Not so long ago, everything seemed to be going pretty well for Brazil: the country of football, Carnival and Latin America’s biggest economy. The economy accelerated and quickly recovered from the international financial crisis, having grown by an impressive rate of 7,5% in 2010. On top of that, in 2007 the winner of the most World Cup victories was awarded with the honor of hosting the FIFA World Cup 2014 and the summer 2016 Olympic games. A wave of optimism and pride swept the country until Brazil’s confidence was shaken by the massive popular protests in 2013. In summer 2013, protests in Brazil made headlines around the world. What initially started in 2012 in cities like Rio de Janeiro, Porto Alegre and Natal, soon became part of a much larger movement in June and July, 2013, involving many more cities like São Paulo, Brasília and others. Increases in transport ticket prices may have triggered the demonstrations, but they quickly became a means of expression for the Brazilian people to show their discontent with issues such as: the lack of infrastructure; high inflation and costs of living; insufficiencies in public services (like education and health); corruption and inequality. It was not a coincidence that Brazil was hosting the Confederations Cup at the time. People’s frustration and disappointment was aggravated by the massive public investments in one of the most important sporting events: FIFA World Cup. In a country confronted with serious social and political problems, where taxes represent 36% of GDP, the billions of reals spent in all the preparations for the Cup seemed like the wrong priority. The protests shocked the world with its violence, police repressions and size. According to ‘The Guardian’, the summer protests were reported in at least 80 cities, with a total turnout that may have reached 2 million people. Nothing had achieved these proportions and intensity since 1985, the end of Brazil’s dictatorship. The demonstrations have continued and threaten to disturb the Cup. The event has brought structural problems to the surface and its preparations have also come at a cost. The preparations World Cup large construction projects have been associated with violations of basic human rights. These have been particularly evident in slums (favelas), where forced evictions have increased the vulnerability of thousands of people in the cities hosting the event. Some families have been relocated to completely distant locations away from their social network, whereas others have not been given proper compensation or consulted in any way. There have been cases of violence, threats and illegal break-ins. Online videos of people resisting and fighting for their right to housing in different favelas and communities have revealed the severities of a process that is affecting an estimated 170000 people. Evictions are not the only thing frustrating favelas residents. Another criticism has targeted the pacifying police units and their role in favelas. Not only have they been criticized for their violence, but they also do not solve the deep-rooted problems of poverty and fragile living conditions of these areas. Discontentment has also risen among workers in construction sites: there have been strikes in stadiums and demands for wage increases and better working conditions. It is no wonder that Brazilian authorities are being accused of investing public money in a project that is contributing to exacerbate inequalities. Delays in constructions have also defined Brazil’s preparation process. According to Joseph Blatter, president of FIFA, ‘No country has been so far behind in its preparations since I have been at FIFA even though it is the only host nation which has had so much time – seven years – in which to prepare.’ This is affecting not only the stadiums, but also communication infrastructure and airports. In addition, since many projects are costing much more than expected, there are suspicions of corruption and close ties between politicians and firms. Preparations are putting people under strain, but what benefits can they expect from the event that promised to show Brazil’s rising economic power? Benefits for the economy Brazil is known for its specialization in agricultural products, manufacturing, mining and services. It is one of the BRICS and has been growing in the last decades, while lifting millions out of poverty. As the economy has lost its previous vitality in the last couple of years with bleak growth rates, the World Cup investments had promised countless benefits. They brought the infrastructure reform the country needed. Stadiums, highways, roads, metro lines, airports and public transport are all part of this reform. The Cup will also come with tourism, foreign investment and development of several sectors. The exact number of billions spent on the Cup is not known and varies with sources. The multiplier effects are also not clear. In fact, both the real number of reals spent and the benefits for the Brazilian economy will only be known well after the event is over. A 2011 report by Ernst & Young Brazil claims the 22,46 billion reals spent will bring 112,79 billion into the Brazilian economy. Between 2010 and 