One of recent events that happened in the world politics was the murder of Andrey Karlov – the Russian ambassador in Turkey. The assassination has attracted a lot of attention worldwide but many things still remain unclear. Let me start by telling how it all happened. Andrey Karlov was giving a speech at the opening of a photo exhibition in a museum of modern art in Ankara. At one point of his speech, a man appeared from behind and shot the ambassador.  Three other people were wounded. It is said that before the shootings the attacker shouted something close to: “We are dying in Aleppo, so you are dying here” and “You shot innocent people”. However, there is no actual proof of this, as it is based strictly on witnesses and the bits that were seen on the tape. The main question that concerns me, and not only me, is why the security system – from both the Turkish and the Russian side – did not prevent this from happening and why did the attacker managed to escape the crime scene. Soon after the killing of the ambassador, the attacker was involved in a shooting with Turkish forces, in which he was killed. Pictures of the scene soon got to the internet. Moreover, the policemen told that the killer had two associates, but nothing more than this is known. Shortly after these events, the identity of the attacker was published – a 22-year-old Turkish citizen Mevlut Altintas, who finished a police academy and was currently working in Special Forces. The Turkish government, on the other hand, states that he was currently removed from service, because he was suspcted of taking part in the military coup this summer. The fact that the attacker had a police certificate explains how he managed to get into the exhibition with a weapon. Experts have opposite views concerning the reasons for this act. Some say it was a single act of a fanatic, who was not connected to any other serious institution. Others say that Mevlut was part of a terrorist organization and there is more to this murder than just fanaticism. Even this theory is also divided into several opinions. Some might say that it was an illegal organization in Turkey that has nothing to do with the government, while others think that it was a perfectly legal institution. The main argument for this is that allegedly there was a possibility of arresting Mevlut alive, which would help a lot in the investigation. However, he was killed right away by the special forces. The main aim of Russia, in this case, is to figure out all the relations and connections Mevlut had and link him to whomever he was working for. The Turkish side promised that the investigation will be done at the highest possible level. As of 8th of January, five suspects have been arrested. Four of them are fellow colleagues of Mevlut Altintas and one is an activist from an organization run by the opposition. The timing of the murder is not an accident and has been chosen smartly for particular reasons, according to Kremlin. It was committed in order to worsen Russia-Turkey relations and to undermine efforts of the countries to come closer to the issue of solving Syrian conflict. Although there is no concrete proof whether this is true or not, this seems to make sense and may indeed be the case. However, Kremlin said that one should not jump to conclusions before the investigation is finished. There is not a lot of information to be found on how the investigation goes and if there are any further details. It can be explained by the fact that this affair deals with a famous politician and international affairs between Russia and Turkey, so no rumors and the unproved information is wanted. The Russian ambassador Andrey Karlov received a Hero of Russian Federation reward. A street in Ankara was renamed in his honor as well as an exhibition hall in the museum where the ambassador was killed. As promised by the Kremlin, those responsible for this act will be found and brought to justice.

The outcome of the U.S. presidential elections has destabilized the future of U.S.-Latin America relations. Although President-elect Donald Trump did not discuss a detailed foreign policy towards Latin America during his campaign, trade and immigration—two key topics of his campaign—are likely to dominate the agenda across the continent. Mexico is expected to receive the hardest hit, and this goes beyond building a wall between the two countries to stem the flow of illegal immigration. There is a high risk that protectionist policies could damage some of the Latin countries’ agricultural exports to the U.S. The United States has had little engagement with South American countries during President Barack Obama’s time in power. The promise of a “new chapter of engagement” with the country’s southern neighbours and improvements in trade facilitation fell into oblivion. Brazil appears to be out of line of new administration’s sight and it is unlikely there will be more active policies under Trump’s government. Nevertheless, U.S. agricultural companies lobbying Trump to introduce tariffs and non-tariff barriers on certain products represents a greater risk to South American economies. Tariffs on raw materials could hurt Brazil, while greater U.S. protectionism against imports, such as grains, could cloud the U.S.-Argentina relations. A potential hot spot is Venezuela. Despite years of anti-American speech by former Venezuelan President, Hugo Chávez, in practice there was little conflict between the governments. The U.S. is Venezuela’s largest export market and the Obama administration largely ignored verbal provocations by Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. However, this may change with Trump in power given he wants to appear strong on the world stage. If this turns out to be the case, Maduro risks significant fallout if he continues to blame the U.S. for Venezuela’s misfortunes, as Trump could be more likely to take retaliatory steps. After the austerity measures implemented by the government, which resulted in a lots of protests around the country, the Argentinean economic recovery is finally a reality. The government also presented its proposal to reform the income tax on 22 November. The plan includes higher tax rates and an increase of 15% in the minimum exemption threshold. The bill, which could be approved by the lower house of Congress in December, has already been challenged by some parties and the government should negotiate in order to push ahead with its reform. Despite the slow growth in the last quarter of the last year, mainly because of a prolonged truckers’ strike and subdued global trade, Colombia has positive outlooks for 2017. In November, the Senate approved a revised peace agreement with the FARC, just a month after the original proposal was rejected in a plebiscite. Among other things, the new deal establishes greater government presence in rural areas dominated by the FARC, obliges the rebels to divulge their assets and provides judges with more authority if insurgents are found guilty of drug trafficking. However, these changes – among many others – have not calmed critics of the peace deal. The FARC now has a six-month period to demobilize and form a political party. Chile and Peru also have positive outlook for the year 2017. With the tightening of commercial relations with China, both countries might experience growth right in the beginning of the year. Even though the proposal for a transpacific train made by the Chinese government seemed to have stumbled upon the region’s economic crisis, Chinese president Xi Jinping appears to be excited to close more deals in South America. The president of China has planned a week-long visit to Latin America in mid-November that included state visits to Chile, Ecuador and Peru. Xi Jinping’s visit immediately followed events of the U.S. elections, have called into question the future of U.S.-Latin America relations, and highlights China’s emergence as an important trading and investment partner for the region. China signed several trade agreements and appears open to the possibility of expanding its options of trading agreements in Latin America. Should the region start to explore the option of having trade agreements with China, the main priority ought to be the diversification of trade to reduce the importance of commodity exports to the economy. Currency-wise, Trump’s victory has put pressure on most of Latin American. A large fiscal expansion – as preached by Trump during his campaign – in an economy close to full employment has resulted in an increase in U.S. Treasury yields, which, on the other hand, weakens emerging-market currencies. All currencies were affected by the “Trump shock”, especially Mexico. At the same time, this phenomenon stimulates commodities export and it should have repercussions on the expected inflation for this year. Specialists say the region’s overall inflation should rise by no more than 4% this year, according to the prediction which has already been adjusted to Trump’s victory. The year of 2017 for South America will be determined by how the governments will react upon the shift of power in developed countries, which we observed in the past year. Will the Latinos get closer to China and ignore a long-time commercial relationship with the US, or will they try to adapt to Trump’s new protectionist policies?

