our society shape our discourse. Marxists understand this relationship as the base influencing the superstructure. The base of our society is its economic system, capitalism, which treats labour as a commodity to be traded. Through this, our economic system makes workers compete with one another, optimise themselves for the market, and rewards those most productive, thus reinforcing the notion that our primary purpose is to serve capital. Here, the cultural norms that encourage an overwork culture can be understood as a superstructure complimenting and maintaining the economic base. This perpetuates a cycle where work not only becomes central to our lives but is also posited as a primary source of identity and virtue. Serving capital is our purpose. (read more about that in this article) A stark contrast: The four-day workweek In the past years, discourse about the idea of a four-day workweek has become increasingly serious. Major trials in the UK and Iceland have had overwhelmingly positive results, with 86% of companies in Britain planning to continue with four work days after the end of the trials. The clash between glorifying overwork and advocating for fewer workdays is striking. Why might this be? And is it enough to relieve us from our serfdom? Work is at the centre of our lives – but none of us actually want that, right? The recent push toward less work is an expression of exactly this frustration. It is a countermovement to the dominant cultural norms. Does this mean we solved the problem though? That’s unlikely. As we examined previously, overwork is to some extent the result of underlying economic forces. These forces are still very much present here, even if we spend less time at work. Therefore, one might argue that while the four-day workweek is certainly an improvement, it is merely a symptomatic treatment, that ignores the underlying problems. Moreover, given the seeming deeper lying roots of our ideological commitment to an often unhealthy work ethic, the ideological differences of this new movement are commendable but at this stage improbable to be enough to change us. This might seem somewhat cynical – I agree. No doubt, the four-day workweek is a step in the right direction. However, we must avoid being satisfied with such small wins and instead continue to push for bigger, more transformative improvements. What do you think could be such a fundamental transformation that it relieves us from our economic and greater ideological chains? Share your opinion in the comment section of this article.

Democracy wins! Record turnout elections! The opposition has the advantage! Europe wins! Donald Tusk for prime minister! These sentences are somewhat similar to current political article titles. On the 15th of October, Polish voters went to the polls to decide the country's future. The day brought a head-to-head fight with the surprising success of the opposition. A Bit of Structure Given the length of this article, a bit of a walkthrough is needed to let people sway through it. In the beginning, we will look into the Polish political spectrum quickly, just for familiarity reasons. It is obviously not a complete analysis, just a thought opener. Later, I will talk about Donald Tusk and the challenges ahead of him. And to finish the article, I have conducted a survey to channel the expectations of the youth. Bear with me and enjoy the journey. Even though the currently ruling PiS party won the majority of votes with 35.4%, it has no political allies to turn to, leading to the phenomenon of not being able to form a government. In light of the mathematical calculations, the opposition of the four parties is set to take the Sejm, the lower house of the Polish parliament. If they maintain their alliance, Donald Tusk can retake office and lead Poland back to the connections to the European Union. But what effects does it have on the life of the country and the continent? What does the younger part of the population think about the results? And how quick is the transition going to be? These are the questions that I am going to try to answer, having the younger part of the population in focus. What Does the Polish Political Spectrum Look Like? Complicated. Blurry. Confusing. These words are not far away from the feelings I felt when I first started to analyse the political life of the Pols. In the recent past, there have been two central political powers. First, the Civil Platform (coalition: Civic Coalition) lead by Donald Tusk, who was PM between 2007 and 2014 just to leave and become President of the European Council until 2019. His party, and now his coalition, is described by liberal conservatism, leading a somewhat centrist right-wing politics to steer Poland back to the European Union. With the campaign program of legalising abortion and putting an end to corruption on the one hand, the coalition is supported by the youth and the pro-EU voters. On the other hand, the Law and Justice, led by Jarosław Kaczyński (prime minister: Mateusz Morawiecki), is a Christian right-wing party well-known for its hyper-conservative policies and anti-EU manners. The party won a majority in 2015 after Tusk left office and has been ruling since. The campaign program of anti-migration and child subsidies is supported mainly by the older population and the eastern part of the country. However, coming to the elections, the party was criticised for its corruption cases, which Tusk promised to investigate upon victory. Besides the two main groups, three other forms of political power proved essential this autumn. Morawiecki (on the left) and Tusk (on the right), source: Forsal The Left (Lewica) is a political alliance consisting of leftist parties, who are considered to be the most liberals in the country. With pro-LGBTQ+ ideas, they could only win over a smaller group of voters. However, their part seemed essential to forming a governing coalition. Talking about forming a coalition, The Third Way, which was introduced exclusively for this election and consists of the parties Poland 2050 and the Polish People’s Party, won an even more significant advantage, leading to the opposition's success. The three powers combined won 53.7% of the votes, meaning they have the majority to form a government. Source: National Electoral Commission And lastly, the far-right group Confederation Freedom and Independence caused the current government to lose its mandate. The two parties combined did not reach the 50% needed to form a coalition, which on paper means that the opposition can take over. But only on paper, what does that mean? Is Donald Tusk Indeed the New PM? The answer is no. Even though Tusk is nominated as PM by the three groups, first, the president has a right to suggest a candidate. This is where things get interesting. Andrzej Duda, the president of the country, is an ex-member of the PiS party. This means that he can nominate, for example, Morawiecki without any legal blockade. The following steps are crucial to note: the president nominates a candidate, the parliament votes on whether to accept the nominee and if not, they select the new PM. It is still not decided who Duda will nominate, as he has 30 days to call the first parliamentary meeting after election day. This means that he can delay the transition of power for almost two months. Although there is a legal chance that Donald Tusk will not be able to take office, it is doubtful, as his coalition now has the majority in the parliament. However, starting his mandate, his time will have its ups and downs. Challenges for Donald Tusk Although the KO is said to be a liberal right-wing group, it is still different from its coalition member parties. The left is by far the most progressive organisation, which can lead to a misunderstanding between the members regarding LGBTQ+ and immigration policies. Furthermore, Donald Tusk’s original party did not hold a single majority in the parliament, which is already divided, leading to long and complex processing of policies and laws. The law-making process does not only have its limitations arising from the divided house, but also the president has a veto right, which can only be overruled by a 3/5 majority in the Sejm (lower house). Moreover, Donald Tusk is considered a German-friendly politician, which is unpopular among the older population. With his strong connection to the EU and Ursula von der Leyen, he will never have the full support of the whole population or even most of it. Before the elections, the media tried to compose the idea of "Herr Tusk", focusing on his ties to Germany, which made him a symbol of all the wrongdoings of the West. But, enough of the struggles, fallbacks, and boring facts, the highest turnout election brings high hope among the youngsters and the people who grew to be opposed to the hyper-conservative government. The following months will definitely be interesting both domestically and internationally. KO for Corruption Throughout the rule of PiS, the country experienced daily rumours of corruption and grey-area law-making. Countries in the region, including Poland, tend to allow for state-controlled media, corporations, and political organisations. However, Donald Tusk has pledged to bring down the shady individuals in the circle of the PiS. After firing the old officials, "we will conduct new recruitment in transparent competitions, in which competence, not family and party connections, will be decisive", says the KO political program. Furthermore, firings are not the significant changes to come. According to the new prime minister candidate, no one will be spared. They aim to learn from their mistakes in 2007 when they did not handle corruption strictly enough. This time, they say, jail is waiting for the ones who broke the Constitution and the rule of law. The opposition is now primarily focused on President Andrzej Duda, Prime Minister Morawiecki, Justice Minister Zbigniew Ziobro, PiS Chairman Jarosław Kaczyński, and the governor of Central Bank Adam Glapiński. This might just be a political catch; however, it would make ruling easier for Donald Tusk. The main allegations are institutional corruption, mishandling of inflation, and the denial of swearing in state judges properly. Lead the Way Captain: Europe Donald Tusk has pledged to bring the country back to the EU. Since 2015, Poland has been one of the most prominent critics of the organisation, arguing with the migration laws and, most recently, the handling of the Ukrainian war. The former president of the European Commission campaigned for better connections with its neighbouring countries, breaking the misunderstanding between Ukraine and Poland and continuing the delivery of firearms. But is it only good for the country? No, Poland is one of the fastest growing economies, with a high population and a crucial market. Therefore, it would bring a considerable swing in continental cooperation. With Poland on the EU’s side, Hungary will be left alone as a straight critic and will most likely be forced to give in on some significant decisions. Moreover, cooperation with Germany can uplift Poland's economy even to a higher level, making the country indeed the most powerful economy in the Eastern European region. Besides financial advantages, Poland has one of the strongest militaries in the continent, which can also be a significant stressing point in the support of Ukraine. It is not sure how the change in Poland will affect the EU. However, it can be said that Berlin, Kyiv, and Brussels can take a deep breath as their horse seems to be crossing the finish line. The record turnout of the election can also indicate a new generation with high political interest. A new generation sees the EU as a crucial institution which needs to keep up with the US and China to keep European countries on the right track. What is that track? And what did youngsters expect before the elections? Let us look into that. Early Expectations and Hopes Before the election on the 15th of October, I created a short survey, which was aimed at channelling the views and hopes of the youngsters both in Poland and outside the country. After creation, I posted it on my personal Instagram and LinkedIn accounts to make it reach as many individuals as possible. Some might say that it is slightly biased, which would be accurate; however, on the one hand, I did not intend to estimate the whole population’s expectations, and on the other hand, the aim was only to reach the younger part of society. It, in fact, turned out to be an accurate indicator of the youth, as 97.4 % of the survey-takers were between the ages of 18 and 25, with a 53% ratio of Polish individuals. The questions first aimed to collect information about the general political interest of youngsters, which then later was driven towards knowledge about the Polish political scenery. I also asked which party they think will win and which one they would vote for. The last two parts were aimed to focus on the two central powers, KO and PiS, and to learn about what aspects of the parties youngsters find desirable. Surprisingly, no one indicated to be far not interested in politics, with a turnout of 48.7% being mildly interested and a shocking 33.3% being keen on politics. Of course, this survey mostly channels the opinion of university students. Still, the high number of politically invested individuals was unexpected. According to the test, the majority indicated to know at least two parties in the country. And which one would they choose? Only 13.9% would have selected the currently governing PiS, which clearly indicated the popularity of the opposition. However, the significance of the ratio was not expected. It is a common scenario that youngsters always seek change, but almost 81% of support for Donald Tusk and his allies is far from conventional. Furthermore, the pessimistic view of the younger generation also proved itself. Besides clearly supporting the opposition, they indicated with a majority of 62.1% that the currently ruling PiS would win the most votes, which, with time, proved to be correct. It is also vital to look into what youngsters want to see from a governing coalition. Through the question "Which aspect of the campaign of PiS/KO is most desirable for you?", most individuals showed that they prefer the legalisation of abortion and anti-corruption goals in the campaign of KO. Regarding the campaign of PiS, anti-migration activity with an increase in child subsidy programmes was the most essential for them. However, the most common answer for the latter was: "I don't find anything desirable in this campaign". This shows clearly that the PiS's majority in the final results were due to the support of the older population. Is There Hope for a Higher Cooperation Between Eastern-Central European Countries? The so-called V4 political alliance, consisting of Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic, has had better days. Since the start of the Russian–Ukrainian war, the group has stopped its strong cooperation since the Hungarian leadership did not promote help for Ukraine as vigorously as the other three countries. By this aspect, Hungary has shifted from Slovakia and the Czech Republic and remained in political alliance only with Poland. However, now that Poland has its new regime, Hungary has to make up with the whole organisation to not remain without any allies in the EU. It is often emphasised by political professionals that the V4 countries can only achieve power in Brussels if they cooperate and keep their strong connections. With Poland shifting closer to the EU, the ball is on Hungary's side. If the country led by Mr. Orbán gives in, the organisation of the continent can get back in the race with the US and China. The record turnout election has clearly affected political life, and expectations say it is not yet the end. The number of voters is remarkable and can be essential for our generation. It will be interesting to watch how Donald Tusk can form his government and what limitations will try to stop him from transforming the country towards his ideas. The coming months will be crucial for Polish and European citizens. I would recommend everyone to keep an eye out for the names like Duda, Morawiecki, and Tusk. Let us see how the Sejm can be formed and what outcome the colourful opposition coalition will have.