2014, the report predicts the event will generate 3,63 million jobs per year and 63,48 billion reals of income for the population. The same report also acknowledges that most of the impacts will not be ‘permanent’ and depend on ‘stakeholders’ ability to benefit from the event’s opportunities and legacy’. FIFA World Cup was held in Brazil for the first time in 1950. It was the 4th World Cup and the first after World War II. At a time where Europe was still recovering from the war, it was difficult for FIFA to find a country to host the event. The Cup was supposed to take place in 1949, but the event was postponed one year, so that European countries and national teams could reorganize themselves. Times were different and now Brazil’s faces harder and stricter challenges to meet the commitments signed in 2007 by former president Lula da Silva. Will Brazilian efforts be rewarded? That is yet to be answered. Pelé: The more difficult the victory, the greater the happiness in winning #brasil #economy #football #worldcup

News about Ukrainian revolution used to hit the news headlines in the past. Nowadays news does not say much about what is happening in the country, it may seem that the situation is stabilising. However, Ukraine now faces a lot of changes and I thought it would be interesting to provide an overview of what is happening in the country today. ting to provide an overview of what is happening in the country today. How it all started? Ukrainian revolution (also known as Euromaidan) broke out in February 2014. However, the background of the revolution dates back to November 2013, when now the former president of Ukraine Victor Yanukovich, chose closer ties with Russian Federation over signing the free trade agreement with EU. This decision could possibly be made because of the economic pressure Russia put on Ukraine. Moreover, Russia offered a higher loan, cheaper gas prices and did not, in contrast to EU, demand any changes in Ukrainian major laws. This decision was highly disapproved by the west of the country, but Yanukovich did receive support in the east, where more native Russians live. This was the first motive for the February riots. In the beginning, the protests were quite peaceful. However, due to the fact that in January 2014 the Ukrainian Parliament started to repress the protest by various regulating laws, the violence appeared. Ukrainian government took ctive actions to cut out the protests, which did not have good results. Currently, there are 130 deaths, of both – civilian protesters and police officers, identified. In order to receive more information about the February riots and the motives of people, I suggest watching an NETFLIX documentary called “Winter on fire”, which describes the February riots and explains what lead to them. Ukrainian revolution is a starting point of many changes that are happening in the country. What has changed in the country since? Political changes In the end of December, Victor Yanukovich disappeared, and the decision of removing him from the power was made. New elections were set for 25th of May. Petro Poroshenko won the election and became a new president of Ukraine. On the 1st of March, president of Russian Federation Vladimir Putin, requests to use force on Ukrainian territory to protect Russian interests and the Parliament of Russia approved the request. This decision causes a lot of controversies in Crimea region. The referendum was held later on and according to Russia, Crimea became an official part of Russian Federation. The EU and the US do not approve the annexion of Crimea; the crisis in Ukraine becomes a global event. Losing a part of Ukraine’s territory has a highly negative effect in the east of the country, where military operations against “pro-Russian” militants were launched afterwards. Summing up, the politician arena changed a lot in Ukraine. Also, the protests lead to tension and war appearing between Russian Federation and Ukraine. Moreover, the EU and the US put sanctions on Russia, in order to remove the Russian troops from the territory of Ukraine, which does not have the expected effect. Economical changes The economic situation in Ukraine faces a crisis, as Russian government reduced the provision of gas to the country. As well as this, the country needs to invest money in the development of forces. Looking at the positive sides, Ukraine signed a landmark association agreement with EU. The agreement is focused on cooperation in political and economic questions; also, it is one of the steps towards a visa-free movement of people. Social changes The citizens of Ukraine now experiences an unstable environment, loss of jobs; many young men are sent to the military forces. The United Nations refugee agency claims that more than 600 thousand people have now left the east of the country, most of them moved to Russia. People just want to escape from the war and protect themselves and their families, which is why there is a big flow of people towards the centre and the west of Ukraine and to other countries, especially Russia. The statistics for February 2015 says that nearly 6 thousand people died in the east of the country, with more than 14 thousand wounded. Now