While reading this, you might be taking a well-deserved break from studying hard for an exam of a course, which you find impossible to imagine any use for in your future career. You might even hate the program director for adding this course to your study program. Well, I think you should actually thank him! Let me explain why. Long, long ago, not long after the dinosaurs went extinct, I was a student, too. My field of studies was econometrics. I shared the lecture hall benches with Jan-Diederik. After finishing his studies, Jan-Diederik, like many other fellow students, took his first job in the ICT business as a software engineer. His starting salary was a multiple of my meager salary as a PhD student. Now, several decades later, econometricians still have an excellent bargaining position in the labor market according to a recent article in the Dutch newspaper Het Financieele Dagblad. You might wonder: Why are econometricians such attractive employees? Do they acquire unique skills that give them a head start in the labor market? The answer is actually ‘no.’ On the contrary, econometrics has a strong focus on quantitative models that have hardly any application in practice. Jan-Diederik and I were overloaded with calculus, probability theory, linear algebra, general equilibrium models, Bayesian econometrics, Markov chain analysis, cooperative game theory, dynamic optimization, queuing theory, and what not. Let me give an example from the calculus course to give you an impression of what we did. In this course we learned to prove from the axioms for the real numbers that for any real number x, it holds true that 0 times x equals 0. You might wonder: Is this not trivially true? Actually, it is not, as the following proof shows. The relevant axioms are, for all real numbers a, b, and x: For the element 0 it holds true that a = 0 + a There is an element y such that 0 = y + x (we write y = -x) There is an element, called 1, such that x = 1 × x ax + bx = (a + b)x Now, applying these axioms successively, we have 0 × x = 0 + 0 × x = -x + x + 0 × x = -x + 1 × x + 0 × x = -x + (1 + 0) × x = -x + x = 0, where the last two equalities follow from axioms 1 and 2, respectively. QED. (Are you still there?) It is hard to imagine that the labor market would be willing to pay high salaries to people who have acquired the skill of being able to prove that 0 times x equals 0. So, what gave students like Jan-Diederik a decisive advantage in the labor market? A question like this inspired economist Michael Spence to write a Nobel prize-winning paper on job market signaling. He popularized the idea that intrinsically worthless investments can be quite valuable in markets with asymmetric information. Arguably, for employers it is hard to tell from an application letter or job interview whether an applicant is capable of completing tasks requiring quantitative skills like developing software. By finishing a master’s in econometrics, Jan-Diederik could distinguish himself from a less able software engineer even though computer programming in and of itself only played a minor part in his education. In other words, his master’s degree was a credible signal to future employers that he was a suitable candidate. Thinking about it, you might realize that we spend a lot of time, energy, and money mainly for the sake of signaling something about ourselves to an uninformed counterparty. Men buy women expensive rings to signal how wealthy they are. Women join men at football matches to show how much they care about them (the men, not the football matches). Job seekers write long application letters to signal their genuine interest in working for the firm. Children throw themselves on the floors of supermarkets to let their parents understand that they highly appreciate the sweets displayed on the shelves. Parents let the child finish his act to let him understand that they have no intention of buying those sweets. Businesses also apply signaling strategies. They signal the quality of their products by spending money on commercials that have zero information content (“always Coca-Cola!”). Other businesses start a price war to signal that they are highly cost efficient so that potential entrants will think twice before entering their market. Such signaling is even commonplace in the animal kingdom. Think about male peacocks growing large tails that have no other use than to show off their sexual fitness. So, the next time you have to prepare for a difficult exam for a course that has no apparent practical application, you can take some comfort in the fact that by passing the course, you will be signaling to future employers that you are smart enough to perform well as an employee.

Sharing economy – by Tsz-Tian Lu As the sharing economy sector has become more mature and been embraced globally, the prospect of this profitable industry is pretty positive. Especially in Asia, where the market is rather nascent for sharing economy companies like Uber and Airbnb and the demands for relevant services have been rising drastically in recent years. In China, for instance, it is predicted that the growth rate of the market is at 40% for the next five years, as sharing economy industry in China is entering its “golden age” according to the Japanese media Nikkei. The rise of sharing economy is mainly contributing to the features that the innovative platform makes some services or products become more affordable and convenient. Now, the customers long for not only the above-mentioned features but also a more customise and high-quality user experience. Also, from a retail perspective, items that are high in value but low in usage ratio can potentially be suitable to apply the concept of sharing economy. For instance, in the fashion industry, if the sharing economy of high-end clothing and accessories, as well as runways, can flourish, the impacts on traditional retailers can be profound. On the not-so-bright side, the for-profit part of the sharing economy has been in trouble for a long time but the controversies remain unsolved in some places. The harms caused by this including the damage of reputation, the loss of trust from the consumers and the decrease in revenue. For example, in the case of Uber in some countries, vested interest groups like local taxi-drivers are strongly against it, the authorities are accusing Uber of tax evasion and the people are concerned about passenger rights and safety. There remain some improvements both local governments and the companies can make to strike a balance between regulations and embracing innovations. Business predictions 2017 – by Nando Slijkerman Predicting financial markets is always a risky thing. A small thing can change the whole prediction (i.e. last year’s unexpected Brexit) and, therefore, it is a difficult job to predict the markets. Personally, I think it is worthless to give some numbers, however, market segments will be more useful in this case. 2017 will be a profitable year for High Frequency Traders and day traders. It will be a year of uncertainty. Trump will fulfil his first year as President of the States, and the elections of multiple countries in Europe will strengthen this. Oil prices will know a lot of uncertainty due to the OPEC-agreements, because the success of this agreement stands or falls on the involvement of the participating countries. This results in volatile oil prices and prices of oil-stocks. All this volatility is very profitable for High Frequency Traders and day traders, but might be risky for long-term investors. After all, I think that economic growth will continue in 2017, and taking the fact that investor confidence is on the rise, the AEX will rise a little. I still say “a little” due to high volatility and market uncertainty. Summarized, 2017 will be a year of a lot volatility and uncertainty, and therefore will result in a modest positive result. The upcoming Dutch elections – by Leonie Ernst 2017 is going to be a stirring year for European politics. The Dutch people will vote for their House of Representatives in March, the French presidential and parliamentary elections will take place in respectively April and June, and the German federal elections are set for September. In all three countries a right-wing, or populist, party is taking root in society. Proponents of the EU fear that due to the rising popularity of these parties, which are quite Eurosceptic, the stability of the union is in jeopardy. In The Netherlands, the support for Geert Wilders’ Party of Freedom (PVV) has increased in such a way that according to the latest opinion polls the PVV would win the elections with 35 (of 150) seats. The runner up in this case would, with only 23 seats, be the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD), which won the elections in 2013 with 40 seats. Whether the number of seats will remain at this predicted level is hard to say, but there is a real chance that the PVV will actually turn out to be the biggest. However, many politicians in the House of Representatives have already announced not to be willing to cooperate with Wilders, so the PVV is only going to rule if it reaches the majority of seats (more than 75) all by itself. The probability that this scenario will occur is relatively small, which also decreases the probability that Wilders will become the Dutch prime minister. What would be the most likely scenario is that the current prime minister, Mark Rutte, will try to form a coalition with CDA, D66 and PvdA, depending on the number of seat these parties will have after the elections. However, the forming of the coalition is going to be really tough, since the House of Representatives is rather fragmented at the time. The Dutch people will decide on the 15th of March. Sylvana Simons – by Michael van Rhee Elaborating on the subject of the upcoming general elections in the Netherlands, I predict that Sylvana Simons — the former TV and radio presenter whose recent decision of becoming a politician has been met with a wave of racist remarks and even death threats — will make it into the House of Representatives with her newly founded party Artikel 1. The name refers to Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution, which states that all who reside within the Netherlands are ought to be treated equally in equal situations. In order to be elected, Simons must meet the election threshold of 0,67% of all votes. (Think of it this way: since Parliament’s 150 seats correspond to 100% of all votes, one seat corresponds to 0,67% of the electorate.) Compared to neighbouring countries, this is a very low number, and that’s one of the reasons why the Dutch political landscape has become increasingly fragmented over the last few decades. After all, there are virtually no barriers when it comes to founding political parties, and because of this very low threshold, a seat is always in sight. In fact, we might even face serious problems getting all 81 (!) parties on the ballot paper this year. However, Simons will be on there, and I’m secretly hoping that she lands a seat — if only to shut up the brainless people in this country. Sefa prospects – by Daphne Sweers The start of 2017 is a great opportunity to enlighten our readers with the prospects of the events that Sefa will bring to our members. And man, the future does look promising! We kickstart 2017 with a New Year’s Dinner and from then on a rollercoaster of exciting activities will follow. Don’t miss out on our biggest career event, Amsterdamse Carrière Dagen, from the 6th until the 10th of March. Not long after that, our Sefa Study Trip will take off to experience the local (business) culture in Cape Town for more than a week. In May, the career event Let’s Get Started will take place, focusing on Entrepreneurship. Most important, however, is that 2017 marks the 95th anniversary of Sefa. This is a good reason for some great celebrations, which will take place in May. Two weeks full of surprising activities will take place. We already look forward to it! The academic year will