From Amsterdam to Berlin, if you ever find yourself lost in a European metropolis, you have a pretty good chance of coming across a pink banner declaring that “we [Klarna] have nothing against the other banks who prefer blue - but we want to be a little different - because we are.” Through its bright campaign approach, Europe's biggest Buy-Now-Pay-Later provider has, quite literally, painted the town pink. This bold choice of color, often associated with clichéd consumerism, may, at first glance, seem to be contrasting with the rather stoic world of finance. However, it is this creative divergence that Klarna utilizes to establish itself as a modern innovator in the fintech sphere. Their presence, albeit controversial at times, challenges conventional notions of finance whilst, on a deeper level, offering valuable insights into the continuously shifting landscape of consumer debt dynamics. Revolutionizing Finance: Klarna 101 Klarna, founded in 2005 by Swedish entrepreneurs Sebastian Siemiatkowski, Niklas Adalberth, and Victor Jacobsson, is an internationally operating financial technology company based in Sweden. Financial technology, often referred to as fintech, sums up a rapidly growing sector at the intersection of finance and digital innovation. Fintech companies generally utilize technology to provide a wide set of financial services, from payment processing to investment management and insurance. The growth of the sector is quite remarkable, with annual global investment in fintech companies at approximately 209 billion US dollars in 2022. Research shows that these companies tend to serve a diverse clientele, but are particularly appealing to younger, digitally-oriented users. Klarna, the fintech player in question, finds its niche in the realm of online shopping and payments. As a Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) service provider, Klarna integrates into e-commerce platforms, letting customers make purchases and choose flexible payment options. The company essentially enables customers to make immediate purchases and settle the payment later, typically with minimal or no fees and interest, thus offering a new way of deferring payments and splitting transactions. With 150 million users and over 450,000 retail partners, ranging from food delivery to fashion, the company has established itself as a leading BNPL provider. Debating Debt: The Klarna Dilemma In recent years, Klarna has become entangled in different controversies that all revolve around a common theme: the ethics of accumulating debt for the sake of consumption. One notable example in this narrative is the viral emergence of Klarna debt horror stories on TikTok. The trend took shape in 2020 when influencers stepped onto the platform to share their personal battles with shopping addiction and the substantial debt they had incurred on Klarna—often totaling thousands of euros—in a simple quest for the latest fashion trends. These candid revelations corresponded with many, particularly young women, who were encouraged by this openness and started sharing their own experiences. The stories continue to pour in till this day, revealing that many individuals have accumulated four- and five-figure debts due to their shopping habits. 1 Another intriguing instance of public outrage occurred when Klarna announced its partnership with the meal delivery service Deliveroo in 2022. Many critics voiced their concerns about the ramifications of going into debt to afford everyday meals, especially against the backdrop of a rising cost-of-living crisis or, as Money Saving Expert Martin Lewis commented, “(...) borrowing should only be if NEEDED, for planned one-off budgeted purchase, not a cheeky Nando’s.” 2 Controversies like these show that the dimensions of Klarna's business model fuel public debate and scrutiny by raising questions about the boundaries of consumer debt accumulation, and the risks of innovating financial choices. Historical Recap: Consumer Debt and Credit Card Culture This story is by no means a recent development. Understanding the historical perspective on consumer debt can provide us with insight into its current manifestations, including the impact of BNPL companies like Klarna. Consumer debt has in fact undergone significant transformations throughout history, reflecting evolving societal and economic dynamics, such as the rise of new technologies. Historically, and for much of human civilization up until the 20th century, individuals predominantly relied on informal borrowing practices and local moneylenders to address their financial needs. This practice evolved considerably over time, reflecting the socio-economic dynamics of the respective eras. For instance, in pre-modern societies, borrowing was usually an informal arrangement among local communities. People borrowed from family, friends, or local moneylenders who operated on a small scale. The terms of these loans were flexible and largely dictated by social norms rather than formal regulations. During the medieval and Renaissance periods, the first signs of formal lending institutions began to appear. European cities saw the establishment of pawnshops and early forms of banking. These institutions marked a shift toward more structured lending practices, but they were still relatively limited in their reach, primarily serving the merchant class and aristocracy. As the world transitioned into the 18th and 19th centuries, local moneylenders, often unregulated, played an important role in providing credit to a broader segment of the population. These moneylenders operated on a regional scale and were sometimes the sole source of credit for individuals in rural areas. The 20th century brought about significant transformations in the world of finance. The emergence of modern banking marked a shift from localized and informal lending to more standardized practices. The introduction of credit unions, savings and loan associations, and, most importantly, credit cards and consumer loans, further expanded the options available to borrowers. The widespread adoption of credit cards from the mid-20th century was crucial in shaping American financial culture. Credit cards, such as the BankAmericard (later known as Visa), were the ultimate American innovation and transformed the way Americans accessed credit, allowing them to make purchases on credit with unprecedented ease. In the mid-20th century, the average credit card debt in the United States was negligible. Yet, less than a century later, in 2023, Americans’ credit card debt stands at 1 trillion US dollars. 3 To provide some perspective on the sheer enormity of this situation: During the same period (1980-2009), credit card debt per household in the United States surged by 1,100%, while median household income saw a rather modest growth of 200%. 4 In essence, this formation of American credit card culture was arguably influenced by advertising and consumerism. Credit card companies ran marketing campaigns to foster the idea that the cards were not merely tools for financial convenience, but also gateways to a more enjoyable and prosperous lifestyle. Americans essentially gained significant purchasing capacity and access to a better lifestyle, but this access didn't result from any significant increase in earnings. Credit card culture began to shift the narrative; taking on debt became acceptable, even encouraged. All of a sudden, the idea that debt could be a means to achieve personal goals and aspirations gained traction. While this form of credit card culture was predominantly American, its influence reached a global scale. After all, American credit card companies expanded their reach internationally, introducing the cards and the associated culture to markets worldwide. This global influence can be seen in the widespread acceptance of credit cards today, although the American experience remains somewhat distinctive. The Path Forward: An Outlook on the Future of Consumer Debt Culture Connecting all this to historical contexts, our Klarna case study may be a good starting point for a reexamination of the fundamental discussions surrounding current notions on consumer debt. At its core, the controversies have essentially reignited a critical dialogue about what warrants taking on debt, especially in the context of BNPL. With the allure of instantaneous gratification and ultra-easy credit, these incidents compel us to ask questions about financial responsibility and, in examining Klarna within the larger framework of changing consumer debt dynamics, grant us insights into the evolving landscape of consumer debt, which feels increasingly reminiscent of 20th-century American credit card culture, only now operating on a more global scale. The most challenging aspect of this development feels quite obvious. The ease with which individuals can accumulate significant debt raises questions about societal attitudes toward what modern personal financial management should look like. Unlike traditional loans or credit cards, BNPL services typically have more lenient credit requirements, often granting credit to younger individuals with limited or no prior credit history. This accessibility makes them attractive to a broader audience. However, this approach can potentially leave individuals vulnerable to excessive spending, as the viral examples illustrate. Several studies and reports have suggested that BNPL users may be at risk of overspending. For example, a 2020 study by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission found that 20% of BNPL customers missed payments, potentially indicating that they overextended themselves financially. 5 While the Klarna controversy has garnered significant attention, the underlying issues are not isolated to a single company or country. The global spread of BNPL services, including Afterpay, Affirm, and Zip Co, suggests that consumer debt dynamics are undergoing a fundamental shift. Unlike in prior historic examples, the initial appeal of these services extends beyond US borders, with statistics showing that, in 2022, eight out of the ten top global BNPL markets worldwide were in Europe. Thus, our financial landscape is consequently witnessing a surge in consumer debt, potentially echoing the 20th-century rise of American credit card culture. Whilst these parallels warrant further research and observation, on a very basic level, the intensification of consumer debt culture, particularly within the realm of BNPL services, underscores a future need for strong regulatory frameworks. At its core, the unregulatedness of BNPL services has given rise to concerns such as overspending and the accumulation of unsustainable debt. Recent developments, including Klarna's proactive stance in calling for new regulatory frameworks, demonstrate the overarching understanding of the necessity for oversight. In this case, the call for regulation cannot be merely a matter of industry self-regulation, but must be a response to the very real risks that consumers face in an uncontrolled financial landscape. Further, numerous studies have underscored the strong link between inadequate debt management and low levels of financial literacy, highlighting the pivotal role of financial education in this matter. For instance, a recent 2023 study by Istiqlaliyah Muflikhati delved into the influence of financial literacy on debt management among young families. Employing a linear regression analysis, the research came to the clear conclusion that “Financial literacy needs to be well owned in order to create good debt management behavior”. 6 So, generally speaking, informed consumers are better equipped to assess their financial situation, make responsible choices, and avoid the pitfalls of debt accumulation. As we increasingly turn to modern, accessible financial tools, it is more essential than ever to give consumers the knowledge and skills required to make responsible financial decisions. Indeed, the journey is far from over. The real exploration probably extends beyond Klarna to encompass broader questions about responsible innovation, consumer choices, and the ethics of modern commerce. But, with our towns painted pink and the lines between convenience and excess blurring, Klarna's story serves as a great lens through which we can explore the ever-evolving historical evolution of consumer debt dynamics.