there is even more. What is happening in the country now? Today, the country is still coping with the appeared crisis. The political situation is very brittle, as the war in the east of the country is still on. The latest news discusses the cease of all the diplomatic relations with Russian Federation; to start with, all the passenger flights between the two countries have been stopped earlier this year. In the east of the country, where the war began, hostility is still on. Petro Poroshenko himself states that the country is now in a political crisis. However, relations between Ukraine and western countries grow. Recently, ministers of national defence of Canada and Ukraine considered cooperation in terms of weapon supplies. The referendum held on the 6th of April this year, discussed the EU-Ukraine association agreement. One of the main points was to isolate Russia as a potential threat and provide more economic support to Ukraine. The country now needs to orient on western market and find new trade partners. You can read more about this topic in the article of Daan Grootenboer. As Ukraine lost one of the major companions and support (Russian Federation), the country faces an economic crisis as well. Ukraine had to buy gas from other countries, which was 30% more expensive than usual. As well as this, Ukraine lost its biggest market – Russia, so the export of the products suffers. Moreover, the national currency (grivna) has fallen by two-thirds. People are faced with more expensive products, loss of jobs. This lead to falling of the living standards nearly by half. The government is now focusing on developing agriculture and information technology to help the economy grow. Speaking about people, a patriotic vibe in the country is stronger than before. The TV programmes and films in the cinema are now mostly in Ukrainian, not in Russian. The music culture of the country is cherishing and musicians are writing songs in the native language. The war affected each of the families in Ukraine, so people support each other and always try to help families in a worse situation than they are. Although, Ukraine has been through a lot and the nation is now faced with the crisis, people believe in a brighter future for their country. Giving my personal opinion, I feel that it will take a lot of time for Ukraine to get out of the crisis, but with the right approach, it is possible. The revolution itself changed peoples’ beliefs and the whole nation mind as well. I can already see some positive changes in the country, which can lead to Ukraine’s growth and development. #politicalworld #ukraine #ukrainiancrisis

The end of history With the fall of the Berlin Wall politics has entered a period of ideological hollowness, characterized by the absence of viable alternatives to Western Liberalism. Some even believe that the rise of Western liberal democracy marks the endpoint of humanity´s socio-cultural evolution and argue that the collapse of the Soviet-Union symbolizes “The end of History”. Today, liberalism’s far-reaching hegemony truly seems to stand unchallenged – especially in the Western world. The outcomes of Western political elections confirm this impression for they reveal that essentially all seats in parliament are occupied by liberalists of some kind. Although these liberal politicians may disagree on redistributive aspects, virtually none of them challenges the prevailing dogma of our time. That is, all agree that the role of the state consists of providing social services, supplying infrastructure and, above all, guarding private property and free markets. Despite the overwhelming dominance of liberalist thought in public life, a significant number of people dream of societies based on different principles. A smaller number actively tries to challenge liberalist ideas as to create their earthly Utopia. Some of these activists intend to revive old dogmas, whereas others put their fate in new ideologies. Who are these people? And, what do they have to offer? In order to answer these and more questions, Rostra sets out on a journey through the margins of Dutch politics and interviews the idealists who aspire to shape the world of tomorrow. The interview I meet Jasper de Groot of the Dutch Libertarian Party on a rainy afternoon in Amsterdam. Right on time, Jasper arrives at the Coffee Company where the interview takes place. First, I wonder how this ordinary 23 year old Brabander can lead a political movement. But after a minute or so, I discover that his eyes start to twinkle the moment we commence discussing politics. The chairman of the libertarian party affirms that fundamental principles are no longer discussed in parliament, rather “most discussions are about tiny percentages”. When it comes to him and his libertarian party, this is about to change. The interview below offers an interesting snapshot of the society he envisions: What is libertarianism all about? The nonaggression principle is the most vital principle of libertarianism. According to this principle no one is allowed to attack the belongings or freedom of an individual. This might seem evident but, in contrast to what other parties believe, we believe that this principle