be closed with an open party in June to wave each other farewell for the summer. Last but not least, there are still two remaining recruitment periods before the end of the summer in February and May. Sign up in case you would like to join a committee to organise an event yourself. For now, we would like to wish you all the best for 2017 and hope to see you in one of our events! Boom and Bust – by Hải Đăng Vũ Bitcoin, the “cryptocurrency”, has long been notoriously known for its seemingly unpredictable movements on its value compared to other fiat currencies. Since last Christmas, the volatility of Bitcoin has again been consistently making headlines at multiple commodity trading platforms worldwide. Following the publicity from mainstream media the currency received in the last week of 2016, the value of Bitcoin increased above the $1,000 (per bitcoin) benchmark for the first time in three years (peaked at 1,130) and later its exchange rate dropped by almost 20 percent in one day. The breakout of the speculative bubble was not unprecedented; in November 2013 the value of the currency was almost tenfold compared to the value at the beginning of the same year and subsequently worth as much as four times less than its peak value in late 2014. The aftermath of these monumental changes in value led to a consensus by many investors that Bitcoin should be rather perceived as a trading asset. However, some encouraging achievements recorded by Bitcoin the previous year strengthened its position as the most popular means of digital currency: the number of users is at another all-time high, with transactions happening 50% more frequently compared to 2015. It should come to no surprise that in 2017, the number of bitcoin wallets will keep increasing as it has been the trend of the last decade, and the volume of transaction globally would increase correspondingly with the increase in the number of users. However, traders should be extremely cautious of holding bitcoin in their portfolios – both bubbles were rumored to have been initiated from the Chinese market. Trump and Nethanyahu, a match made in Heaven… – by Raffaele Di Carlo As the Israeli government approves the construction of nearly 6000 new settlements in Eastern Jerusalem (with around 600 already on their way), it is clear that Israel has no intention of conforming to the UN resolution passed by the Security Council on the 23rd of December. The resolution demanded an immediate halt to all settlement-building operations in prevalently Palestinian territory. With all Security Council members approving it except for the United States, which abstained, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally reprimanded each approving country plus the historical ally, whom he claims to have conspired with Palestine under the Obama administration. 2017 will then start further and further away from the dreamed two-state solution. President-Elect Donald Trump has already taken a stance on the matter, claiming Netanyahu’s claims about Obama’s involvement in the resolution are truthful. This seems unlikely: although Obama clearly interrupted the US tradition of full support towards Israel, his administration still provided the Israeli government with funds and military aid, most notably a $38 billion deal signed in September 2016. Trump’s claim can then be seen as a “teaser trailer” of his future agenda, and we can expect stronger military and financial support for Israel’s operations, and possibly an inversion on the prized nuclear deal with Iran. A free Palestine and a stable Middle East seem then much like a mirage in the desert at this point in time. US-Russian Relationship – by Yana Chernysh With Donald Trump winning the presidential election in the US a lot has been said about Russia and how the relationship between these two countries will be affected. Donald Trump mentioned several times that a healthy business relationship with Russia is needed and that nice relationship with the country is a good thing only. Moreover, he mentioned on his Twitter that working together both countries can start solving global and important problems that the world is facing nowadays. Russian politicians share the view that the winning of Donald Trump can start a new chapter in US-Russia relationship in a more positive way. However, they are concerned that the president in the US is not the one making decisions and the Congress may not find Trump’s Russia policy appealing. At the same time Russian politicians do hope to make a stable and useful relationship with the US. A business relationship or an alliance between these two countries may be quite a crucial thing. Both of them are very powerful and full of useful resources. If their strengths are used together and not against each other it can make a difference in some of the world’s problems and also improve the situations in the countries themselves. It is hard to say now if Trump’s politics will improve the US relationship with Russia, but it is definitely an interesting topic to follow. What will be Latin America’s Relationship Status? – by Brunno Fontanetti The upcoming rise of neoliberal tendencies has reached South America. With the election of President Macri in Argentina and the coup d’etat which lead to Michel Temer becoming the leader of the executive powers, two of the most powerful countries in the region are now lead by right wing governments. The question is how these presidents will deal with Donald Trump being the new leader of the free world. South America’s dependency over the US had been mitigated in the last few years with the left wing governments, bringing somewhat of an independence from that relationship. But now, with the promise of the new president of the bald eagle country to strike, ‘great deals for America’, the export agreements between these countries might suffer some changes. And South America should not only be afraid of the results of the American election: with the nearing of French and German elections this year, and with the Brexit results of last year, the commercial deals with Europe might also suffer a change. With over 30% of all trade between the EU and the region originating in Brazil, you might be able to see the consequences of such changes. South America’s reaction to all these factors will be the turning point of their economical year: Will they follow the typical neoliberal latin government tendency of compliance with the decisions made by developed countries, or will they follow the new positioning of independence conquered in the last decade? Environmental policy improvement prospect, where art thou? – by Magdalena Wiśniewska 2017 was supposed to finally be the year when we will do something about the climate change – thanks to the Paris Agreement. It aims at keeping average global temperatures from rising 2˚C above pre-Industrial levels—and have them stay as close to 1.5˚C above pre-Industrial levels as possible. With the EU ratifying it, with Australia taking on almost radical 2030 targets for the climate change as a part of it, with the USA Clean Power Plan and with – unbelievable! – China promising cap and trade – a limit on total greenhouse gas emissions and with power plants’ permits to emit. But guess what, it is not exactly what is going to happen. First, the opponent of the US Clean Power Plan managed to challenge it in the Court, with no ruling yet. And then the US election has happened, with Trump stating that Paris agreement is a bad deal and promising to investigate it further. And now, when he became the President elect, it all depends on his decision regarding the withdrawal from the deal. He has already appointed his own climate ‘specialists’, who are going to lead the key climate agencies and he is well known to want to increase oil, gas and coal production. And the question is, what will he decide and what will the countries previously taking the US lead do in the case he withdraws. It may even happen that China will become the new leader regarding the Environmental Policy changes!

January – by Michael van Rhee Happy New Year! New round, new opportunities, as we say in Dutch. Göran Persson, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, probably said it best: “Let our New Year’s resolution be this: we’ll be there for one another as fellow members of humanity, in the finest sense of the word.” However, it seems that not everyone heard this message, because it’s been a turbulent year — if not plain hectic. The year was barely underway when David Bowie suddenly passed away on January 10 — merely two days after releasing his final album, Blackstar, on his 69th birthday. It would soon prove to be his parting gift to the world, a swan song of no proportions (or should I say ‘swan album’?). Much to everyone’s surprise, Bowie died from liver cancer — something he hadn’t made public. It would prove to be a very bad omen, because 2016 was a year full of celebrity deaths. More on that below. February – by Raffaele Di Carlo February opened with Martin O’Malley, former candidate to the presidential elections in the United States, dropping out of the race as a result of the primary votes in Iowa. On the 4th of February, twelve nations, including the United States and New Zealand, signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Auckland. In addition, the suspect of the murder of Dutch minister Els Borst, finally confessed, pleading guilty, and was sentenced to eight years in prison by the public prosecution. On the 11th, tensions between North and South Korea escalated, with South Korea withdrawing all workers and energy supplies from the jointly run Kaesong Industrial Complex. On the 12th, Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow met in Havana, Cuba, for the first time in history. On the 15th, an airstrike, reportedly from the Russian air force, accidentally destroyed a Syrian hospital run by Médecins Sans Frontières. On the 16th, a historical agreement between the US and Cuba was reached, that allowed the two countries to ease the embargo, ongoing since the Missile Crisis in 1962. On the 19th, two prominent literary figures, Harper Lee – famous for “To Kill a Mockingbird” – and Umberto Eco, died on the same day. March – by Magdalena Wiśniewska On March the 7th, the world’s best-paid tennis player, Maria Sharapova, admitted to failing a doping test. The drug usage was spread as well among numerous, top-ranked athletes. On the 13th, a car bomb has exploded in the commercial area of Ankara, causing a death of 37 people and with more than 125 injured. On the 15th, the Syrian Civil War has entered its 6th year, with more than 250,000 deaths and more than 11 million of people being forced to leave their homes up until then point. In the U.S., on the 16th of March, President Obama has nominated Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court. Moreover, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were revealed as leading Republican and Democrat candidates, respectively. The EU and Turkey have signed an agreement, according to which refugees reaching Greece, but have either not applied for asylum or had their application rejected, will be sent to Turkey. In exchange, Turkey gained for monetary remuneration, visa restrictions relief and E.U. membership reconsideration. More than a million Brazilians have protested and demanded President Dilma Rousseff’s to resign from her position, due to corruption allegations. For the first time in history, the reigning world champion of the ancient Chinese board game Go has lost an encounter with a computer engine developed by Google, called AlphaGo. It constituted a milestone for artificial intelligence development. April  – by Michel Mijlof In the beginning of April, the world was shocked by the disclosure of the Panama Papers. These papers contain information on famous and wealthy people, such as football player Lionel Messi, Ukrainian president Poroshenko or former UEFA chairman Michel Platini, about how they avoid paying taxes through ‘tax havens’. Due to these leaked