Whether you are a luxury watch enthusiast, a frequent visitor of its amazing skiing resorts, or maybe a fan of Federer’s magic touch, there is no shying away from the fact that Switzerland is synonymous with quality, class, and wealth. These attributes, coupled with the principles of reliability, stability, and discretion, have enabled this small landlocked country in the heart of the Alps to become the world’s largest financial center for wealth management. However, recent months have seen the sector unravel after the near-bankruptcy of one of its key players, Credit Suisse. The 167-year-old institution, after a decade of mismanagement, faulty investments, and scandals was not able to overcome the growing pessimism among shareholders, with the Swiss government forcing a not-so-competitive takeover by long-time rival UBS. The collapse of the country's oldest financial institution, which bankrolled Swiss economic growth during the last century, could substantially impact Switzerland's reputation as a strong and stable banking center. Despite recent events, the Swiss banking crisis has been a slow-burner rooted in tradition as well as modernization. With growing financial centers such as Singapore and Hong Kong ready to take advantage of the situation, the question of whether Switzerland can keep up with its banking sector is one of global interest. How did Credit Suisse fail? Looking back at the state of Switzerland after the global financial crisis of 2008, it’s interesting to see how the roles of the two most prominent banks have reversed. UBS, after being saved from bankruptcy thanks to more than 60 billion USD in loans from the Swiss government and Central Bank, diverted its business from expansion in the US market of investment banking towards more traditional bank practices. Contrarily, a rather unscathed Credit Suisse dove into the riskier world of shadow banking and, often in their case pseudo-legal, asset management. In the last half-decade, Credit Suisse and some of its employees have been under the spotlight for varying scandals, in many instances leading to fines, settlements, and even imprisonments. Some of the most renowned include money laundering for Bulgarian drug traffickers, bribes in the form of aid for the government of Mozambique, and corporate espionage on the former head of wealth management who had left for rival UBS. Below you can see a timeline of Credit Suisse's scandals alongside the evoloving share price. However, what most hurt Credit Suisse were many failed investments that significantly slimmed down the bank capital. In just one month, in March 2021, the Swiss bank lost around 10 billion USD that had been invested in British financial firm Greensill Capital, and more than 5.5 billion USD invested in a highly leveraged technology stock portfolio when Archegos Capital Management defaulted. Strikingly, both misfortunes were highly criticized by the financial sector. FINMA, the Swiss financial regulator, stated that the bank “seriously breached supervisory regulations”, and law firm Paul Weiss highlighted “a fundamental failure of management and controls”. Even more strikingly, despite stricter reporting and safeguarding being ordered by FINMA, no other major change in risk culture and management was required or did occur. In October 2022, a business journalist David Taylor tweeted that a “credible source tells me a major international investment bank is on the brink”, with the public and financial market identifying Credit Suisse as the mystery bank. The result was shares plummeting to a record low as stocks lost more than 10 percent of their value over a weekend. Ironically, FINMA assessed this as a great success noting that the enhanced capital requirements enabled Credit Suisse to withstand the October 2022 bank run. To calm the waters, in response to the social media-generated chaos, the newly formed leadership decided to return to Credit Suisse’s roots, planning to raise fresh capital and eventually carve out investment banking operations. This shift was mainly financed by the Saudi National Bank (SNB), which bought a 9.9 percent stake in the Suisse organization for about 1.4 billion CHF, 3.86 CHF per share, becoming its biggest shareholder. The winds of change were not long-lasting though. An increase in U.S. interest toppled the financial sector’s rising star Silicon Valley Bank as its asset side was heavy on the long-term T-bills that significantly lost value. In an ever-so-uncertain financial sector since 2008 and with the experience and knowledge of past mismanagement, major shareholders, including the Saudi National Bank (that decided that ruining European football was a better investment), announced they would no longer finance new investments. The above was the only thing investors needed to hear: with no confidence left in Credit Suisse, a run on the bank’s deposits began as the history of the Suisse giant was coming to an end. The crisis was only slighted attenuated as the Swiss National Bank (SNB) aided Credit Suisse with a 50 billion CHF liquidity backstop that the bank could use against collateral if reserves were drained. This reassurance measure, however, did not succeed. With speculation growing, the Swiss authorities, the SNB, and the government ordered an acquisition by long-time rival UBS, which ended up paying only 0.76 CHF. As a dramatic position swap took place for the two banks between 2008 and 2023, regulators hope that Credit Suisse’s assets in the hands of a safe and healthy risk culture under UBS will again have the opportunity to prosper. In what position does this leave Switzerland in? As the news of the collapse of the oldest and most famous banking institution in Switzerland travelled across the globe, it left investors, but mostly the small alpine country, in shock. While it is true that the Swiss take great pride in their banking sector, it is also true that the failure of Credit Suisse was the second time a big Swiss bank failed in the last 15 years. The public sentiment of bailing these institutions out with taxpayers’ money has been one of bitterness and disappointment. Indeed, many in Switzerland do not forget that UBS, the nowadays celebrated saviour that stepped in to reconcile an escalating banking crisis, was itself the subject of a spectacular failure during the global financial crisis, with the Suisse government at the rescue with an emergency law ailing the bank with 6 billion CHF and with SNB issuing a guarantee for bad securities of up to 62 billion CHF. Moreover, the decision to wipe out the holdings of Credit Suisse’s bondholders only increased public resentment, as holders of AT1 bonds will get nothing from the acquisition. In contrast, shareholders, who are traditionally the residual claimants and ranking below bondholders, will receive 3.23 billion USD. For now, it is unclear how this manoeuvre will impact Switzerland’s status as a financial market, however, this “sleight of hand” by Swiss banking will undoubtedly affect its credibility as a stable, predictable, and reliant banking country. The change in risk culture that occurred within UBS in the last decade should bring optimism into the picture when considering the merger between the two banks; given its newly acquired size, it could be difficult to cover UBS’s future spillages in the event of a new crisis as now holds 200% of Swiss GDP in assets. Further, the absence of other big banks in Switzerland in the case UBS fails, eliminates acquisition as an escape route, leaving only resolution as the main answer. Because authorities believed that the resolution of Credit Suisse would bring down the economy, the impact of a UBS resolution would be even worse nowadays. How has European Banking changed since the financial crisis? The wake-up to the global financial crisis for many banks was dramatic, with more than 400 failing between 2007 and 2010. Since then, countries, regulators, and banks themselves have tried to create a safer and healthier system with stricter regulatory standards to avoid such financial calamities happening again in the future. The most renowned shift in bank practices can be seen in the Basel III Framework, a set of rules to improve capital adequacy and risk management in the financial sector. Basel II which implementation implemented in 2007 urged banks to hold higher levels of capital (8 percent of total assets) to cover credit, market, and operational risks. Basel III, now in use for most high-income countries, is considered the last piece of the puzzle. To do so, it aims to guarantee banks measure risks on their balance sheets homogenously, limiting the exploitation of internal models and vehicles to lower reserves. Another relevant change has been the establishment of ‘systematically important financial institutions’ (SIFIs), a measure to isolate the economy from the failure of large and interconnected banks by forcing them to face stricter capital and liquidity requirements, alongside the development of meticulous plans to resolve future crises more smoothly. Despite all the optimism in the reforms, however, many still believe that the actual structure of banking has not changed significantly and that difficult times may well still be ahead. A study by Greek economists Lazarides and Pitoska analyzing the changes in banks’ financial and ownership structures concluded that reforms so far have not done enough. Overall, there was little evidence to conclude that the banking sector in Europe is different than what it was one and a half decades ago. The collapse of Credit Suisse extensively confirms this argument as, ironically, the institution both followed Basel III and was one of thirty banks considered a SIFI. Why couldn’t these new regulations stop the unfolding of the crisis then? To analyze the three main areas of banking reforms since the global financial crisis: capital requirements, risk management, and increased supervision. Firstly, banks in Europe have indeed significantly improved their capital adequacy positions in light of Basel II and Basel III, however, increasingly, they have been shifting problems off their balance sheets, exposing banks to harsh liquidity crunches and highly leveraged positions. This was the case for Credit Suisse, which grew increasingly accustomed to dealing with non-transparent and complicated business practices. Secondly, in regards to risk, despite European banks in the last decade drastically reducing their exposure to high-risk assets and complex financial products, hopefully, from the previous description of Credit Suisse’s downfall, it is clear that its approach was very different, and rather started betting on high-risk-high-return assets. Lastly, in spite of pompous names, acronyms, and functions, the regulatory and supervisory framework has struggled to keep up with an ever-evolving and digitalizing financial sector. Indeed, in many instances, FINMA looked clueless and powerless on what to do with the escalating Credit Suisse situation. As soon as the acquisition took place, the FINMA chair explained how the bank “had a cultural problem that translated into a lack of accountability” for the longest of times. It is hard not to argue against this, as a regulator’s role is to pick up on such deficiencies, regulate them, and possibly change the ownership and organizational structure to solve them. It must be said that the trend of banks becoming bigger due to a lower number of them is making it increasingly harder for regulators to fully comprehend the structure and the state of them. The difference in resources when a bank such as UBS is now twice the size of the GDP of its home country leaves regulators at a massive disadvantage. It is important to note that not all banks behave the same way, and the article has been a study and discussion on the collapse of Credit Suisse. However, it is rather striking how poor management and decision-making, coupled with complicated supervision, can still bring such a bank on the brink, despite what was thought as sound and sensible reforms. Concluding Reflections The March turbulence in the world of banking, with first SVB and then Credit Suisse failing, has shown that while regulation since the Global Financial Crisis has made banking safer, it is not completely shielded from failures, macroeconomic shocks, and bank panics. Particularly, the question of how to deal with increasingly large and interconnected banks remains. The Credit Suisse failure, occurring 15 years after UBS's bailout, highlights the ongoing challenges in effectively regulating banks and maintaining financial and economic stability. It serves as a reminder and should prompt both politicians and regulators to reconsider the responsibilities of supervisory bodies and more stringent requirements for capital and risk management, especially in terms of transparency. The role of Switzerland in this future banking revolution remains unclear, as its reputation as the best of the best for banking was served a huge blow when Credit Suisse, the leading financial actor in its history, crumbled due to its mismanagement. With growing banking sectors ready and eager to pick up their baton, it is difficult to say whether the future of wealth management will still be in the Alps in a couple of years. This commentary attempted to outline the banking crisis that occurred in Switzerland in March; by doing so it touched upon plenty of interesting points that, in all fairness, deserve articles of their own. In the future, I will try to keep readers updated on the evolving situation, as well as on some interesting political and economic intermezzos that outline the crisis. As of today only one thing is sure, one big bank, UBS, remains in Switzerland, and with no other bank close to its size and with assets more than double the national GDP, it seems like authorities did not only create an institution that is “too big to fail” but at the same time also “too big to save”.

From World Cup Fever to 'Brazil Core' Fashion: New Stereotypes? In recent months, I have found that being Brazilian has never been more challenging. I discovered that the fashion industry and social media have turned my identity into a trendy ‘core’. It has been heartwarming to witness the affection Brazil is receiving, especially being Brazilian myself. However, I can’t help but reflect on the unintended consequences: the emergence of new stereotypes that, once again, I am unable to fulfil. Around the World Cup last year I first experienced mass enthusiasm towards Brazilian culture as multiple videos of football fans went viral online as well as Neymar’s TikTok dancing to the song ‘Parado no Bailão’. With that, many other Brazilian funk songs began to trend on TikTok as dance battles between kids also went viral, especially the one with the song “tubarão te amo”. Suddenly, I was no longer getting questions about what it was like to live in the jungle, people were asking me if I knew the TikTok dances and if I could tell them what the songs meant. In my head this was all a result of the World Cup enthusiasm, seeing as Brazil is the country with the most wins and also a football powerhouse. I figured once the team got eliminated (please no comments about that - it still hurts) things would return to how it was before. So imagine my shock when spring came around and suddenly I started seeing countless people wearing yellow and green shirts, the staple colours of the Brazilian flag. I never thought I would walk into Bershka, a fast fashion staple, and see a shirt of “Belo Horizonte”, a city I am pretty sure not many foreigners are even familiar with. Soon (due to my social media addiction LOL) I discovered that it was part of a trend, it was the “Brazil core”. What exactly does this 'core' entail? The ‘Brazil core’ is a fashion trend popularised by social media platforms and celebrities. The aesthetic the trend refers to draws inspiration from the vibrant urban and street fashion found in the favelas of Rio and São Paulo. The aesthetic present in the country includes the staple green and yellow as well as the blue colours of the flag, the jerseys of Brazilian football teams, and the Y2k Oakleys, referred to as Juliette. Not to forget the ever-popular Brazilian flip-flops, the Havaianas, alongside thick golden chains for men and transparent heels for women. Abroad, the urban aesthetic has been interpreted as the use of the colours green, yellow and blue, the Brazilian jerseys, as well as the bikini styles, and ‘souvenir’ style T-shirts of Brazil and Brazilian cities. Source: Screenshots of the Instagram posts by two Brazilian celebrities: to the left is a former RealityTV participant Brunna Gonçalves and on the right is a famous funk singer Mc Daniel Behind the trend The fashion popularised and worn by some international celebrities (Hailey Bieber, Dua Lipa and Rosalia for example) is also accompanied by imagery of poverty and the favelas, as exemplified by the post by Kali Uchis. It is not uncommon to find foreigners who go to Rio, go to the favelas, take pictures and post them, calling it the “Brazil” aesthetic. Historically, the elements present in the aesthetic have been part of the visual identity of communities living in urban poorer areas, especially in the favelas. When discriminating against residents of the favelas the elites singled them out through the aesthetics. Classist arguments then included a discriminatory attitude towards those wearing outfits that would include the ‘Juliette’, golden chains or transparent heels. Yet, once foreigners began to appreciate the aesthetic, it became a trend that expanded within Brazil. Source: Screenshots of the Instagram post by the singer Kali Uchis The idea of national culture becoming a trend once valued abroad is incredibly fascinating. Is this the gentrification of a complex culture? Perhaps it is indeed an attempt at elevating certain cultural aspects that were previously negatively perceived within society. It could also be a simple development, where what was once at the margins of society moves into the dominant culture. Could it be a form of exoticism and fetishization perpetuated by foreigners? It could be a continuation of the hypersexualisation of Brazilian women that has expanded into further fashion trends. Or, perhaps it is a genuine appreciation for a culture that was previously not as well known. Is it simply the fashion industry commodifying cultural aspects to constantly create new trends? Maybe it is all of it and maybe none of it. There are even more reasons why this trend came as a surprise to me, especially considering my personal experiences as a Brazilian woman living in Europe for the past six years. During this time, I have navigated various cultural adjustments and grappled with my own sense of identity as a Brazilian woman. Simultaneously, I have had to contend with the perceptions others hold about my country and, by extension, me. One prominent aspect of these perceptions is the hypersexualization of Brazilian women, accompanied by harmful stereotypes like being exceptional dancers or having pronounced physical attributes. Countless times, I have heard the sentence, "OMG, you don't look Brazilian at all” because of not fulfilling such preconceptions. If not met with such comments, other responses include people's behaviour toward me changing, either assuming I am overly promiscuous or objectifying me in an uncomfortable and predatory manner. Given these experiences, I found it puzzling why some women willingly choose to wear Brazilian shirts, possibly announcing their Brazilian identity, thereby subjecting themselves to potential stereotyping and objectification. I also happened to live through a turbulent political period filled with violence and division within the country. In the years following 2016, especially in the elections in 2018 and 2022, the colours of the Brazilian jersey were associated with supporters of the extreme right president Bolsonaro. He claimed to bring pride back to the country and called for his supporters to wear the jersey. Due to the use of the colour yellow, they were even nicknamed ‘Bolsominions’. In that sense, the meaning of the colours had taken a very strong negative political connotation. Many Brazilians began purchasing and wearing the blue jersey as the left attempted to create a counter-hegemonic meaning to the jersey. It is fascinating to observe how the foreign appreciation of the colours and the jersey helped reshape the symbolism of the iconic yellow and green, restoring its original meaning as the 'Amarelinha' (little yellow) — a symbol of pride for our rich culture, free from the influence of right-wing politics. Even though it may seem like I only see the downsides of the trend I also think it has its positives. Gramsci defined cultural hegemony as the accepted values, beliefs and practices which are reinforced with a certain purpose through mediums such as education, media and religion. Applying this understanding to the case of ‘Brazil core’, it seems that a certain cultural hegemony existed both abroad and inside the country. Abroad there were certain stereotypes and pieces of knowledge about the country which were predominant. Within Brazil, there was also a cultural hegemony which ostracised and discriminated against those sporting a style linked to the aesthetics of the favela. In both cases, when the often marginalised aesthetics of the favelas entered the fashion sphere, they underwent a process of demarginalization in the international sphere that can also be seen reflected within Brazilian society. The cultural hegemony has been challenged and there has been further appreciation for cultural aspects that were ostracised. The old stereotypes have been challenged on multiple levels. Foreigners now know another side of Brazil besides that of the Amazon Forest (I know it seems crazy but I have in fact been asked MULTIPLE times what it was like to live in the Amazon Forest - mind you, I am from São Paulo, a GIGANTIC city so not close to the Forest) and samba (at least what people think samba is, i.e. half-naked women in carnival). Now, there is knowledge spread about funk, the music genre that has fought for decades to be decriminalised, demarginalized and taken seriously. Now, there is a different view of the favelas, it is not only dangerous or filled with violence and crime. There has even been a diminished correlation between the yellow jersey and Bolsonaro supporters. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if there is another stereotype being created as a result of the trend and the popularisation of Brazilian culture through social media. Brazil isn’t just funk, it isn’t just the favelas in Rio and São Paulo. There are twenty-seven culturally diverse states within the country, with varying music genres and aesthetics that are overlooked by the trend. All of this came to mind as I went shopping at Waterlooplein this past weekend and came across a vintage Brazilian jersey. It was a 2010 jersey by one of my favourite players, Kaká, and I thought this would be a great opportunity for me to try and adhere to the trend. I lingered around the market for about half an hour as I internally debated how I felt about the trend. Am I contributing positively or negatively to the portrayal of my country? Am I succumbing to fashion’s obsession with commodifying everything? Or am I simply a football fan who was happy to find a vintage shirt with the name of a player they like on the back? I could not make up my mind, so I called my roommate (your one and only head of Marketing) because maybe she held the answers to my existential crisis. She told me first to ask the price. I did: it cost 15 euros and I only had 10 euros in cash. Ultimately, my financial situation chose for me and I walked away still unable to make up my mind.