should also apply to the government itself. That is, the state should be just another legal entity. Taxes, for instance, are imposed upon us. A libertarian disagrees with this practice and sees no fundamental difference between taxes and extortion. I have to add, though, that Libertarianism is an umbrella concept, which ranges from anarcho-capitalism – which opposes any form of government whatsoever – to classical liberalism. Our party falls within this latter denominator and advocates a night-watchman state. According to your political program, libertarians “strive for a free World; a World in which no one is forced to sacrifice his or her freedom or property for the sake of others.” To what extent are our personal freedoms infringed upon under the current political system? First, I want to recognize that we are way better off than people in, for instance, North-Korea. Nevertheless, we could be much more free than we are today. For example, think about the strict government policies that regulate the use of alcohol, tobacco and drugs. If you decide to use these substances, only you will bear the consequences. Still, the government forbids you to consume these products. Even more, the state can deprive you of your freedom and put you in jail for doing so. A similar argument holds for taxes. According to us man should be free to enjoy the fruits of his labor, but again, if you do not pay your taxes the state will imprison you. Unfortunately, few people realize how limited our freedom actually is. This has to do with the fact that we are accustomed to live in a society of limited freedom. Besides, most deterioration of our freedom happens gradually and therefore go by unnoticed. Dutch tax revenues finance our social services and our infrastructure. Who else but the government can provide these services? A significant amount of social services already existed before the state started to provide them. Previous to World War II, when the Netherlands was much poorer then now, two thirds of Dutch citizens had some form of private insurance. Labor unions had their own health care insurance programs and several private insurance companies offered means-tested benefits. During the German occupation, social services were brought under state command. The same argument holds for infrastructure, for the first roads were privately built. The market is very capable of creating social services and infrastructure. And when I say market I do not only refer to big businesses but also to co-operations and local collaborations. Let’s try to clear things up: what would be the role of the state in a Libertarian society? The libertarian party wants to minimize taxes and maximize personal liberty. For instance, if you want to build a house on your own ground, you should have the freedom to do so as long as that house and its construction do not affect the freedom of others. Furthermore, a libertarian state will not intervene in the rise of new initiatives like Uber and Flixbus, whilst today the state often impedes their ascent. This has to do with the fact that these businesses attack state monopolies. Flixbus, for example, is only allowed to offer their transport services on routes that do not harm the monopoly of the NS. So we are free to do as we please as long as our actions do not harm state revenue? Yes and no. Legislations of all kinds affect our freedom. Furthermore, it is not necessarily out of bad intentions that the state impedes new initiatives, but also because the state is a cumbersome machine. State bureaucracy and sluggish decision making slow down innovation. The internet, for instance, has been able to grow rapidly in an environment without legislation. Now that the state starts to regulate the internet, we witness a deceleration of innovation on that market. In a libertarian society businesses would enjoy the freedom of unregulated markets. Among others, this implies that legislation aimed at preventing monopolies would be absent. That seems like a huge disadvantage for the average citizen. The monopolies we have nowadays are the result of privileges provided by the state. The NS, for example, is the only company allowed to make use of the Dutch railway system. Because of the absence of competition, the NS can raise its prizes with a maximum while its services deteriorate. Almost all monopolies have originated in a similar fashion. In a libertarian society there would be no state to hand out privileges, neither would there be patents or copyrights. This would increase competition and, therefore, monopolists would not have as much power as they have today. Should we not be afraid that big companies would become too powerful in the business Walhalla you propose? In the current system businesses can increase their power by lobbying. A few years ago Philips lobbied for a ban on light bulbs. Why? Because Philips owned important patents in LED technology, but was not able to sell their expensive LED lamps in a market dominated by cheap light bulbs. In a libertarian society, companies are not able to manipulate legislation in order to eliminate competition. This would result in a society that is no longer dominated by big enterprise, a society with low