information, many politicians had to quit their jobs. In the middle of April, there were some very strong earthquakes in the countries of Ecuador and Japan. There was also some good news, namely that the World Health Organization declared that Europe is the first continent to be malaria-free. At the end of April, 171 countries signed the Paris climate deal which was discussed earlier at the headquarters of the United Nations in New York. Also, the metro station Maalbeek in Brussels and airport Zaventem were opened again after the terrorist attacks by the end of March. May – by Yana Chernysh Protests along with strike actions took place in France as a reaction to new labour law reforms. The workers complained about the reforms, which gave more freedom to the companies in terms of reducing payment and making the working hours longer. Russian doping scandal became a crucial thing in the sports world with Rio Olympics being just around the corner. Investigation for a number of medalist of Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics has started, as they were suspected of using banned drugs. The director of a prominent laboratory said that the urine samples of the Russian athletes were switched. Later in the year 67 Russian athletes along with sportsmen from other disciplines were banned from competing in Rio Olympics. All European scientific papers should be free by 2020 – this was announced as a result of a meeting of the Competitiveness Council. The aim of this policy is to make science freely available and it is based on three main concepts: sharing knowledge freely, open access and reusing research data. A lot of news in May were covering the “migrants crisis” as more and more refugees were escaping to Europe. One of the problems that Europe started facing was the integration of immigrants. Also, an issue of safety and security started rising among citizens of a number of European countries. June – by Brunno Fontanetti If 2016 was compared to a bad cake, let’s just say June would be the cherry on the top of it. We saw history being made in front of our eyes, with the UK voting to leave the European Union after 31 years as a member. Historically, the UK always rejected ideals such as fascism, or ultra-nationalism, but now the British seem to be following paths already taken by ultra-conservative governments. More on Europe, in June, we had two massive terrorist attacks: one in France, where two men were killed in an attack orchestrated by ISIS, and one in Istanbul’s airport. The latter, also planned by ISIS, killed more than 40 people, and increased the tensions surrounding the war against the terrorist cells. After all, after June, more and more governments around the world started taking security measures at the expense of population’s freedom: prohibition of the use of Niqab by islam followers in France is an example of that. Since every cake, even if it’s bad, has at least one good frosting, I couldn’t end my June Recap without commenting on the good news that happened during this month. The first female Mayor of Rome represents a milestone in Italy’s and women’s rights history. Moreover, after 50 years and 220,000 deaths, the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, FARC, negotiated a historic ceasefire. Just like any cake, 2016 had a lot of layers – facts which influenced the final result of our recipe. The end result, or, the cake, may not seem very good, but remember: just like any cake, you can only see what 2016 truly meant, if you cut it in the middle and see what is inside. July – by Hải Đăng Vũ Following the aftermath of the Brexit referendum outcome, Theresa May replaced David Cameron as the Prime Minister of United Kingdom and promised to ensure appropriate preparatory processes for the departure from European Union. Global political turmoil continued to follow as Turkey witnessed a coup d’etat attempt by a part of the military that divided the country, leaving more than 1,400 wounded with 6,000 people arrested. The International Court of Justice in the Hague also declared illegal reclamation of Chinese government in South China Sea. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were also officially announced as representatives of their parties to run for US president during their respective conventions and it marked the beginning of one of the craziest election seasons. A tragic occurrence of Nice attack on July 14th, the French National Day, has again left the world astounded. Terrorist acts were condemned, but heroic efforts by ordinary citizens to prevent further fatalities were greatly respected throughout the world. On a positive note, Portugal – against all odds – triumphed to win the most prestigious trophy of European football. The scientific community also congratulated its 5-year long attempt of successfully landing its spacecraft onto the surface of Jupiter. Oh, and of course, not even one could have anticipated the fuzzy excitement of us finding Pokémons and ‘gotta catch them all’! August – by Nando Slijkerman In the first week of August, the people in Japan were startled by a video message from their Emperor Akihito, in which he hinted on his possible abdication. It was the second time during his 26-year reign that he spoke to his people on television. On August 24 2016, Colombia and the leftist rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), made a peace deal to end a fifty-year conflict. Negotiators worked endlessly to make sure all sides of the deal were being handled and FARC was satisfied with the deal. Former rebels will have a minimum of ten seats in the congress for two years. For this deal to become permanent, the Colombian residents needed to vote on it in a referendum to be held in October. The level of quantitative easing was expanded from €60 to €80 billion by the ECB, and during August the ECB bought public and private sector assets worth €60 billion. On the 31st of August, Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff has been removed from the office by the Senate and was succeeded by her Vice-President Michel Temer. September – by Leonie Ernst In September, when we were trying to get ‘back to normal’ at the university after the summer holidays, strange things kept happening all around the world. Although the situation in Aleppo has by then already taken so long that it almost seemed normal, there seemed to be a chance that the situation would really get a bit closer to ‘normal’ when a ceasefire was put in effect. Unfortunately, this truce only lasted a week, whereafter the bombings started again. Furthermore, the earthquake with magnitude 5.3 on the Richter Scale in North-Korea was confirmed to be the result of an underground nuclear weapon test. A few days later, the country was ravaged by floods as a result of the Typhoon. These floods caused a situation which the Red Cross called a ‘major and complex disaster’. At the same time, a lot of Americans speculated about Hillary Clinton’s possible health problems, and were shocked by the bombings during the marathon in New Jersey and in New York. But besides of all the negatively strange things that happened, we were able to enjoy the Paralympics in Rio, and the first Presidential Debate between Trump and Clinton (and most of all we could enjoy the video in which they are singing the famous ‘Time of my Life’), and we could be glad that the United States of America and China ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change. Most of us would end the month with midterms, unless you were taking the third-year Econometrics course… October – by Tsz-Tian Lu There is numerous sad news that took place in October, but before that, let’s start with a good one: Scientists in the UK are getting closer to finding the cure for HIV, the virus responsible for AIDS. The method, dubbed “kick and kill”, has been successful in lab tests back in 2014. The first patient receives this treatment shown no detectable signs of HIV. AT&T confirmed acquisition of Time Warner for $85.4 billion: This is one of the largest acquisitions of all time, which brings concerns about too much concentration of power if the two combined and may lead to a threat to media plurality. The dead of the Thai king Bhumibol Adulyadej: The monarch died on 13th October, aged 88, after a 70-year-long reign. He was the world’s longest-serving monarch and survived sixteen coups during his time on the throne. Despite his controversial political stance, he is deeply loved in Thailand and regarded by many Thais as semi-divine. The battle for Mosul: In the hope to retake this northern Iraqi city which has been seized by ISIS (aka Daesh) since summer 2014, a coalition of Iraqi forces and Kurdish militias backed by the United States started the military operation in mid-October. This still ongoing war caused hundreds of refugees to flee their homes and they desperately need help from the international community. November – by Artur Rymer Without a doubt, the 8th of November was one of the days that have defined not only 2016, but also the years to come. The American people have voted and, with an almost 3 million vote lead, Hillary Clinton has won the popular vote. That however doesn’t matter and, thanks to the existence of the Electoral College, it is Donald Trump who will be the 45th President of the United States of America. If somehow you are not tired of American politics and would like to read more about this, then I would like to remind you it’s Holidays. Go talk to your friends and family instead. On the same day as US elections, India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, has announced that his government would withdraw two denominations of the country’s currency: 500 and 1000 Indian rupee banknotes. Many have criticised the move as it has caused massive cash problems across the country and the ones who have been hit the hardest are not criminal groups but some of the most vulnerable who rely on cash heavily such as the poorest and women. The final offensive of Aleppo by the Syrian government forces, supported by the Russian military, has begun in November and was concluded on the 22nd of December with the rebel’s defeat. The offensive has hit the headlines of the global media due to the reports and fear of war crimes committed on civilians by the government. On the 22nd of November, the outgoing President Barack Obama has awarded American Medals of Freedom, the highest civilian award, to 21 famous persons with achievements in the fields of art, philanthropy, science and sports. You can watch it here and find out why we “all want a tortilla chip that can support the weight of guacamole”. December – by Artur Rymer On the 4th of December, Austrians chose their new president, while the Italians made voices heard in a referendum. The former have elected an independent, supported by the Greens, Alexander Van der Bellen. His victory prevented his opponent, Norbert Hofer, from becoming the first far-right head of state in Europe since World War II. In Italy, the constitutional referendum has been rejected and, as a result, the Prime Minister, Matteo Renzi, has resigned. The 19th of December was one of the darkest days of an already dark year. Russian Ambassador to Turkey, Andrey Karlov, was assassinated in Ankara. In Zurich, 3 people were wounded in a shooting at an Islamic Center. In Berlin, a terrorist drove a hijacked truck into a Christmas market, killing 12 people and wounding almost 60 (he has been shot by the police in Milan 4 days later). Also on the 19th of December, the Electoral College has officially elected Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States. On a lighter note, 2016 will finally end in a bit over a week. Let us hope that the last week will be as uneventful as possible and that the next year will be better. However, it is us who have to work hard to make sure that next December we can all say that the world has become a better place in the previous 12 months. And hey, 2016 has prepared us for that like nothing else could. Happy Holidays, everyone!