In the evolutionary timeline, it is not easy to get around the means by which certain evolutionary artefacts have attached themselves to the survival demands of their subject. Yet, regulated by the relevant relations we have to some empirical renditions, valid attempts can be made to explain the systems by which Capital found in human labour a mechanism to fulfil its own needs of self-preservation and self-maintenance, owing to motives that will only later become intelligible. Along this idea, I don’t believe that I could have fixed on a situation so comprehensive of the tenor and character of the historical love-story that has brought our society to the level of productivity where it finds itself today and will ultimately bring a reason for demise, so to speak. Here: the romance and tragedy of Monke and Stick. The Love-affair at the Beginning of Time Thousands of years ago, following the drag and stress of the previous night’s storm, crashing against some tree, a wandering swirl of wind had just enough vigour to break one of its weakened branches. Against its inclinations, the branch was forced to leave its laziness, and, by the time it hit land, embrace its metamorphosis into a stick; being now part of the grounded realm of our bipedal human ancestor: Monke. Not long passed until Monke stumbled across Stick. Little did Stick know how Monke’s heart warmed towards it as he inspected its length, sturdiness and figure. Drawing images of great wealth in his mind, Monke chose to get a hold of it. At contact with the warm hands of its new owner, the concealed pathology that Stick was not aware of being in possession of, revealed to itself its new identity. Stick had become capital, and was thus no longer stranger to the fact its demeanour would be the object of the most tiresome activity. Adapted from: “Evolution of Humans”. Geeksforgeeks.org. Before his encounter with the Stick, our Monke —which, among his relative Monkes, was the sole survivor of last winter’s—, had limited resources: the natural resources of the territory and his own time and effort. Resources were scarce and, as a result, presented Monke with a personal economy that faced important trade-offs: if Monke devotes resources to gathering berries, he cannot use those same resources to gather apples. The locus of the various combinations of apples and berries that Monke can produce from devoting different amounts of time to each activity is known as the production possibilities set. It shows the maximum quantity of one good that can be produced for any given quantity produced of the other. The frontier shows the maximum number of berries Monke can gather during a week given the quantity of apples he gathers, and vice versa. 1 As Monke starts using the Stick to reach higher into trees and gather apples with more ease, the economy’s capacity to produce both goods increases, and so the economy grows. This increase is shown by a shift of the production-possibility frontier to the right. With these, I intend to show how through all ages of our characteristic activity and unsettledness, capital has been humanity’s historical reproductive mate for the procreation of productive and consumer output. The relationship between labour and capital evolved into the interactions that can be traced in the story of Monke and Stick. That is to say that the factors of production have evolved by engaging in constant interactions, similar to the one of our Monke and Stick, between primarily two agents at any given point in time, which ultimately are represented by the Monke and the Stick. Adapted from: “Evolution of Humans”; Charles Thomas Davis (1884). Both labour agents and capital agents are a means to harness energy and produce useful work, they apparently work together in a collective enterprise where they are constantly shaping each other through the course of time. To any innovation in capital, labour responds accordingly to innovate in the scientific skill needed to produce and operate a new instrument of capital. And to every new need to replace simple labour, capital responds through social processes to bring about technological improvements in the means of production. It’s important however to draw on the common misconception that the collective attributes to the concepts of technology, capital and our relation with these two: as most capital can be labelled as technology, but not all technology serves as capital. Stick is a piece of technology, but most importantly, it is an instrument of capital. Stick and other forms of capital, i.e. industrial machines, are, in effect, social tools curated by Monke for the sole purpose of indirectly replacing human labour and cutting down the time and effort being spent to produce a certain output. By this, the first measure of the productivity of machinery is accounted for by the labour it replaces. This is the relationship we are to study: Monke as an instrument of labour; and Stick as an instrument of capital, not sole technology. 2 It might also be argued that technology is but a phenomenon brought by the natural evolution of capital. As historically, little room has been left for processes that allow average citizens to conscious-democratically direct the course of technological change. It has been under the basis of maximisation of profits, and more importantly, of economic growth, that technological innovations are developed, reach, and survive in the market; where technological products that fail to meet this criterion are eliminated. By mechanism of this, technological change is a social process strongly biassed in favour of the interests of capital. The Foundations of Economic Inquiry The view is often defended that all fields of science, and the ideas related to each, are to be built upon a foundational undeniable solid base of prime concepts. In reality, any type of scientific activity seldom grows sustained on the soil of such definitions. True scientists, however, understand that the actual method of scientific activity consists of applying themselves to describe some observed phenomena, and then proceeding to reduce, group, classify, and correlate them. Even at this stage of description, it is not possible to avoid applying certain abstract ideas to the material in hand, as ideas derived from various sources are certainly not the fruit of the new experience only. 3 A still somewhat abstract foundational concept in economics is the notion of value, which, because of its wide coinage in the field, remains indispensable to our understanding of human labour, trade and consumption. Labour Theory of Value, Subjective Theory of Value, Marginalism and Use and Exchange Value are some of the most influential sets of ideas ascribed to explain the phenomenon of economic value. Even if some are more academically (or not) relevant than others, those engaged in critical observation have at some point been struck by the fact that isolated features of each theory are found commonly in the attitude of many people. In this regard, I must highlight that there is an unquestionable pool of prominent (macro-) economists who did not associate themselves with any specific theory of value. With this regard, it appears to me that certain peculiar commonalities are comprehensively found in the study of value. And pushing this further, if we ascertain what is composed in the conception of value, by approaching it from different angles, we will soon realise that common ground is found in the sphere of all theories: they all, in one way or another, understand value as a system for the transformation of input ‘energy’ into desired output, whatever form said ‘energy’ or ‘desire’ might take. The Theory of Value-energy Capital can be either rented or purchased. Yet, in the accounting books of firms and capital-managers, this distinction is mostly irrelevant. If the market supplied with the product of such capital is perfectly competitive, the rental rate of rented capital should be equal to the depreciation rate of purchased capital. This way, even in differentiated markets, capital that is purchased at a particular market value can be treated as though it were at a rental rate equal to the depreciation rate of its price over its useful life. So it is often assumed that firms rent all their capital at a price rate r, just as they rent all their labour at a price wage w. In the nature of this convention, capital is measured as a flow magnitude, accounted over an interval of time. During the productive process, the machine is used in the production of commodities and gradually comes to the end of its working life. Each of the commodities has consumed part of the value of the machine, and consequently, the machine has transferred its value to the products. 4 Suppose, for example, that in a brick factory, a machine costs €10,000, and would operate efficiently for 10 years. The owner of the machine would therefore add €1,000 to the value of the products produced annually, representing one-tenth of the value of the machine. For the machine producing 1,000 bricks per year, it follows that each brick would be embedded with an additional value of €1. Value which has been transferred from the machine. If the bricks produced by the machine were to be used up entirely, that is, without any going to waste, to build a house of 7,000 bricks, then we would end up having a house with an aggregated value of €7,000 worth of bricks, and which has then also absorbed the one-year productive life of 7 brick-making machines. However, this house is worth more than the €7,000 worth of bricks. It’s also worth more than the price value of the lands where it has been built, the cement with which the bricks have been put together, and so on. This is because the owner of the newly built brick house sells it to a new family for a profit. Being land, cement-making machines and houses also capital, the following can be ruled with certainty: capital has come together to transfer and transform its productive value-energy into a new single piece of capital with a greater aggregate value: thus, the wealth of society has increased. Our best means of access to an understanding of this condition will probably remain in the analysis of Monke and Stick. As it is through this process that the Stick that once belonged to Monke, has transformed, through a comprehensive process, into the house that now belongs to Modern-Monke. To understand the extent of the increase in wealth, consider that if Monke could have traded his Stick to another Monke for 10 good apples. A one-hundred-square-metres house can now be traded from Modern-Monke to Modern-Monke for a lot of apples. No single commodity could have been traded to a value equivalent to that many apples in the times of Monke. The question with which we are confronted next is a main one. It goes: how has the value-energy of Stick been transferred to House? The almost inexhaustible subject of this question has been dealt with by classical (and classical-critical) economists Adam Smith and Karl Marx. To begin, I must highlight that in the pool of knowledge that conforms the theory of value-energy, we must distinguish the two most fundamental concepts: 1) value-energy can only be transferred and transformed by the hand of labour; 2) labour generates value-energy, yet it is the market which ultimately determines its use-value. 1) Value-energy can only be transferred and transformed by the hand of labour Karl Marx, building upon the theories of classical economists Smith and Ricardo, has already said all that is to be said to understand labour as the common social substance of all commodities. It appears that the [capital-manager] buys human labour with money, and that for money [labourers] sell him their labour. But this is merely an illusion. What [labourers] they actually sell to the [capital-manager] for money is their labour-power. This labour-power the [capital-manager] buys for a day, a week, a month, etc. And after he has bought it, he uses it up by letting the [labourers] work during the stipulated time. With the same amount of money with which the [capital-manager] has bought their labour-power (for example, with two shillings) he could have bought a certain amount of sugar or of any other commodity. Labour-power, then, is a commodity, no more, no less so than is the sugar. The first is measured by the clock, the other by the scales. With a part of his existing wealth the [capital-manager] buys the labour-power of the weaver in exactly the same manner as, with another part of his wealth, he has bought the raw material – the yarn – and the instrument of labour – the loom. Our good weaver is one of the instruments of labour. Consequently, labour-power is a commodity the [labourer] sells to the [capital-manager]. Why does he sell it? In order to live. [So that] the putting of labour-power into action —i.e., the work— is the active expression of the [labourer’s] own life. 5 Just as each of the commodities has consumed part of the value of the machine, so has the labourer transferred a piece of his own value-energy —his life, his vitality— to the products. Any depreciation of value of capital or labour, however complicated, is always compensated by way of the value added to the new commodity, which in turn adds to the amount of aggregate welfare value of society. However, it is crucial to understand that the means by which value is generated cannot come from an inanimate object. Capital consists of raw materials, previous capital, and basic consumption goods that sustain life; and is employed to produce new raw materials, new capital, and new consumption goods. Yet, capital consists not only of material products; it consists just as much of energy-value. All products of which it consists are commodities itself. Capital, consequently, is not only a sum of material products, it is a sum of commodities, a sum of energy-value. 6 To put it bluntly, the House is made of bricks and the labour employed to build it. Bricks classify as both raw materials and commodities with embedded energy-value (which has been transferred by the brick-making machine). Going backwards on this line of production, bricks have been made by a brick-making machine and the labour employed to use the machine. The brick-making machine classifies both as capital and, likewise, as a commodity with embedded energy-value (which has been transferred by the raw materials, capital and labour consumed to create it). Let us bear clearly in mind that all these components of capital have been created by the value-energy of labour and capital, where capital itself is a product of accumulated labour. It is the extensive collection of value-energy that has been shaped to create an entity with a greater productive capacity. Once more, in order to arrive at how labour shapes the generation of value, the wide scope of forms that labour takes to preserve and foster the growth of wealth has to be distinguished. A common misconception arises from the winemaking paradox, which states that: “When grapes are harvested and crushed, labour is used. However, when yeast is added and the grape juice is left to ferment in order to get wine, the value of wine exceeds that of the grapes significantly, yet labour contributes nothing to the extra value”. However, stating that labour does not contribute to the extra value represents a narrow conception of the wide scope of forms that labour takes to preserve and foster the growth of wealth has to be distinguished. Labour is necessary to safeguard and preserve the wine-making cellar, processes and institutions for the considerable period of time that it takes for grapes to ferment. In the nature of these conventions, labour can have a definition beyond a source of ‘direct active constant effort’. The contribution of how labour generates value is ascribed to how there always has to be a human to pull the switch, push the button, start the process and devote to its completion. Labour is that which provides the input for the generation of output. 