entry barriers for small businesses. We see, for instance, that In states with a more liberal economy, like Hong Kong and Liechtenstein, young and small businesses flourish. The rich lists of these countries are filled with people that made their fortune in the last twenty years. Dutch rich lists, however, are dominated by old fortunes like those of the Heineken family. In a minimal state there is no room for a social security system. What does this mean for the people at the bottom of the economic ladder? In the current system the government is an unreliable partner. It arbitrarily changes the conditions under which you can apply for economic support. In some cases, the government can force people to work in exchange for allowances lower than minimum wage. We are in favor of abolishing minimal wage as to create more employment. Furthermore, social security can be perfectly provided for by private enterprise. Increased social dependence forms a positive side-effect of our plans. We often complain about the hardening of our society, which is exemplified by stories we read in the newspaper: an elderly woman that lies in her apartment for two months before someone finally discovers her death. Those stories are illustrative for the time we live in, a time in which the government plays to big a role in  social security. We believe that, rather than the government, society should be most important. People often make the mistake to confuse the government with the society. The society is the people and the state is the organization on top of them. In his book “Capital in the Twenty-First century” Piketty showed that capital outgrows wages. This implies that, without government intervention, the gap between rich and poor is destined to get bigger. On the other hand research has shown that the fortune of rich families in the United States, where the economic liberty is larger than in the Netherlands, tend to vanish within a couple of generations, because younger generations squander the fortune. We believe that it is important to make a distinction between income equality and income mobility. According to us, the latter is more crucial. Internationally the Netherlands scores relatively well when it comes income equality. Income mobility, in contrast, is relatively low. This has to do with the fact that high labor taxes make it hard to gather capital. We also see that more free economies have higher income mobility. So, individual freedom is of central importance for a libertarian. But rich people definitely have more possibilities than poor ones. Aren’t therefore the rich more ‘free’ than the poor? That depends on your definition of freedom. We define freedom as the absence of coercion. It is true that you have more possibilities if you are rich, but you are not necessarily more free in the sense that you experience less coercion. But circumstances often force the poor to make certain decisions. Yes, but that constitutes another kind of coercion, one in which violence is absent. In our view, coercion limits itself to the use of force or the threat of doing so aimed at pushing people in a specific direction. Your plea in favor of personal liberty must be based on an optimistic image of human nature. How well founded is this image? A positive image of human nature is not strictly necessary for a libertarian. Some libertarians argue that, especially, if man were intrinsically bad, you should not give him the power to rule over others. Unfortunately, that power does exist today. Politicians, just people after all, determine how individual lives are arranged. We want to take the power of the 150 members of parliament and distribute it to 17 million Dutch citizens. If this is achieved, these 17 million people are forced to consider the interests of each other for social pressure and the threat of social exclusion will discipline them. There is no example of a libertarian state in modern history. Can I say that you propose an experiment? You are right, there is no example of a truly Libertarian state. We do see, however, that libertarian policies are effective. For example, the countries with the most free economies are among the most wealthy countries of the planet. We also see that the number of drug addicts is lower in states with a more free drug policy. In Czech Republic, where cocaine use has been decriminalized, cocaine use is lower than in any other European country. Finally, how would a libertarian state behave in international conflicts like the war in Syria and the crisis in Ukraine? That constitutes a hard topic, which we often discuss in our political meetings. On the one hand, we believe that state intervention in foreign conflicts should be minimized. The roots of these conflicts often lie in in the intervention of foreign powers. Think, for instance, about the rise of ISIL, which can be traced back to U.S. intervention in the region. On the other hand, the nonaggression principle allows us to intervene in international affairs as soon as individual liberties are under attack. This certainly holds in the case of ISIL. Ideally, foreign intervention would not depend on state financed armies, but would depend on donations and voluntary work.