Introduction Since there is a fair chance that this article is going to be widely read – after all, procrastination drives you to do the craziest things during the exam week – I felt morally obliged to write on THE Topic of our era. In doing so, this article builds forth on Rostra’s long standing tradition of informing UvA students about pressing social and economic issues across the globe. This article uncovers the roots of many of these problems by addressing a major flaw in our thinking about production. Roughly and briefly, economists argue that production (Y) results from the combination of capital and labour. Here capital stands for all the material ‘stuff’ – machinery, land, buildings etc. – and labour for the amount of human work effort. In general, the more labour (L) and capital (K) one has at its disposal, the more one can produce. Since it is impossible to explain real world differences in productivity in this way – e.g. between first and third world countries – economists usually add a third factor (A) to account for levels of technological and human development. This results in formulas like Y=AKL. Although economists have created many mathematically sophisticated variants of this model, none of them does justice to the complex nature of the real world production. Consequently, man spends its life maximizing a fictitious notion of production, rather than a notion that accounts for the true human value that is being created. The miraculous riches of nature First of all, economists study production in isolation from the natural world. In reality, however, it is rather hard to draw a border between the economy and nature. Gowdy stressed this myopic attitude of modern economics towards the natural world: “Neoclassical theory sees the economy as being a self-contained system independent of the natural world. In reality the state of the economy depends on maintaining a flow of natural inputs into the system and maintaining the ability of the environment to assimilate waste products.” Spanish Economist José Manuel Naredo commented on the topic that it is curious “… that today the economic science keeps holding on to the fiction that the riches that ensure the movement of the economic system are being found in nature’s garden, without understanding by what miracle they got there.” Naredo further argues that this fiction can only be maintained by falsely separating the notion of production from the natural physical context in which it was originally studied. In other words, economists treat nature as an externality, whereas, in reality, it forms an inseparable part of the production process. Who, What, How, Where and Why? A second flaw of production theory lies in its quantitative focus. By reducing the production process to a set of numbers on a spreadsheet, economists believe that they can find optimal levels of capital and labour. Following this logic, they spend hours maximizing virtual production levels. In reality, however, production is a fundamentally qualitative phenomenon. Basic questions like who does the production, what do we produce, where do we produce it, and why and how do we produce the things we produce, are rarely asked. Precisely the answers to these questions determine the true societal value of the production process. As it stands, production theory does not distinguish between the experiences of a worker doing repetitive and unfulfilling tasks for 40 hours a week and a worker that ‘grows’ through stimulating work experiences. Neither does production theory distinguish between goods that we need and goods that we – believe to – want. Illustratively, whilst economic textbooks argue that advertisements play an important role in informing consumers about product characteristics, in reality, most advertisements are not informative at all. Instead, marketing professionals aim to convince consumers that they ‘want’ something, which they wouldn’t want otherwise. Sceptic? I dare you to sit through a 5 minute block of TV-commercials and argue the contrary. The negative consequences of this are twofold: not only do we waste time and resources producing ‘stuff’ that does not necessarily benefit us, but we also waste time and resources trying to persuade each other to believe that this ‘stuff’ will in fact benefit us. Conclusion Economists’ disregard of the natural world supplies a false academic justification for economic activities that severely affect terrestrial life and, in so doing, seriously endanger the long-term survival of the economic system as we know it. Furthermore, the abstract nature of production theory neglects several fundamental aspects of production. This flawed way of thinking about production lies at the foundation of an economic system that maximizes an abstract notion of production rather than actual human well-being. As long as our thinking about it remains flawed, we cannot create a society capable of maximizing long-term human happiness. Similarly, as long as our thinking remains flawed, we should not expect that we will manage to mitigate climate change, nor should we expect that we will manage to diminish societal dissatisfaction with modern life. All in all, the need to integrate ecologic and social facets into production theory is pressing. Thesis topic, anyone?

“Ik wil graag pinnen”, which means in Dutch “I will pay by debit card”, has been the most frequently used sentence while I go shopping. And I noticed that I barely carry any cash with me since all the transactions can be done by digital payments via card or mobile app. The trend of going cashless seems unstoppable, especially in Northwest Europe and in the US, where the financial system is rather stable and have the population highly technology savvy. For example, Sweden is leading the race to become a cashless economy, where cash counts for only 2% of the value of all payments made in 2015. Furthermore, about 96% of the Swedish population possesses a debit card. Therefore, it is said that the last area in which a Swedish must need cash is either the purchase of illegal items or the financing of terrorist activities. With more and more shops not welcoming cash payment, even street vendors and homeless are now accepting device-based payment; a rule of thumb in Scandinavia is: “If you have to pay in cash, something is wrong.” As contactless and mobile payments are thriving, the retailing industry is also actively innovating new technology to provide more pleasant and convenient customer experience. Even more so, many stores encourage their customers to make use of self-checkouts machines: Amazon has even created a store called “Amazon Go”, where check-out is no longer required — as long as you have your smartphone with you. While convenience is commonly agreed to be the greatest upside, what are the other reasons why people advocate for a cashless society? Firstly, a very important benefit of going cashless is that all the transactions are traceable and the anonymity of cash payment is eliminated. Therefore, governments are able to constrain black market activitie,s such as drug dealing and financing of terrorist activities, since a new medium of exchange for illicit markets will be less liquid and riskier. Besides that, illegal activities and financial crimes such as money laundering, tax evasion and fraud can be more effectively prevented. Secondly, as we can already observe, the process of going cash-free foster many ongoing technological innovations. Financial technology, also known as “Fintech”, has been one of the hottest venture capitalists investment areas in recent years, reinventing the way we do payments, lending and investing. Moreover, an indirect result is the decline of bank robberies, since banks now keep less currency; similarly, if people no longer bring cash with them, and stolen cards can become invalid as soon as people report it via mobile banking, robbery-related crimes can also be reduced. Despite several above-mentioned powerful arguments, which explain why we should support and embrace a cashless economy, there are still some disadvantages that the governments need to take into consideration. First of all, traceable transaction activities and the extension of surveillance are actually two sides of the same coin. For example, the use of mobile banking is more secure in terms of enabling us to disable the lost card instantly and remotely. On the other hand, the opponents state that privacy is the foundation of a free society, going totally cashless will, therefore, deprive us of our basic rights. Another disadvantage is that, unless the government can guarantee every citizen a bank account and an electronic device to access it, the unbanked population is excluded from the cashless society. In fact, increasing numbers of banks’ branches and ATM machines are shut down in countries where non-cash payment is thriving. For instance, in the U.K. more than 600 high street bank branches closed in 2015, due to the fact that most people interact with banks only online. For people who live in rural area, mainly elderly people who still use over-the-counter banking frequently, the trend brings negative impact since it is getting tougher for them to withdraw cash. Thirdly, latest the escalation of cyberattacks on financial institutions indicates that cyber security threats are huge hurdles that keep people from trusting banks. In my opinion, we should be able to regulate and detect the abuse of the system and fraud before even the start of discussion about going cashless. If a bank cyber-attack occurs, which happens from time to time, the financial and reputational losses are often immense. Two recent cyber-attack examples are Tesco bank loss of £2.5m on 9000 accounts and the Russian central bank loss of 2 billion rubles ($31.3 million) from correspondent bank accounts. It seems we are moving forward to a less-cash economy, but we are still a long way from becoming a cashless society. As far as I am concerned, there is some sacrifice to be made in order to achieve a cashless economy; it requires citizens’ trust in the financial and regulatory institutions and the willingness to give up the freedom to conduct a transaction anonymously. As for concerns regarding security and cyber-attacks, there is a new technology underlying Bitcoin that can ultimately change money and business transaction — block chain. Block chain was invented as a security system to keep track of online transactions of the virtual currency Bitcoin if required, and it is a distributed, secured, immutable, time-stamped and transparent database. To explain how block chain works briefly – a party who initiates the transaction will set up a block, and the block is then verified by at least thousands of computers. The block will be linked to the previous blocks once it is verified, and after this, any alteration of the block will be documented. This means that if someone wants to hack into one block, he needs to successfully hack into millions of blocks that are linked to this specific block — thus we can say that block chains are unhackable. With the extraordinary features of block chains, it definitely has the potential to be the solution, which will facilitate cashless economy. The realization of going totally cash-free now still sounds unrealistic and certainly requires a great amount of effort and expense, but with the emergence of future-proof technology, it will be possible.