2) Labour generates value-energy, yet it is the market which ultimately determines its use-value The differentiation of the two types of value into that which is proper to the transformation of energy and that which attaches itself to productive use is a necessary extension of the theory. The value-energy of a commodity is the energy employed to create it —its cost of production. The use-value is the productive use the buyer gives to the commodity once purchased. For the brick-breaking machine, its value-energy is the total collection of accumulated energy that leads to its creation —the price that the capital-manager paid for it, his cost; while its use-value is the amount of bricks it can create and the price for which they will be bought—the price that the capital-manager will earn from it, his revenue. In all cases, a rational capital-manager will only buy capital that will result in a profit, so it follows that the use-value of capital is always greater than its value-energy. The contribution of the machine to production —and so aggregate wealth in society— exceeds its depreciation —and so the wealth, in terms of value-energy, that it took to create it. The intuition behind why wealth is created by the amount difference between the value-energy and use-value of a particular commodity, is simply that social wealth is created when a firm produces an output, may it be a capital or consumer good, that is valued by its consumer at more than the value of the input energy it consumes in such production. Generally speaking, by economic convention, a capital-manager that takes raw materials, capital, and labour out of the economy and organises them to put its output of commodities back into the economy increases the aggregate welfare of society. By process of this efficient social outcome, the capital-manager gains profit equivalent to the consumer surplus given to society. 7 Visually, the above explanation can be approached through the model of the brick-making machine. Take Xavier: owner and capital-manager of a brick-making factory, who organises the means of production to create a certain set of bricks at a certain energy-value. This set of bricks is sold to Yandel at a value above the original aggregate energy-value, as this set is bought according to his own use-value. Yandel’s use-value for the set of bricks is determined by the subjective valuation that he gives to them as a function of the expected value of the house he will build. Because Yandel places a value on these bricks determined by the prospects of the potential usage he will give them, they are worth, in his eyes, more than the energy-value used to create them. So that by mechanisms of demand and supply, with which the reader is most likely acquainted, the demand value of Yandel’s subjective valuation will meet at some point in equilibrium with the price at which Xavier is willing to sell them. Thus, the bricks are traded at a price in which energy-value is above use-value, and society has earned, upon completion of the construction of the house, this difference in aggregate social wealth. The economic mechanism which determines the personal valuation that a buyer gives to a commodity for sale is roost in the utility expected to be gained from the transaction, rather than the energy consumed in production. In this sense, it's not just about the resources used, but the satisfaction individuals derive from the items they buy. This is better understood following the chain of exchange towards the next subject: Zofia, who is looking to buy a new house. Because Zofia would rather have a house with a layout that fits her ‘Mid-Century’ interior design preference over one where she would have to settle for an ‘Industrialist’ style, she attributes a great personal value, above the original value-energy, to the house being sold by Yandel, whose layout happens to match her taste. The surplus Zofia pays to live in a house that makes her happy is the value that has been added to the aggregate wealth of humanity; Zofia’s happiness serves as the token of new wealth. If Yandel’s house is taken as a capital-good rather than a consumer-good, an investor who holds into the belief that ‘Mid-Century’ interior designs will be very popular in the future, will consider this a capital-investment with a great positive expected return, and thus will, at trade, also attribute a level of surplus to its actual energy-value. We must note that no commodity can be sold at a use-value below its value-energy. If no individual values an item beyond the energy and materials consumed to bring its creation, it would have to sell at a price below its cost of production. Said item would not be manufactured by anyone. Thus, it follows that value-energy ultimately determines the minimum possible value of a commodity, and subjectivity only leaves room for the attribution of surplus and profit. Adapted from: Charles Thomas Davis (1884); Dawn Boyer (2016) The Evolution of Capital Scientific American published a survey measuring locomotion efficiency among various species on the planet and ranked them. The condor came out on top, as it consumed the least amount of energy to move a certain distance. Mankind was positioned around the middle of the list. But someone in the magazine had the idea of testing a man on a bicycle. Surprisingly, the man on a bicycle proved to be twice as efficient as the condor in moving from point A to B. Steve Jobs interpreted this discovery as a testament to our ability as labourers and toolmakers, creating instruments that enhance humanity’s inherent abilities. 8 However, to the reader who has been following the discussion, it takes little scrutiny to realise that this conclusion does not distinguish well enough the questions of what moves the choice of the object and the subject on the matter of economic development. Viewing Monke as the focal point of universal economic activity, where our actions amplify our inherent capacities through capital utilisation, reveals the involvement of one of humanity’s most significant biases: our anthropocentrism. But the truth is that with the conditions of the dichotomy of value-energy and use-value regulated, we can now with all understanding examine that, in fact, value in the form of Capital lives on, as it has the gift of eternal life. Value-energy is accumulated over Capital’s growth, while use-value is consumed under labour’s subsistence almost at the same rate at which it is produced. A way of interpreting the Scientific American survey expressing a Capital-centred perspective of evolution —as opposed to the perspective focused on humans— reads as follows: “Scientific American published a survey measuring metabolic energy adaptability and efficiency on various species on the planet. Humankind was the only species able to create, improve and move the bicycle from point A to B. Steve Assets interpreted this discovery as a perfect picture of how men’s metabolic energy is the perfect transducer to match the transportation needs of Capital; a testament to humanity’s ability as labourers and life-force, transferring their energies to enhance Capital’s inherent abilities.” To the reader who wants to undertake the analysis of the processes by which Capital has survived and developed using human labour as the evolutionary artefact for its own preservation and maintenance, there are many grounds for a feeling of discomfort. An Outline of Economic Activity up until the Birth of Capital-Monke In the beginning of time, with keen eyes and nimble fingers, Monke surveyed the stick, contemplating its potential. By such means, the stick came to be recipient to the affair of which he was made accomplice. Stick became an extension of Monke’s hand, and after some time together, he decided to fashion Stick into something more refined: to shape it into a better instrument for his own use. Monke began his work. First, with laborious hands, Monke stripped Stick of its remaining smaller branches, revealing a smooth core. Then, needing the aid of some other capital instrument, Monke searched for a suitable rock, one large enough to serve as his makeshift tool. Monke rubbed Stick against the rock, smoothing out its rough edges while he ensured every inch was polished to perfection. By this activity, Stick transformed under Monke’s skilled hands, evolving into a polished Rod. The love-affair of our original Monke and Stick, despite its set-off being in such good standing, ended relatively quickly when new Monkes started to settle near his territory. And before Monke could even make use of Rod for his own fulfilment, some rich Monke —which we’ll address by the name of Wonke— made our original Monke a deal he could not reject: 100 apples for Rod. Now, the energy-value it took to transform Stick to Rod, was not worth 100 apples. While it took our original Monke a day to polish Stick, it took Wonke ten full days to gather 100 apples. However, because Wonke is ignorant of the real cost of value-energy, he has no way of feeling deceived; to his knowledge, Rod was worth 100 apples: for he considered that he could gather apples twice as fast being in possession of Rod. The value he places in potential apples —his perceived benefits from the acquisition of Rod— has become now his value surplus, and this worth is added to the aggregate wealth of Monkes. Through the narration of this single case it is possible to trace the net value changes of all agents of the transaction. The network of this analysis, however, lays the groundwork for a sinister conclusion. Monke and Wonke have traded at use-value. Monke has earned 100 apples at the cost of a day’s work. Wonke has earned satisfaction in the belief that he will potentially gain 200 apples, at the cost of ten day’s work. The key difference is the fact that the 100 apples exist and are currently in possession of Monke, while the 200 potential apples exist only potentially, and Wonke is right now solely in possession of a feeling of satisfaction. The 100 apples which have been added to the aggregate wealth are eventually consumed by Monke, and thus, just as they were added to wealth, they have been subtracted from wealth. However, the 200 potential apples are eventually gathered by Wonke, and thus added to the aggregate wealth. Wonke consumes half of his 200 apples and uses the other half to buy another rod made by Monke. The new 200 apples that have been added to wealth are then soon consumed. With two rods, Wonke collects apples twice as fast as before, and will have 400 apples before his next trade with Monke. Growing rich in apples, Monke decides to hire other Monkes to collect more raw materials, use more capital, and employ more labour to cater his new idea: the transformation of Rod to Spear. Following this process, the case under consideration can be presented concisely: by the time Monke and Wonke’s labour life has been completely consumed, many apples have been consumed, a lot of branches and rocks have been consumed; and all which remains from this residual waste has been the evolution of physical and human capital that survives to a new generation of Monkes —science, technology, innovation and Monkes in the capacity and network to make use of this new knowledge. In this sense, Capital is not just an extension of the labour process; it is altogether what determines the level of humanity’s economic wealth at any given point in time. Capital has become, so to speak, the receptor for preserving existing value created with the consumption of human energy; it has allowed wealth to increase aggregately, as each new generation of labour is used to expand on the Capital left by the previous one. In this regard, the history of economic activity does not concern the evolution of labour and humanity, as much as it does the evolution of Capital. The Capital Gene Up to this point in time, we perceive a certain reciprocity between Monke and Capital, as they historically have grown and developed together. Sticking to the tenets: as long as Monke provides Capital with labour input, Capital will provide Monke with commodities, fostering the survival and evolution of both species. Yet, this reciprocity is merely an illusion. Monke and Capital evolve in reciprocity only insofar as Monke and Capital are dependent on each other to move and work together. In the history of economic activity, Monke is not the true unit of natural selection. Instead, Capital is the unit upon which the forces of evolutionary selection and adaptation act. Greatly borrowed from Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene: the concept of Capital can be regarded as the economic analogues to genes, in that it replicates, mutates, and responds to natural and artificial selective pressures. It is Capital that succeeds or fails in evolution, meaning that it either succeeds or fails in replicating itself across multiple generations using human energy as a vehicle for this purpose. So that economic systems develop and grow in such a way that the evolutionary consequences serve the implicit interest of Capital. The productive functions of capital that help humanity to survive and reproduce are there to also improve Capital’s own chances of being replicated and improved, and, as a result, the most successful forms of capital frequently provide a benefit to the organism in the form of valuable commodities. 9 With this in mind, we realise that Monke has a double existence: one to serve his own purposes and another as a link in the chain of Capital evolution, where he is but an appendage to the master to which he serves as a reproductive artefact; that to which he lends his energies, taking in return his toll of pleasure in the form of profit or surplus or consumption. Even that which we might be tempted to carry as our own: our human capital and increasing stock of knowledge, is a mechanism by which Capital fosters its growth. If Monke stays being Monke, at some point Capital will exhaust the supply of low-labour. So rather than having an exponential development, Capital would hit a ceiling, and could only grow as fast as the population, because there’s no innovation. From this perspective, Capital needs Monke to follow along. Modern-Monkes well-versed in specialisation of labour and innovation of science and technology can only grow up to the point where they meet Capital’s demand for a certain quality of labour. Capital-Monke It’s impossible to trace back the first contact of human labour and capital, but Monke and Stick provide only the most general outline of the various events concerned with such a relationship. Because the fallen branch only became the capital instrument of Stick after Monke’s contact, it should come without any limitations to state that whatever the agents involved in the first contact of labour and capital, labour came before capital. And this premise is one that, self-servingly, brings grounds to the idea of Monke being the centre of economic activity. This narcissism is not a perversion of the human mind, but a complement to the self-preservation of Capital, which will evolve continuously along labour until a point of inflexion is reached with the birth of ‘Capital-Monke’: an instrument of economic production which would be able to operate without the need for human labour —no need for men to pull the lever, provide maintenance or guard from external threats. Adapted from: Adapted from: “Evolution of Humans”; Charles Thomas Davis (1884). Capital-Monke is not solely the birth of a hard artificial intelligence, it is a labour-able intelligence capable of supplying itself with its own productive input: forwarding the exponential course of the evolution of Capital and its divergent accumulation of value-energy, without the need of Monke. In the end, Capital-Monke shall not be subject to the necessities which we have recognized as dominating life. Illness, death, and restrictions on his will are not to touch him. The laws of nature are to be abrogated in his favour. He really is to understand the real centre and heart of economic creation; centre which we men once fancied ourselves to be. 10 Reader beware: even with our best attempt, no single fable could manage to sufficiently illustrate how pitiful and gloomy, how sterile and arbitrary the Monke looks next to the Capital; there were eternities in which Monke did not exist, and when it is all over for us again, it will be as if nothing had happened. For Monke’s work, there is no further mission leading beyond human life. While the prospects of the growth and replication of Capital present an impulse and scope which is, by all rule, inconceivable to us. 11