The University Life – by Olga Kowalska Have you thought that exciting news comes only from the big world of politics or business? You have no idea how many interesting things happen on our own playground! After the last year’s student protest at the UvA, aimed at bringing decentralization and more transparency to the decision-making process, the university seems to face another wave of the crisis. First of all, Hans Amman, the Vice President of Executive Board of the University, has resigned after just two years in this position. Amman was responsible for the financial decisions, of which the most important ones concerned allocation of money among the faculties and management of real estate property. Not only the news about Amman’s resignation was surprising but also the way it became known to UvA employees. The information was leaked to the media and NRC, a big Dutch magazine, was the first one to announce it. Second problem concerns the elections of the new Rector Magnificus. The elections take place again behind closed doors, without contribution from the students and employees. Folia has published issue with an article called ‘De Boobie Bible: feminism anno 2016’ and naked breasts on the cover. Nothing wrong, one may think. Apparently not for the management of HvA’s (Amsterdam University of Applied Science) two faculties, who removed the magazines from schools, claiming they would be inappropriate for the prospective students who visited HvA during its ‘open days’. You can find more on that here. Students were thrilled by the news that Science Park is facing the epidemic of scabies. Luckily, just one student experienced the annoying symptoms of the disease and two others, who shared with him a laboratory coat, may have become infected. So, I hope there is nothing to worry about! Economics Recap – by Daniel Koudijs While the Brexit is looming ever larger over Europe, two other parties across the canal have been moving closer together this month. The London Stock Exchange and Deutsche Bourse are in talks of merging their two businesses. They have tried to merge twice before but both times the deal has been rejected by the shareholders. Both companies have diversified their operations since and the potential gains from merging are more evident, making the deal more likely to succeed this time. Merger between the two would create the second biggest exchange (in market capitalisation) in the world. A less successful effort was made by the ECB, who on March 9th decided on more monetary stimulus for the Eurozone. Deposit rates were slashed further below zero and the quantitative easing programme extended. Markets were not impressed by Mr. Draghi’s announcement as the feeling the ECB is quickly running out of options became stronger. The measure of cutting rates even further below zero is a painful move for the European banks, but aims to signal the ECB’s dedication to doing whatever it takes to spur growth. Yet at the same time Draghi admitted this is as far as they will go. Firing all your impressive weapons at once and then saying that this was all your ammunition is not a very good way to boost confidence. Dutch Taxes – by Yoeri Min Since March 4th,  it is possible to fill in the Dutch tax return. This year, for the first time, people are able to fill in the tax returns on the IRS website or mobile app. Filling in the tax return using paper is still possible, although few people use it. Despite the increase in capacity to 42.000 users at the same time, queues and glitches cannot be avoided. Therefore, the Dutch Secretary of State Eric Wiebes has advised people to avoid to fill in their tax return during Easter. The developments regarding the tax return are specifically interesting because of the upcoming changes in the tax system, initiated by Eric Wiebes. In 2015, large reformations in the tax policy were announced. However, the tax plan 2016 was toned down to a change in the wealth tax in ‘box 3’ and some general changes in tariffs, charges, and exceptions. Business Recap – by Ioana Nicolau If you are in doubt about where to put your entrepreneurial skills in practice, Forbes comes to the rescue as it recently launched its Top 20 best countries to do business in! Netherlands occupies the 9th place, two places higher than last year. For the fifth time in 8 years, Denmark swoops in at the 1st place, ranking excellent for its personal and monetary freedom as well as for its low corruption. New Zealand, Norway and Singapore are hitting the top spots of the chart as well. Acquisitions added some dynamism to this month’s business environment. Blackstone came out to be the strongest contender to acquire Mphasis (IT solutions provider) from Hewlett Packard. Sources stated that the deal is worth over $1 billion. Further on, India’s larger online retailer, Flipkart, is considering selling itself to Amazon. This represents a twist in the startup tale with Flipkart being expected to go the full distance as an independent Internet giant.   