It can be considered common sense that our way of life affects our planet in a bad way. We know the sea level and temperature are rising, both woods that are unnecessarily being burnt and fossil fuels drive up the level of CO2 in our atmosphere, and our ecological footprints are bigger than they should. Environmentalists have tried to convince governments of the need to intervene in this evergrowing problem, but the awareness and action that environmentalists try to create do not appeal to the public at all. For many of us it is very difficult to worry about something that is not yet visible, although the rising temperature and heavier storms seem to be the first signs that climate change is actually happening. 2016 has, for example, been the warmest year in recorded history, and the ice on the Arctic and Greenland is really melting. We all know this, but we are not actively changing something in our way of life to solve the problem. Since people are reluctant to change their lifestyles in order to prevent the catastrophic consequences of climate change, the problem remains. A few weeks ago, Leonardo DiCaprio released his documentary ‘Before the Flood’, wherein he tries to answer the question whether it is too late to stop the process of global warming. Climate change becomes visible in his documentary, but the need for the warning, which comes with this visibility, is often overseen. If it is common sense that our lifestyle affects the process of global warming, then why are we doing so little to stop it? The most important question concerning the matter of global warming and climate change is no longer what actually is happening or what we can do to stop worsening the situation, but what should change in the mindset of humankind to start effectively tackling the problem. As mentioned before, most of us know what global warming is, that it is inevitable, and that there are extensive measures required for a sustainable environment. It is known that CO2 is the main reason for the acceleration of global warming, since global warming and climate change are two natural processes which humankind is simply worsening. The amount of CO2 in our atmosphere increases with emissions from either industrial plants, cars, and cattle, but also by the use of fossil fuels. Electric cars are there to solve the problem of car emissions, and energy from sun and wind should replace the use of fossil fuels in the future. Electric cars and renewable energy are currently quite expensive, but once invested in solar and wind, energy will be free forever. Fortunately, last year’s Paris Agreement, which was signed by 195 countries, takes the affordability of renewable energy into account. Although this sounds like a great prospect, it will take much time and effort to replace the old sources of energy by renewable sources all across the world. It will be difficult for less developed countries to keep up with all the innovations and new technologies, but only time will tell how this is going to evolve. Moreover, the emissions caused by cattle could only be lowered by reducing the amount of cattle breeding to an acceptable level. However, this is quite difficult to achieve, since meat consumption is considered normal, and changes in this status quo will meet resistance by the people who are used to having meat for dinner. Therefore, the real problem is that some solutions to prevent a further acceleration of the process of global warming are neither accessible nor wanted. In DiCaprio’s documentary, macro-economist Gregory Mankiw states that all elected leaders are in fact the people’s elected followers. A leader therefore reflects the opinion of its people. As long as the public is not willing to reduce the amount of CO2 used for daily life, governments will not set regulations to decrease that amount either. We can see this happening in the United States right now. Donald Trump has been elected by the world’s biggest consumers and denies that climate change is real. According to Obama’s successor, ‘the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.’ The American people have elected a leader that will not change their spending-culture in the short run, but seem to forget that a policy which ignores the state of the environment will change their culture even more drastically in the future. Mankiw argues that it is reasonable of people to think only about the short run, since people already have a lot to worry about. He states that ‘people do not want to think about climate change when making every decision, since they can’t.’  This time-inconsistency problem could be better understood in the light of loss aversion. Loss aversion is a concept in behavioural economics, where it is assumed that losses seem bigger than gains. In the event of changing policies concerning cattle breeding or carbon taxes – policies every citizen has to do with – people have the tendency to reject changes, because ‘new’ policies will increase the probability of an undesirable situation, which can be considered a loss. This will in turn lead to a continuation of the environmental problem, since something has to be changed in order to maintain the same quality of life in the future. This fear for the unknown is why we are stuck in the situation where we know there is a problem to solve, but are reluctant to move first. All in all, I think that we should acknowledge there is a problem that cannot solely be solved by government regulations, since the main problem lies within the behaviour that causes the huge amount of emissions. The Paris Agreement is a great step forward, and carbon taxes will enable consumers to choose solar and wind energy over fossil fuels and could be a step forward as well, but even this is not enough. Right now, we do not want to think about climate change while taking the car instead of using public transportation, or while having beef for dinner for the seventh time a week, or while deciding on staying at the same energy provider instead of switching to solar panels. Right now we do not, but eventually we should. We should not worry about the possible loss resulting from the changes in our lifestyle, since the scenario of not changing anything would result in an even bigger loss. If we would start caring about the environment and create some sort of awareness, the elected leaders who can put work into progress and even acceleration are to come naturally. But this awareness starts with us. So whether you are skeptical towards environmentalism or not, try to keep in mind that there is no escaping from global warming and its consequences. Now, while we are still able to limit the consequences of climate change, I think that we should. Only then, hopefully, can we consider ‘greener energy’ and a smaller ecological footprint for all of us common sense.

As you wandered around the Internet last week, you might have noticed an astounding story in the medical field; this time by an amazing group of five Australian, talented students, who successfully recreated pyrimethamine, the main ingredient of Daraprim. This medicine, as its designated function, should be able to prevent parasitic development in the human body, taking HIV as one of the most noticeable treatments. The main storyline did not actually spotlight on the lone efforts of the students; only more so was it at the cost that they were able to reproduce it. 3.8 gram of pyrimethamine, equivalent to $110,000 sold in pharmaceutical retailers and hospitals, is now possible to be duplicated at only $20. As astonishing as the students’ achievements are, the media (and the public, in general) is actually more overwhelmingly discontent on how exorbitant the price discrepancy is. The pharmaceutical industry is also notoriously known for its abusive pricing behaviors, which begs the question of how the pharmaceutical industry is able to successfully replicate these inequitable acts, and why is it difficult to find a common resolution for the situation onwards? THE CASE OF TURING PHARMACEUTICALS Daraprim was the medicine created during the 1950s and was commercialized in the early 21st century by GlaxoSmithKline. The company later sold its marketing rights to CorePharma in 2010, a move that would see its price increasing from merely $1 a tablet to its retail price of $13.50. Impax Laboratories purchased its exclusive distribution of the medicine again before Turing Pharmaceuticals, making the final transaction to date in 2015, which realizes its selling price rocketing way up to $750 per tablet, summing up almost a four-digit price increase in a matter of just two decades. Turing Pharmaceuticals (Turing) was founded by a hedge fund manager Martin Shkreli, who has no academic background in the medical field, but showed interest in pharmaceuticals as a kid, owing to his parents’ career. Before founding Turing, he also started an entity, which focuses on innovation for biotechnology technologies, but announced his departure shortly after that. His business strategy for Turing into “doing things differently”, as the company’s vision implies, revolves around multiple acquisitions of out-of-date medicines with expired patents, and little expenses were focused on research and development for improving its quality product. After each transaction was completed, the company push the selling price of the product in accordance with its own evaluation of the “fair” value and distribute it within its closed network. This strategy makes perfect business sense, as the acquisition of generic medicine distribution from the FDA is expensive and there is little competition in this segmented market. Turing is in a promising position to potentially be a monopoly and hence reap enormous profits. The price hike on Turing Pharmaceuticals’ products was heavily criticized by domestic health organizations around the United States, with further accusations from the then US presidential candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Despite the immense public pressure, Turing eventually decided not to lower its retail price, rather placed commitments on price discounts on bundled products and co-purchases with their other medicines sold in hospitals. However, as Daraprim is also necessary for post-hospitalization treatment, patients will still need to purchase the medicine at its original price after that. Turing’s response was deemed incompetent by antitrust representatives. CRITICISM Turing is only an outstanding example of, sadly, many more pharmaceutical companies operating based mainly on private interests. Of course, it is understandable that, as a private company, its obligation is to comply with shareholders’ interest; but one must realize that a significant amount of its funding originates from public money or, stated differently, the tax contributions of individual citizens, in the form of subsidies and grants. Therefore, it is the responsibility of each pharmaceutical firm to create affordable and quality products for the benefits of the citizens, with equitable pricing strategy. However, according to what the past decades have shown us, they have done an excellent job of satisfying their stakeholders, but have failed miserably to accomplish fair pricing. So, how did the market for pharmaceutical products cease to function properly? a) Patents The misuse of patents by companies and the incapability of regulatory institutions, coupled with its complexity of the pharmaceutical industry itself, would be the primary