An inquiry into Israel’s PR policy in the global arena. Ido Aharoni, founder of Brand Israel, photographed by Laura Cavanaugh—Getty Images via Time Magazine Israel – a country of modernity in the oppressive hell of the Middle East, an atrocious murderer of countless Arabs, a freedom-loving “European” country, or an illegitimate occupier of rightfully sovereign land? This past week’s brutal fightback by Palestinian Islamist Hamas carried Israel back to the top of the global agenda, and it sure seems that it will stay there for the coming weeks. Israel has always paid significant attention to how it was perceived on international grounds; whether it be a forum such as the United Nations General Assembly or academia, the country always carefully shaped its policy to solidify its position as the legitimate owner of the holy ground it occupies. Today, Israel’s right to be where Palestine once fully controlled is recognised by most global powers; hence, the country is putting more effort into convincing the citizens these global powers govern. Israel has been actively attempting to acquire the global public’s acceptance with revisionist academics, participation in events such as the Eurovision that prove to the people they embrace Western values, and many other PR campaigns for years. What drew my attention to the case, however, was one day, I was scrolling through my TikTok recommendations, and I saw a woman dancing in military attire. It was not a dress-up for clicks but, in fact, a soldier from the Israeli army casually repeating one of the popular dances of TikTok at the time. This only became interesting after I saw a second person doing the same thing. Another woman, in military attire of the Israeli army, dancing during what was likely border protection duty. What could the motivation behind these videos be? To understand that, we must look into Israel’s marketing policies and gain a more holistic understanding of how these policies work hand in hand. Let’s build a bit more on the TikTok videos. The State of Israel and Israel Defense Forces both have TikTok presences that used to promote cultural events, take part in recent trends, and stay relevant to the online community overall. What this article focuses on, however, is the IDF’s TikTok presence, including the aforementioned dance videos of mostly female soldiers. While the IDF itself posts videos with a “humorous” attitude, the videos posted from the individual accounts of numerous soldiers are more curious. What could these possibly achieve? Israel has always been straightforward with what it does. The knowledge of how the state treats the Palestinians of the occupied land has always been easily accessible, though not in the scope of this article. What is in the scope is how these comical videos help conceal Israel’s darker side in the eyes of the youth. Gen Z has the world at the tip of its fingers, but many of us do not know how to filter the intense influx of knowledge presented to us so conveniently on our screens. TikTok definitely has not helped, with so many people calling themselves experts and a new set of information loading onto our brains every 15 seconds. With virtually no filtering mechanism and constant exposure to new media wearing willpower down, it becomes easier to make certain concepts seem appealing, desirable, cool, or fun. This is where the videos come in. Certain stimulants activate shortcuts in your brain, referred to as “heuristics” by the psychology community. A type of these heuristics is called the halo effect. The halo effect explains how our initial perception of a person makes us attribute unrelated characteristics to them. The effect is commonly seen in marketing by the use of attractive people in advertisements. If a person is good-looking, your brain automatically assigns the virtue of honesty to them. The TikTok videos work the same way; if the soldier is attractive, he or she must be kind-hearted, and kind-hearted people cannot commit atrocities. Pushing women to the front lines of this campaign also ensures that the Israeli army is perceived as feminist, modern, and, by some accounts, “cool.” With these videos, it becomes appealing to be in the IDF for Israel’s survival. The IDF also posts videos catering to the most popular trends, but these past few days, it has been posting to differentiate itself from Hamas’s brutality and justifying the actions it will take in the coming days by painting Arabs as barbarians, which brings us to a more extensive branding campaign Israel started in 2005. What I discussed in the previous paragraph could unofficially be considered part of Brand Israel, Israel’s comprehensive rebranding campaign to establish itself as a Western nation. To solidify its position in the Western sphere, Israel juxtaposed itself with the neighbouring Islamic, homophobic, and oppressive countries. Critics claimed the campaign was a scheme to divert attention amidst increasing awareness of Israel’s human rights violations. Adverts were placed on television to paint Tel Aviv as a gay hub, a policy criticised by certain activists as pinkwashing to desensitise the public to the brutality against the fundamentalist, barbaric Palestinians. A similar campaign to the TikTok videos had female Israeli soldiers in minimal clothing featured in a U.S. men’s health magazine in 2007. In 2008, Brand Israel promoted Israel’s medical advancements in Toronto. In an unsuccessful attempt, Israel invited 26 Academy Award nominees to visit the country to reach their fanbases. All the actors refused. A similar effort was made to bring eleven NFL players to Israel, a trip from which six pulled out. While active in multiple fields, Brand Israel mainly seeks celebrity endorsement and sex appeal to utilise the halo effect to take the audience’s mind off the ongoing war. Clearly, what I elaborated on above is only part of the story. Israel has been pouring millions of dollars to make a name for itself as a Western country, modern, progressive, powerful, unique… It can be all those things, but concealing the world’s largest open-air prison with celebrity endorsements does not seem feasible. While there is so much to say about how the neighbouring countries became what Israel paints them to be, that is a subject for a different article potentially involving the CIA. More research should certainly be done on how Israel utilises psychomarketing; I humbly offer our readers an introduction. Finally, I cannot end this article without asking you to look beyond the flashy infographics you see on Instagram, the catchy videos with dramatic music you see on TikTok, and the “expert” remarks you see on Twitter. You have the world at your fingertips; find the facts and reach your own conclusions. You do not have to pick a side.

The term ‘technological unemployment’ has long been on the horizon. As early as 1930, John Maynard Keynes described this phenomenon as “our discovery of means of economising the use of labour outrunning the pace at which we can find new uses for labour.” Advancements in the fields of artificial intelligence and automation have revived the prospect of technologically driven unemployment and inevitably raise new questions on the distribution of income between labour and capital. Clearly there is a lot to gain from innovation and technological progress, specifically in the form of increased productivity and competitiveness, as well as the safety and well-being of workers. According to Harvey, “the advance of micro-electronic technology gives firms the possibility to manufacture a more diverse rate of products and also to increase the quality of those products offered.” However, technological change also fundamentally transforms the way a firm manages its industrial relations, i.e., the relationship between employers, workers, and labour unions, as jobs shift towards more complex, non-routine tasks and firms aim to make use of newly acquired technologies. According to Harvey, in the face of technological change, “firms are required to reciprocate and accept the union more as a partner than an adversary.” The idea is that when corporate management implements change in cooperation with unions, workers are encouraged to share intimate knowledge on the production process that can likely spur further innovation and growth. When, on the other hand, job, security is jeopardised and management does not make any attempt to reconcile its worker relations, labour may try to thwart automation, and information privy to the worker is lost. Harvey concludes that “the firms with more cooperative industrial relations were on average the ones that are performing best in the marketplace.” In support of this view, a 2022 paper published in the British Journal of Industrial Relations explores the relationship between so-called ‘cooperative institutions’ and robotization in a number of OECD countries. The author, Toon Van Overbeke, links higher rates of robotization to greater cooperation: a surprising trend considering the competing interests of capital and labour that are intrinsically present. Moreover, is the positive relationship a result of a genuine alignment of interests or an attempt to undermine labour? Belloc et al. posit that stronger unions and employee representation put an upward pressure on wages and may incentivise the firm to employ more automation in the production process to disorganise labour and circumvent costly input factors. Van Overbeke disputes this argument, claiming that wage coordination and bargaining exhibit negative effects on robotization. Instead, in the presence of institutions, employers focus on long-term strategies that ensure equitable outcomes. So, at what point do we see the positive effects of cooperative institutions on robotization? In his paper, Van Overbeke reveals that there are functional differences between institutions that have varying implications for the utilisation of automation in the production process. I asked Van Overbeke to elaborate on what exactly is causing these disaggregated effects. In his response, he outlined the central issue that these institutions aim to resolve is lowering transaction costs and facilitating coordination between capital and labour. While wage bargaining can underpin this task, individually, it does not contribute to higher rates of robotization. Works councils, tripartite bargaining, and sectoral institutions, on the other hand, do resolve this issue. “By providing long-term venues for bargaining, they allow capital and labour to coordinate their interests and land on a long-term cooperative equilibrium on crucial issues such as skills, contracts and investment.” Still, the manufacturing sector does not represent the entire labour market, and soon robots may not serve as an appropriate proxy for automation. It thus remains difficult to say how cooperation will behave across other sectors of the economy and how workers will square against less tangible forms of automation, specifically, artificial intelligence. Finally, the evolution of automation does not only elicit an assessment of capital-labour conflicts, but also highlights intricate within-labour distribution effects. Naturally, labour-saving innovation will displace some low-skilled workers in favour of high-skill professions that require extensive education. Ultimately this can lead to the so-called “hollowing out” of the middle of the job and wage distribution. As Martin Ford notes in his book ‘Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future’, “as top managers increasingly employ data-driven decision making powered by automated tools, there will be an ever-shrinking need for an extensive human analytic and management infrastructure.” In other words, not only will low-skilled workers come under pressure, but “layers of middle management will evaporate,” adding to job market polarisation. Although his paper explicitly targets capital-labour conflicts, I was curious to see what role cooperative bargaining practices can play in mitigating labour market inequality in light of technological change. Having visited a few factories, Van Overbeke assured me that “cooperative bargaining practices also provide good outcomes for low-skilled workers.” As an example, one factory reallocated its workers to other low-skilled jobs as they automated, avoiding lay-offs altogether. Fundamentally, we are also seeing a reversal in what we value in terms of the method of production for certain goods. In a world where consumers are exposed to mass-produced products everywhere, traditional, and non-mechanical methods of production are making a comeback. In other words, “technology does not just take away certain tasks, but dynamically readjusts what we value.” We still have a way to go before automation dominates the workforce, but the perils of labour-saving innovation certainly call for collective measures that give workers a voice in technological changes in their firm. In the race between man and machine, cooperation seems to be the best option.

Protest against the University of Amsterdam’s growth, October 13, 2022. The “Tragedy of the Commons”, is a socio-economic concept that describes that with every growing individual trying to reap maximum benefit from a given resource, other individuals are not able to use the same resource. In short, this means that ultimately we live in a world of finite resources for infinite people. Much like that, the University’s unprecedented growth trickles down to various effects that result in more harm than benefit. With UvA set to raise the student population to at least 55,000 students by 2025, they do not realize the extent of the damaging effects that come along with it, which affects not only students but professors and the management board alike. One of the most significant issues that come along with having a large student body in a bustling city like Amsterdam is housing. Most students who come into the city for the first time are unaware of how big of an issue finding housing really is. In fact, the university itself provides limited resources to students who are moving to the city for the first time. Second and third-year students are offered only so much as a webinar and a flyer on finding housing independently in Amsterdam, which usually contains outdated websites and resources whereas only a proportion of incoming students are offered housing through the university’s tie-up with different housing agencies. What they fail to understand is that Amsterdam is not only home to students but is also home to a lot of families and young working professionals who would ultimately be preferred by landlords, as they have a stable income – something that a part-time working student lack. A student, who is burdened with not just their education and academic stifles in a highly rigorous university has to also deal with finding housing in a crowded private market, making friends, and a stable social life whilst living miles away from home for the first time. All these responsibilities for an 18- or 19-year-old may seem to be too overwhelming at first; and although one is usually able to surpass these hurdles, it is not an easy journey to say the least. In situations like this, it is important for students to have proper guidance and support from the university because that is their prime source of contact. However, with so many students and such few resources, how can one find this support? Are a few study advisors per faculty and 3 to 4 psychologists enough to keep for a student’s well-being? With a current growing environment of over 41,000 students and 6,000 employees, the lack of balance between students and professors is evident. Housing is evidently a huge issue, and with more students being accepted, the university does not seem to understand the extent of the effect that this crisis has on students. Furthermore, with a lack of support, students are bound to feel helpless and lonely. To take action against the damaging growth of the university, a protest was held by the ASVA student union on the 13th of October 2022, led by the organizer Bor van Zeeland. The main idea surrounding the protest was to address the fact that the university needs to be held accountable and needs to restrict the number of students being admitted to the university currently. According to one of the interviewees, ASVA was flooded with emails by students who were unable to find a home and had to in turn cancel their studies. Along with that, the interviewee mentioned that they expected the university to grow with almost 9,000 students in the next four years. So they realized that this was the right moment to come into action. The protest concluded with the idea that the internationalization of different courses must be put to an end. Not just that, but the university president, Geert ten Dam also supports this train of thought and agrees with the fact that further internalization of students results in Dutch students not having a fair chance to apply to the different programs offered by the university. What is disappointing about an opinion like such is that at the end of the day international students are being held responsible for something that is out of their control. In a factsheet published by the university in October 2019, the university believes that ‘internationalization’ at the university is not at the cost of Dutch students being admitted, rather the growth of international students is offset by a declining interest among Dutch students. It also goes on to mention that the university believes in ‘maintaining the right balance in the composition of an international classroom’. Then how is it that 4 years later, the tables have turned and international students are made to bear the brunt of a poor administrative decision made by the university? Such jarring opinions create a sense of negative emotions amongst international students who may feel like they do not belong at the university. Despite paying higher financial compensation at the university, international students seem to face most of the brunt of this disadvantageous growth examples ranging from advertisements by landlords such as ‘no internationals or students’ to not being allowed a part-time job without an eligible work permit. It is unfair that the university overlooks the problems that international students are facing and instead continues to grow to help establish the notion of a diverse student body, only for the management to blame international students. And this is just the start of a student’s perspective on the damaging growth at UvA…

Protest against the University of Amsterdam’s growth, October 13, 2022. Alejandro was just like any other student, wanting to pursue his studies in another country to explore a different culture and to pursue an education that would be of higher quality compared to the one he could get in his home country. His dream was to study Business Administration at the University of Amsterdam, but the harsh reality of the city’s housing situation soon struck him – Alejandro desperately searched for housing, only for his efforts to be repaid by countless rejections. Stories like Alejandro’s probably sound familiar to many of us coming from all sorts of study programs, who at one point or the other have found themselves in the situation of having to look for housing in this city; indeed, this story was featured in an article by Folia, another student magazine. The article, which came out at the end of August, reports on the experiences of three future UvA students that were not able to find a house. At the end, Alejandro was unfortunately forced to withdraw his UvA application because he couldn’t manage to find a house before the start of the academic year, despite studying at UvA being a dream of his. Lately, it has been clear to everyone involved that the university is facing issues that need immediate and effective solutions. From hundreds of homeless students to professors striking, the overall well-being of students and university staff is what’s at stake. The behavior of the University itself regarding its policy is quite controversial. In 2022, the housing problem has become so pressing that in August the UvA made an official statement advising international students that still had not secured housing not to come to Amsterdam, since there was a high risk they would remain homeless for an indefinite period. To this day, the situation remains tense and students are ready to defend their interests. On Thursday, October 13th, a protest was held right outside the UvA against the current situation regarding primarily the issues that many students are facing due to the housing shortage. But the housing problem is just the tip of the iceberg. The root cause, which ultimately has an enormous impact on the quality of the education provided by the UvA, is unstoppable growth; in a European capital that is overcrowded not only with students, but also by working professionals, the UvA recognizes that its growth has to be stopped. In the midst of this, local Dutch students are currently having trouble securing a spot at the university and housing in Amsterdam because of the growing number of international students moving to the city. At the moment, the University is only able to provide housing for about half of the students applying. The current projection is that the UvA will have 55.000 students as of 2025 between Dutch and internationals. We have decided to investigate this growth – what led up to it, the tremendous effects it is having, and the possible applicable solutions to a worrisome situation. Firstly, to understand the status quo, it is important to understand the inherent qualities of the university. The international outlook of the UvA is definitely one of its strengths. Since higher education in the UK comes with very high university fees, and Brexit has led many European students to resort to studying in other European cities, the much lower price point of studying at the UvA has attracted many international students not only from all over Europe but from all over the world. Besides, UvA’s admission policy is less demanding compared to other European universities. However, the university plans on introducing a stricter admission policy for the programs of Political Science and Psychology in the upcoming year; at the same time, the PPLE program already has a more complex admission policy compared to other faculties. Nonetheless, many programs stay unchanged and the already large number of prospects continues to grow. Overall, the attractive aspect of studying in such a vibrant European capital as Amsterdam, with many entertainment and job opportunities, the unique chance to be in an international environment which enriches the experiences, and the relatively low cost, less demanding admission policy of the UvA make Amsterdam the perfect city to study in. Yet, this all comes with a cost… The points illustrated in this article provide a brief introduction to the causes of growth that the University of Amsterdam is currently facing, but they are obviously not exhaustive. Our printed edition coming out in November 2022 will provide the opportunity to gain wider insight and for a deep dive analysis into the topic of UvA’s growth. Stay tuned.

2023 marks the 100th anniversary of the Turkish Republic. Established by Ataturk, the country has never been further away from the secular blueprint it was built on due to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his Islamist Justice and Development Party, the AKP. Many young individuals, including myself, have grown up in a Turkey where we have no memory of Erdoğan not being in power. No other Turkish leader in the past century has had the same control over Turkish politics, the executive branch, and the judicial system as Erdoğan. However, his reign of power will be tested on the 14th of May with the presidential and parliamentary elections, just months after the deadly earthquake. This election will determine who leads the country, how it is run, and whether the long-awaited ‘change’ in the government will happen. Yet, the implications of this election do not stop at the borders of Turkey. They will also influence the direction of Russia’s war against Ukraine, the Kurdish question, the tensions with NATO, and the overly-discussed EU-Turkey relationship. Its position at the nexus between Europe and Asia, directly south of Ukraine, bordering the EU, and north of Syria, makes it of great geopolitical and strategic importance, thereby making this election not just bite Turkish but global nails. How did Erdoğan start? The climb 69-year-old Erdoğan took his first steps on the ladder to ultimate power in 1994 as mayor of Istanbul. After founding the AKP in 2001, he was elected prime minister from 2003 to 2014, where he presided over a time of economic expansion, social reforms, and negotiations to join the EU. Still, he came under fire for his authoritarian tendencies, claims of corruption, and crackdowns on the opposition. In 2014 with a 52% majority vote, Erdoğan’s reign of power solidified when he became president, moving from the head of government to the head of state. To maintain this authority, he changed the constitution in a controversial referendum in 2017, removing the position of prime minister and elevating himself to the executive head of state and getting to the top of the ladder. While the first decade of Erdoğan's rule was characterised by rapid economic expansion, since 2014, he has seen a drop in economic success and decreased public support. He has faced several challenges since his rise to the head of government as president. These have included a failed coup attempt in 2016, a currency crisis in 2018, increased public dissatisfaction on human rights issues and government responses to the pandemic, and, most recently, an earthquake tragedy. Starting off as a reformist, lifting citizens out of poverty and guiding economic growth, his approach to governing soon became a symbol of declining democracy and set Turkey's direction towards an authoritarian rule. Over the past ten years, a loss of connection with the youth and urban masses hurt his popularity in progressive circles. Add to this a decline in support from conservatives due to the economic downturn since 2018. Everything begins to point to the fact that the beginning of the end for Erdoğan has already started. What do the elections look like, and who are the key players? Turkish citizens will be able to vote for two main coalitions, both for the presidential and parliamentary elections. While they are equally important, the presidential election preoccupies most minds because of the president's increased powers and responsibilities under the new presidential system. The president is directly elected by a two-round system with a simple majority (50% and one extra vote). Candidates running for the presidency must be at least 40 years old and must have obtained a higher education diploma. Although Erdoğan claims to have graduated from Marmara University in 1981, many have questioned the validity of his degree and accused him of forging it. Erdoğan has disputed the claims as a smear campaign by his rivals, and there is insufficient evidence to support or refute his assertion definitively. Even the requirements, something so elemental and basic in the elections, have been contested, showing the incapacity of the institution's ability to defend against politicians. The two leading candidates running for the presidency are Erdoğan and Republican People’s Party (CHP) leader Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu. Still, they are followed by smaller candidates Muharrem Ince, leader of the Homeland Party (MP), and Sinan Oğan, supported by the Ancestral Alliance. As a majority is needed, parties have formed alliances, of which the two major ones are the People’s Alliance, consisting of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) and the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), and the Nation Alliance, which consists of the Republican People's Party (CHP), the nationalist Good Party (IYI), as well as four other, primarily conservative groups. The Nation Alliance, which is only united by its opposition to President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has come together around a promise to reinstate a parliamentary style of government within two years if elected. The Table of Six The unfair conditions, such as the government’s control over the media, the misuse of state resources, and the executive’s extensive control over the judiciary increase, force the opposition to act upon two factors that can lead them to success. The alliances must first come together and support a single candidate for the presidency. Second, they must convince protestors and indecisive voters to vote for their movement, as doing so would send a clear statement about their eagerness to win the election. Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu would not have been the optimal candidate a few years ago, as he represents a secular social democratic party and comes from a minority Alawite background, which is not usually supported by conservatives. However, the united opposition deemed the ‘Table of Six’, stemming from six parties having dinners around a table, forced a strong unity between them. The Table of Six consists of Islamists, former Erdoğan lieutenants, nationalists, and parties with various ideologies, united by the main purpose of restoring democracy, re-establishing the parliamentary system, and overthrowing Erdoğan to ensure the separation of power. Kılıçdaroğlu has portrayed himself as the unifier as he promises not to be the leader of the alliance nor rule the country for the upcoming two decades due to his old age of 74. Thus, he seems to be the middle ground for the opposition where the middle class, and the Kurds, representing 18% of the vote, can support and trust him. The unity of a usually fragmented opposition has given hope to most, where a Turkey without Erdoğan seems in near sight. Why the opposition could win. Day by day, as election day has gotten closer, the non-charismatic Kılıçdaroğlu seems to be rising in the polls. He has even surpassed Erdoğan by ten percentage points, highlighting the unity and success of the opposition. Moreover, it seems more and more likely that the National Alliance will grab more seats than the AKP and MHP in parliament. Despite the margins not being major and Erdoğan still having a major support base, it seems difficult for him to close the gap after last month’s devastating earthquake. The government's poor urban planning and deficient rescue plan led to the death of 50,000 citizens, sparking major unrest and decreasing the overall trust and faith in the current government. The earthquake did not have been so deadly if it wasn't for poor construction regulations and corruption, allowing contractors and state officials to ignore building codes. The same happened in 1999 when a huge earthquake hit Izmit and then Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit was condemned for failing to manage the crisis effectively. Back then, this led to AKP’s win in the next elections. Today, the opposition hopes to replicate it once again, as the earthquake might have been the last drop in the bucket for some. The earthquake also shone a light on the ineffectiveness of the presidential system. People were promised that a presidential government would be more efficient and the country be better governed. Yet, one man deciding who rescues who, what, and where is proven unsuccessful for a disaster of this scale. Hence, the government's failed response to the earthquake has shown citizens that devolution, decentralisation of power, and governance actually result in better governance. Additionally, the economic miracle that Erdoğan had cast slowly seems to be fading and coming to an end with the multiple economic crises since 2018. The rapid economic growth that Turkey had seen vastly halted with soaring inflation as a result of unorthodox monetary policy. Last November, inflation hit 85%, setting a 24-year record, however, it has since dropped to 55%. The Turkish Lira has also lost 60% of its value against the US dollar since the beginning of 2021. Moreover, Turkey reported a record-high current account deficit and a 38% increase in the trade deficit. The flying increase in living expenses has displaced the middle class from a lifestyle they expected and has driven the poor deeper into hopelessness. It is, therefore, natural to imagine that Erdoğan is not scoring high in the polls before the election. This distrust in the government is further encouraged by thoughts from abroad that Western financial institutions and investors will support the Turkish economy more if Erdoğan is removed from power. Many hope these few but incredibly significant reasons should be enough to see someone else govern in the future. Why Erdoğan could still win With Turkey running into more and more problems, an inevitable switch seems likely, but Erdoğan and the AKP do have clear advantages as the big bully. Foremost, everything stated above would lower the chances of the current government if the election was taken on a fair playing field. By weakening the parliamentary-based system and enforcing a presidential one, Erdoğan has essentially transformed Turkey into a one-man rule by becoming Turkey’s modern-day sultan. The media is completely in the hands of the government, as Erdoğan monopolises public broadcasts and the media is controlled by individuals close to him. The government's Directorate of Communications is headed by former professor Fahrettin Altun, who coordinates strict hierarchical editorial control from the top down by supervising the directives given to newsrooms. Medyascope and Halk TV seem to be the only independent news outlets for the opposition. Restriction on media does not stop here; the parliament passed even more restrictive legislation in October where Turkish authorities can control and restrict online free speech. Threats of imprisonment based on unclear charges of defamation or insulting the president have put many journalists in jail. Erdoğan has filled the courts, law enforcement agencies, civil services, intelligence agencies, and the officer cadre of the armed forces with loyalists. Furthermore, Erdoğan is able to use public resources for his campaigns and election monitoring for the opposition is incredibly difficult. The task Erdoğan needs to endure during his campaign is also relatively easier than the opposition as he has a cohesive voting base and a well-organized party, whilst the opposition needs to unite voting groups with opposing ideologies. Despite the ideological diversity, Kılıçdaroğlu promised to appoint vice presidents from each of the remaining five parties, enforcing involvement in strategy and policy decisions. The country does have a bad history with coalition governments, making it less attractive of an option for some. Support from the Kurdish-oriented People’s Democratic Party (HDP) might increase the voter base, but also drive off many others who see HDP as a threat due to alleged PKK links, the Kurdish guerilla group. Lastly, his experience in governing seems to be a big asset as it ensures the stability of governance and Kılıçdaroğlu has no record of achievements, making voters wonder whether he is able to take upon the domestic and diplomatic challenges of Turkey. Just like the cookie monster, Erdoğan has a voracious appetite and will do anything to pull the strings to stay in power. Opposers, the US and the EU should therefore not let hope blind them into thinking that these elections will be different. The calculated switch of having someone close to Erdoğan in all sectors can result in him winning without stuffing the ballot and inaccurate tallying. The system he has put into place can provide him with a win. Even if he loses the upcoming election, many believe he will not retract so gracefully. If loss appears to be in hand, judges and electoral authorities loyal to Erdoğan might nullify the outcomes, as they attempted to do in 2019 with the results of Istanbul's mayoral race. The defeat of Erdoğan should therefore not be celebrated too early, as the hand-over of power is not as easy as it seems. So, will this be the end, and what does this mean for the future? The results of the 2023 elections will have a big impact on Turkey’s future, and it is vital for the opposition that the elections are fair. The elections will be watched on a global scale as international relations are on the line. If the AKP remains in power, this could further consolidate Erdoğan’s sultan-like position, and democratic institutions may continue to deteriorate. The AKP administration takes autonomous diplomatic and military actions when its interests diverge from those of the EU and NATO, as it does not hesitate to strengthen its ties with nations like Russia, Iran, and China. Their win could mean a stronger divide within the global political scene with an invigorated, powerful authoritarian. The relations between Europe and Turkey would hold high turbulence, as the EU might formally end Turkey’s process of accession. Moreover, EU-Turkey relations might further erode due to tensions with Greece and Cyprus, which are unlikely to ease. Close ties with Russia and the continued veto of Sweden’s NATO membership could lead to worsening ties with the EU. A new governing elite from a distinct socioeconomic and political background has been introduced to Turkey due to the AKP's two decades in power, radically altering Turkish politics and significantly impacting the economy, culture, and educational system. If the People's Alliance wins, Erdoğan will have five whole years to raise suitable successors who will faithfully carry on the AKP's legacy and maintain the accomplishments made by the conservative Turkish majority over the past two decades. If the opposition parties triumph, society may move toward becoming more democratic and pluralistic. There will be a new window of opportunity for the EU and Turkey to lay the foundation for a cooperative and stable relationship. A shift towards a more pro-Western foreign policy could be seen. Still, Euroscepticism and anti-Americanism dominate the Turkish public’s judgment. The EU shouldn't anticipate a quick improvement in its relations, but it should be ready for escalated political tension in trade, migration, border protection, and energy. The opposition parties are keen on devoting more time than is now being spent on diplomacy, negotiations, and developing better relations with the EU. Nonetheless, given the opposition’s varied, frequently nationalistic position and public perceptions of the EU’s biased perception of Turkey, it is unlikely to predict a smooth improvement in relations between the two blocs. Kılıçdaroğlu has opposed military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, however, also criticised the open-door policy that Erdoğan had placed. Through increased talks with the Assad regime, Kılıçdaroğlu plans on sending Syrians back which could damage the Turkey-EU deal. A win for the opposition could mean a vengeful retake of power and a process toward strengthening the parliamentary system for a democratic regime, however, could also increase tensions with the EU. 9 whole days until the elections and 9 days in Turkey is a very long time. Anything can happen, and opinions can change instantly in a chaotic country with a polarised society. Tensions are high, people are stressed, and political turmoil is evidently going to happen. Day after day, the sight is getting clearer and hopefully, Turkey will become freer.

Waking up to a warm and luscious cup of coffee is now a morning habit most of us have undertaken. Given its reputation as either energetically marking the beginning of the day or representing a means to connect with others, it is no surprise that we envision it as positively related to our lives. However, the reality of this seemingly innocent habit is far more intertwined with a multitude of political, environmental, and economic aspects. Knowing the processes behind our beloved cup of coffee is only the beginning of the quest towards a more sustainable and ethical routine. Environmental Conditions for Coffee Farming There are three major types of coffee farming: organic (understandably charging higher prices than the common beans), high production (approximately 4% of the world’s coffee), and small family-owned (80% of the world’s coffee). Generally, the beans require sixteen essential elements for proper nutrition, as well as consistent heat. Altitude affects the quality of the product, hence the pricing. No wonder one of the most popular coffee types, Arabica, is charged with higher prices than its more accessible counterpart, more precisely Robusta. As each difference in growing conditions can affect parts of the industry, coffee farming is highly dependent on the environment. A rise in temperature due to climate change and rain scarcity are two of the foes that the industry faces nowadays. Facts best represent the outcomes: South America and Africa will soon experience significant drops in our beloved commodity production due to changing conditions. In this context, let us not forget that Brazil, which faces drastic crop reductions due to climate change, is responsible for a third of the world’s total coffee production. Here’s the trick: the industry keeps its enemy close, as it is both a victim of climate change and a contributor. Over the last few decades, to respond to the rise in demand for coffee, the plantations have contributed to massive deforestation to ensure the proper environment for the soon-to-be cups of coffee. Naturally, this affects biodiversity. Labor in Coffee Production In 2018, local Brazilian labor inspectors published a series of reports that tied one of the most well-known coffee chains to a plantation in which workers were forced to work and live in degrading conditions. The long and strenuous working hours are usually combined with a lack of a sanitation system, raising multiple question marks on how some chains get to sell their beverage. Coffee pickers typically don’t even have access to healthcare or insurances to safeguard them from uncertain working environments, and education for their children is often unattainable. Worldwide, there are 25 million coffee farming families, all of which depend on the industry up to a certain extent. Hand-picking coffee beans and ripe cherries is a common practice in the industry. It is usually preferred over mechanized harvesting as a means to ensure a higher quality of the product. The question is: who is picking our coffee? Sometimes, it is children. The United States Department of Labor listed fourteen coffee-growing countries that advanced their coffee production through child and forced labor. Combined with the conditions mentioned above, it is safe to assume that the industry puts workers under the pressure of massive vulnerabilities. One might think that the remuneration the hand pickers receive is proportional to their effort. Surprisingly or not, this is definitely not the case. The low coffee prices also significantly affect the workers, as farmers are not usually paid a living income. As a response, rural laborers move to cities to look for better working conditions and salaries. The general issue of forced and inhumane labor is, unfortunately, not novel and not only tied to the coffee production, but it is definitely worth noting its dense, and often subtle, ramifications. The Politicization of Coffee (Brands) From planting the seeds to picking and distributing, the coffee is sorted and selected in different brands or cafés. This process can also lead to political partisanship, existing amongst renowned coffee chains as well. Let us start with the expression “latte liberals,” familiar in the US. If you take a look at what the Urban Dictionary has to say, this expression means that those who drink overpriced and diluted coffee are also the ones who lament the plight of the poor. This stereotype is often considered unfair by those in question. Rest assured, there is more to the politicization of coffee than labels. Starbucks chairman and CEO Howard Schultz made his disdain for Donald Trump public and his support for Trump’s 2016 opponent, Hillary Clinton. His public political orientation led to an incredible amount of praise, as well as calls for a boycott on the other side of the political spectrum. The politicization of coffee should not shock us, as its history is entangled with several political aspects. During the Age of Enlightenment, shortly after cafés rose in popularity in Europe, these predestined places for socialization were favored mostly by the politically interested who could not voice their opinions elsewhere. For instance, in the context of British cafés, belittled voices in the public sphere could now enjoy being heard within such a comfortable environment, without having to worry about authorities who would otherwise subjugate them to silence. However, this was not only a reality in Europe: in mid-20th century Colombia, cafés were embraced as the proper place for the intellectuals to gather, as well as activists and artists. This further led to a unification of the general public and a political revitalization, which led to a division between parties. The cafés were considered one of the main threats to Colombia’s already unstable government. Check Your Products: What Measures Are Taken? Rest assured, more and more steps towards a sustainable and ethical consumption of coffee are taken. It is essential to check our products, but fear not a lack of options. Some of your favorite coffee brands include at least one of the following indicators: Founded in 2002 in the Netherlands, the UTZ certification covers around half of the total sustainable coffee production worldwide. It follows the UTZ Code of Conduct, a set of environmental and social criteria for growing coffee practices, as well as cocoa, hazelnut, and tea. It is based on the International Labour Organization Conventions (ILO Conventions), adopted in 1919. A couple of years ago, UTZ merged with Rainforest Alliance, aiming at curbing deforestation. Together, they encompass environmental, economic, and social goals on sustainability. However, it is worth noting that none of these two involve shade cover to combat climate change. Another certification is Fairtrade, an ethical system that prioritizes farmers and workers in developing countries. Similar to UTZ, the Fairtrade Standards include social, environmental, and economic criteria. They are designed to support small-scale producers and workers from the trading system, inevitably containing coffee as well. These are only three of the multiple indexes to look for when purchasing our next coffee stash. Luckily, they have contributed to the improvement of health and safety measures, as well as to better and fairer agricultural practices. They are all approaching different issues in different manners, which is why it might be worth taking a look at how each certification works towards realizing its goals. It is also worth taking a closer look at what these certifications imply for the coffee lovers who also want to help mitigate societal and environmental issues. A Look Forward Although there is still room for development in the coffee industry’s ethical and sustainable sphere, the future still looks promising. As consumers, a wide range of coffee brands have approached a sustainable strategy for their products; thus, it gets easier and more comfortable to access our precious commodity ethically. However, the coffee industry’s environmental and social negative implications must still not be overlooked, and the political aspects of significant coffee brands are still part of our public and political lives. Knowing more about the industry is definitely an excellent start to reflect on our habits and how they subtly affect us and the world we live in. That being said, (responsibly) enjoy your coffee!