breakdowns of the market. Turing Pharmaceuticals is a perfect example of abusing use of patents. Theoretically, as most university textbooks indicate, the imposition of patents on products should encourage future development and innovations of that particular product. Technically speaking, although there has been concrete evidence to show that this argument is justified, the extent to which it has contributed to the common/public benefits is unclear, and whether these positive effects actually outweighs their negative counterpoints are highly questionable. Below are some practical failures of the patenting system in pharmaceuticals, as highlighted by the arguments of Teresa Forcades i Vila: Patents cause barriers of accessibility and availability to patients: countries without strict regulations on intellectual property rights have been more effective in combating epidemics than countries with such regulations on patents. Patents encourage artificially excessive pricing practices for companies: geographical comparisons showed that Canada enjoyed significantly cheaper drug prices than the United States, and statistics show that the US paid 93% more on drugs compared to the world average. Patents discourage competition: this contradicts with the points that a patent should encourage other firms to be original and innovative, so as to obtain as many patents as possible. However, the consolidation of the pharmaceutical industry, with most private funds available only to big corporations, has made this progress extremely difficult for smaller enterprises, pushing out competition and placing more barriers for future entries. Patents are unfair for developing countries, especially for countries suffering adverse socioeconomic impacts: this creates two simultaneous effects. Firstly, without the access and available money to purchase the medicine, it is likely that a disease or an epidemic would not be mitigated, and thus social consequences could be devastating. Secondly, as developing countries are able to reproduce the same medicine at a much lower manufacturing price due to material costs, it would enable more accessibility and affordability of the medicine to the common public, effectively pushing down the market price. Imagine how many life-saving opportunities would be created if the medicine has been made available to more African and Asian people. b) Regulations There is also public criticism on the lax legislation on tackling the abuse of power of the pharmaceutical industry. In principle, it is totally appropriate not to restrict them into complicated requirements that potentially hinder innovative progress in producing better medicine, with the intention of serving the public good. However, pharmaceutical companies, more often than not, misuse these privileges for private benefits. Therefore, more restrictions should have been enforced to mitigate undesirable consequences for the public. Tax breaks: it is justified that some privileges should be granted to parties that enhance public interests, including tax holidays. The pharmaceutical industry enjoys enormous tax benefits as research expense are subject to tax credits. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry easily exploits the benefits and cater their tax expenses to leverage their financial performance. Ambiguity in accounting standards: When pharmaceutical companies falsify their figures on the financial statements, for example, overstating research and development expenses (which, unlike other expenses, is subject to tax breaks), it is unfair. The current accounting principles, however, are not yet effective in distinguishing all items: for instance, if a company gives doctors free samples for their patients, should this be categorized as an R&D expense (for the company), or a marketing expense (to patients)? Blockage market movement: the United States deliberately restricts the distribution of imported medicines from overseas, in order to protect its domestic sales. There is also a regulation that allows US citizens to get insured only if the purchased medicine is originated from the United States – this makes imported medicines from foreign countries less appealing to local consumers, despite being inherently cheaper. Domestic pharmaceutical companies, therefore, enjoy their exclusive territorial distribution rights and, thus, artificially escalate its product unit selling price. Patent: the active patent system in the United States allowed companies to enforce their exclusive intellectual property rights for 20 years, increasing from 17 years before 1995. There was clear opposition to this idea, deeming that the active period of patents is far too beneficial for private firms. Some proponents (with their credible evidence) of this patent period assert that pharmaceutical research is more sophisticated compared to other scientific fields, hence the duration of the patent system is fair. Inequitable treatment of partnering countries: multiple US-based pharmaceutical companies are enjoying enormous benefits in countries where they are doing research. Some of the political measures conducted by the US government itself, such as economic sanctions, would force these countries, especially developing ones, to comply with unfavorable terms. Information disclosure: in the United States, information disclosure in the pharmaceutical sector is not required. Many pharmaceutical companies argue that only when their technological advancements are fully developed should they be obliged to announce their achievements to the public. The argument absolutely makes perfect business sense, as the company would not fancy disclosing uncertainty to the public, especially investors, who sponsor their projects in monetary terms. However, it gives companies the opportunity to delay, even not to disclose information about their progress. Therefore, it incentivizes scientific researchers to use the funds inefficiently. c) Other reasons Besides patent and regulatory problems, there are also some evident market failures that are of equivalent importance that obstruct the desirable functionality of the pharmaceutical market. Unethical business practices: private businesses, as their main target is achieving the highest monetary returns, are also met with public criticism due to their malpractices when it comes to moral issues. One of the more apparent discussions was the use of aggressive advertising campaigns to promote their pharmaceutical products, with detailed catering to each customer segment. For example, by using the university as a means for companies’ representatives to communicate, pharma exposes students to advertising and induces them to consume more drugs. An analysis showed that 11% of US citizens consume antidepressants, more than any other country. Conflicts of interests: although scientific researchers would be interested to develop cures for diseases in developing countries, few investors would be committed to sponsoring such projects – it does not bring about favorable returns for investors. Therefore, most R&D attempts are concentrated on more profitable projects, even if it does not yield societal benefits – this destroys originality, creativity and freedom for scientists. Consolidation of the pharmaceutical industry: despite the fact that the industry is growing in terms of monetary value, many large pharmaceutical companies are attempting to execute as many acquisitions of smaller enterprises as they can, in order to minimize competition. The power of these companies is so gigantic that the market is getting monopolized and the largest ones can even exercise political influence. The pharmaceutical industry, in general, has been largely unsuccessful in delivering when it comes to the needs of the global community and, as highlighted here, the United States has allowed companies to breach numerous social responsibilities. Earlier this week, Pfizer was also accused of artificially increasing their selling price by the UK Competition and Markets Authority. However, without abusive actions, the global market is still large enough for pharmaceutical firms to accommodate the demand of hungry shareholders. The corporations need to be more accountable, and the regulatory bodies should step up to the game.

Yesterday the exit polls have announced that Alexander Van der Bellen won the rerun for Austrian Presidency, after the first round has been cancelled due to suspicion of improper conduct of ballots. As I tightly control the information I process online and my news feed is rather liberal, it got right away flooded with catchy headlines about Austria breaking the political populist trend in the European elections, turning the tides of the future politics and giving all of us, liberals, some hope. But hey, guess what, it’s not really the case. With Hungary and Poland in central Europe, the U.K. potentially out of the EU and Trump in the USA, with Le Pen running in France and Merkel losing support in Germany, the Austrian victory is simply not enough. Tell me that too many of my friends study medicine, but populist and conservative movements are not a cause of the world’s disease, they are only a symptom. And the fact that one country turned out to be immune does not mean that the epidemic is over. To be honest, what scares me the most in the whole nowadays situation is how easily we forget about the past mistakes and we start treating things as if they are normal and okay. Let me explain what I mean by that on the example of Poland. In April 2010 a plane with the major figures, including the President Lech Kaczyński, President of National Bank of Poland and High Military Officials, has crushed near Smolensk in Russia. Independently of the reason for the crush, which are being investigated over and over by the current government in order to determine whether it was an assassination, it was a huge tragedy. However, last week the plane coming back to Poland from the UK got boarded with the Prime Minister, the Vice Prime minister and big part of the Cabinet. There was supposed to be two planes, but one apparently got cancelled. There were not enough places, the plane turned out to be badly balanced, people had to leave, the pilot refused to disembark… Besides being pathetic, the situation was a potential basis for another catastrophe. Looking at it from another, more individual angle, I wrote in February about the situation in Poland. And at that time I got angry at every clerical or unsubstantiated claim that our government threw at the public. In the passing days Jesus Christ was crowned to be a King of Poland, in the presence of all the country highest officials. It is not a joke, from secular democracy, just in a few months, we apparently have turned into a Christian monarchy. But when I read the news about it, I just laughed – this is what abundance of absurd does with your better judgement. Austria had in the past a chance to experience a populist regime. And apparently they did learn the lesson there was to learn about the fact that populist ideas do not work in reality, especially the economic one. This is what makes me agree to see in this event a glimmer of hope. Getting back to my medical comparison, they have developed some kind of immunity for the disease, they got the vaccine in the form of experience. However, by no means it leads us to the conclusion then the countries around the Europe will follow. Because the main cause of the epidemics did not disappear.

In a study written in 1956 titled “The Nacirema”, anthropologist Horace Miner talks about a day in the life of an American tribe. Below, you can see one fragment of his study: “Nacirema culture is characterized by a highly developed market economy which has evolved in a natural habitat. While much of the people’s time is devoted to economic pursuits, a large part of the fruits of these labors and a considerable portion of the day are spent in ritual activity. The focus of this activity is the human body, the appearance and health of which loom as a dominant concern in the ethos of people. While such a concern is certainly not unusual, its ceremonial aspects and associated philosophy are unique. The fundamental belief underlying the whole system appears to be that the human body is ugly and that its natural tendency is to debility and disease. Incarcerated in such a body, man’s only hope is to avert these characteristics through the use of powerful influences of ritual and ceremony.“ While this may seem like a serious depicture of a Native American tribe, the text is all about the American society, hence its name: Nacirema, which is American read the other way around. The text was originally meant to be a criticism towards the non-interest of anthropologists in the American society, but became something much more than that. By creating an “outsider” environment for the reader, Miner takes us outside of what we are in order to better analyze how we behave. He allows us to see the superficiality and emptiness that most of our daily rituals contain: our cult to the image and the physical appearance. Taking us 60 years forward, another “study”, which lately has been receiving a lot of attention of the media, depicts a high-developed society, in Sci-Fi like scenarios. Creating the same “outsider” environment, the TV Series Black Mirror, shows the bad consequences of social media at its worst. Internet trolls, people who live in their recorded memories, robot bees that can kill you, and space ships (just kidding): so basically, everything that any Sci-Fi fan like me loves about a good sci-fi history. But what is there more to take from this TV Series? What can we learn from it? Much like Miner, Charlie Brooker, who directs Black Mirror, criticizes society by putting all society’s bad characteristics in steroids in his stories. And impressively, or not, both studies overlap multiple times. Miner’s study is so contemporary that it could be a part of one of Black Mirror’s episodes. The main trait criticized by both authors is the increase in our lack of empathy. While Miner talks about how in the Nacirema society, mirrors are seen as an important piece in every household, and represent the ultimate importance given to the image, Brooker shows in a diverse number of occasions throughout the series how image, and not real feelings, is important for this high-developed society. In a revisited version of the Nacirema, their thirst for war, even though most of the times with no reason whatsoever is also highlighted :“There seems to be no practical goal for the organized battles of the Nacirema. The crowds of screaming attendees of the strops battles clearly demonstrate the strong undercurrent of sadism in the cultural makeup of this people.” However, I think Miner may have forgotten to take into consideration the American love for delivering Freedom to other countries Again, the same trait is characterized in Black Mirror, with online hate being the motive for actual killings in one of the episodes, even though the motives for the hate brinks the nonsense, scarily representing what we see in social media nowadays. So how could a study from 1956 have so many similarities with a novel from the 21st century? The explanation lies in what each of the authors main goal is: Miner wanted to show the worst of society, and Brooker shows what’s worst about social media. The conclusion is as easy as 1+1=2: social media accentuate what’s worst about social dynamics. What could be one of the best psychological names I have ever seen in my life, the “Nasty Effect”, recounts about the consequences of hatred comments online. In their research, Ashley A. Anderson, Dominique Brossard, Dietram A. Scheufele, Michael A. Xenos, Peter Ladwig, gave a nanotechnology text for random people to read. Sometimes some hatred comments were shown below the article, and sometimes  they were omitted. The researchers (sorry doctors but you are too many to quote) discovered that when the bad comments were displayed, the subjects of the study tended to be more polarized. Even if they didn’t understand what the text was about, or had doubts about their understanding, the hostile comments made them choose a side. And this is what worries me the most. Of course, we cannot crucify social media, saying that it made humanity lose all its empathy. Multiple cases show how social media helps us to actually relate with situations we might never even know if it wasn’t for technology. Take as an example the terrible airplane crash that happened last week with the Brazilian football team Chapecoense. Literally, the whole football world was mourning for them. A situation which most likely wouldn’t have happened in the same scale without the internet. Political outbursts, like the Arab Spring, which also were only possible because of internet are as much as an example of good use of internet. Unfortunately, even though we have some times of empathy shown in internet relations, it consists of the minority of the cases. Social media not only accentuates what’s worst about society, but it also potentiates it. This can be seen in any online forum: how people crucify the other for a simple disagreement, or disseminate wrong information or use videos/audios as the ultimate source of knowledge. There are so many studies, articles and educational material about how bad this type of use of internet is to our society, that it is beyond the comprehension of this article. What I can say is that these articles not necessarily talk about internet or specifically internet troll, but they explain why our behavior takes place like that in a Wild West like scenario that internet is. To take one of the points mentioned above, and to finally put into use my philosophy classes in high school, let’s take as an example the fact that nowadays people believe every WhatsApp audio, YouTube video and tweet they see and hear. In one of the stories used to explain his theory, Plato (oh yeah I’m definitely going for that) talks about men who are leaving inside a cave and since they are chained to a rock,they can only  see the shadow of whoever is passing in front of the cave. Their world and their truth is exactly what they see, the shadows. One of them is able to break free, and upon seeing the outside world he gets amazed with the real world. Excited about telling his friends about what the real world looks like, he comes back to the cave and starts talking about everything he saw. His friends, believing blindly(see the irony?) in the shadow world they lived their whole lives, they kill his friend, saying that he went crazy. Funny how this is similar to internet debates over politics and economics right? In the end, what determines how internet is used is who is behind that monitor, which is me, you and everyone else in the world. The lack of empathy, the shallow discussions and the political discussions which we see every day on Facebook are just the beginning of what could be a Black Mirror future. Regulation won’t take us anywhere, cause all things considered, as the prohibition of alcohol in the US in 1920 and the censorship my country, Brazil, had in the dictatorship, punishment is not educational. What would take us in a different path, as usual and almost too repetitive, is education. Empathy is taught, not given, and if we want to see bad use of social media to stop, we have to be the first ones to do it. Especially, millennials. We were born in this scenario, and we are not only its main composition but also its future. In summary, as the poet used to say: “All we need is love, and a beer”.

My nephew, Paul, loves watching football. Until quite recently, I found this hard to understand. Where is the fun in sitting through a 90-minute match in which close to zero entertainment is offered, hardly any goals are scored (2.5 goals per match, on average), and random mistakes by referees can have a disproportional influence on the outcome of the match? Even watching Bridget Jones’s Baby, where random mistakes at least give rise to new life, would seem more attractive to me. But nowadays, when nephew Paul invites me to watch a football match, I happily accept the invitation. The reason is that I have learned to appreciate football as a rich and openly accessible test bed for social sciences. Take penalty kicks. Penalty kicks offer a great opportunity to test predictions from game theory. Why? First of all, penalty kicks boil down to a well-defined game between two players: the football player taking the penalty and the goalkeeper. Their actions (the corner they choose) and the outcome (goal or no goal) are clearly observable. Second, the interaction between the player and the goalkeeper is close enough to a “simultaneous-move” game: the player and the goalkeeper must move at the same time because the ball only takes about 0.3 seconds to travel the distance between the penalty mark and the goal line. Third, both the player and the goalkeeper have great incentives to perform well during penalty kicks. A goal scored in a penalty kick has a high chance of being decisive for the outcome of the match—keeping in mind that only about 2.5 goals are scored in an average match. Also, the financial stakes in football are several orders of magnitude higher than in a typical lab experiment (where participants can earn about 10 euros an hour). Ignacio Palacios-Huerta, a professor at the London School of Economics, is as thrilled as I am by penalty kicks. He studied 1,417 penalty kicks from professional football matches that took place between September 1995 and June 2000 in Spain, Italy, England, and other countries. Palacios-Huerta modeled a penalty kick as a game in which the players have two possible actions: The player can only choose to shoot to the left or to the right and the goalkeeper must choose whether to dive to the left or to the right (from the player’s viewpoint). The table below gives an example of the resulting game. In the table, the payoffs for the goalkeeper are 1 if he stops the ball and 0 if the player scores. For the player, it is exactly the other way around. Just for illustrative purposes, I have chosen the numbers in the table assuming that if both players choose the same side, the goalkeeper will always stop the ball, while if they choose opposite sides, the shot will always result in a goal. Game theory predicts the following. First, both players randomize in that they do not choose one corner with certainty. In the table above, both players optimally choose either corner with a 50 percent probability. True randomization implies that a player’s choice does not depend on his choices in previous penalty kicks. Second, for players to be willing to randomize between corners, the probability of a player scoring a goal (or a goalkeeper preventing it) is independent of the corner chosen. Palacios-Huerta found support for both hypotheses in his dataset. The predictions by game theory seem to hold water. Palacios-Huerta’s analysis is not without criticism, though. For example, researchers from Israel observed that game theory does not perform so well if “stay in the goal’s center” is added to the goalkeeper’s strategy set. Perhaps surprisingly, they observe that goalkeepers are better off staying in the goal’s center instead of jumping right or left. This is inconsistent with game theory which is built on the assumption that a player optimally responds to the other player’s strategy. The authors then argue that the goalkeeper may suffer from “action bias”: he feels worse when a goal is scored when staying in the center (inaction) than when jumping (action). People may also suffer from action bias outside the football field. For instance, it would be hard for policymakers to not “do something” in a recession. Even if the intervention does not work, at least they can say that they tried to improve the situation. In the next elections, perhaps you should look for a candidate who voted against such interventions. For the same reason, company owners may want to protect managers who decide to retain the status quo even when things turn bad for the company. On a more personal level, the next time you find yourself lost in a Malaysian rainforest with your GPS tracker out of battery, zero bars on your cell phone, and no trail of bread crumbs marking your route, you are well advised to remain where you are (inaction) instead of moving deeper into the rainforest (action) to maximize the probability that the rescue team will find you. All in all, I now happily join my nephew Paul to watch football matches. Not only do they offer me an excuse not to watch Bridget Jones’s Baby, they also teach me a lot about game theory and psychology.