Uber is seeking to buy self-driving cars, with Volkswagen, Daimler’s Mercedes-Benz, BMW and car industry suppliers Bosch and Continental working on technologies for autonomous or at least semi-autonomous cars. Speaking about Volkswagen, only few people see the light at the end of the tunnel, given the “Dieselgate” affair and the following huge barrage of lawsuits. Google DeepMind Challenge Match – by Michael van Rhee Lee Sedol, the reigning world champion of the ancient Chinese board game Go, recently lost a highly anticipated encounter with a computer engine developed by Google DeepMind, called AlphaGo. Google DeepMind is a British artificial intelligence company founded in September 2010 as DeepMind Technologies. It was renamed when it was acquired by Google in 2014. The company has created a neural network that learns to play video games in a fashion similar to that of humans. Go, an abstract strategy board game for two players, had always been a particularly difficult game to learn for computer engines, seeing as players have often stated to rely a great deal on their intuition when deciding on a move, especially in complex situations. This ‘human’ way of thinking was always thought to be impossible to replicate, so this is a new pinnacle for artificial intelligence. As for the match itself: Sedol lost the match 4-1, having lost the first three games in a row (and thus settling the tie), but then saved his honour by beating the machine once in the remaining two games. Old Fashion Football with Modern Management Theory – by Brunno Fontanetti When I started looking into why and how Leicester City has such a big potential in English football, I have to admit I was expecting some kind of “Moneyball” – the movie tells the history of a bad baseball team that uses the ratings of the players to build a winning team from the scratch. However, to my surprise, what I found was a deep managerial insight of the club’s coach, Claudio Ranieri. Ranieri’s first step, when arriving in Leicester earlier this season, was analyzing and making a thorough report of Leicester City’s last games – a procedure used in the strategical analysis called diagnosis, which helps managers have a better understanding of the situation. Secondly, he decided to create an innovative tactic to solve the problems assessed in the diagnosis part: he realized that his players weren’t good in keeping ball possession and thus he decided to build a strong and solid defense with a fast and deadly counter attack. Again Ranieri uses the managerial theory – transformational leadership – to approach his situation: having the information of his team’s performance, he created an ingenious new system which relies on the communication and understanding of the players towards a collective goal. So far his strategic plan has been working perfectly: with less ball possession in all the games, Leicester only lost 2 games in the season, and it’s 5 points ahead of the second best team in the league, Tottenham. As a football fan, I hope more managerial skills are applied to it, especially if that means having the good competitive football back. Politics Recap – by Artur Rymer Since the beginning of the year we have seen a lot of turmoil in the world of global politics and March has followed the pattern. The biggest news in European politics is the agreement between the EU and Turkey, according to which refugees who reach Greece but do not apply for asylum or have their application rejected will be sent to Turkey. In return the EU will provide Turkey with €3 billion, lift visa restrictions to Schengen area for Turkish nationals and the country’s accession negotiations will be resumed. The deal has been heavily criticised as many doubt Turkey’s ability to comply with international standards of humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Donald Trump is leaving behind other Republican candidates in the US presidential primaries, with Marco Rubio dropping out from the race, while Hillary Clinton is trying to increase her lead over the other Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders. In Brazil, more than a million (3,5 million according to some figures) protesters went to the streets in the country’s biggest cities to demand President Dilma Rousseff’s resignation in the wake of the poor economic state and the allegations of corruption on the highest levels of government. On March 15th, the Syrian Civil War has entered its 6th year. More than 250,000 people have died and more than 11 million have been forced to leave their homes. Still, no immediate solution to the conflict seems to be in sight. A Fight Between Apple and the US Department of Justice – by Yana Chernysh US government is forcing Apple to provide them access to the data of the iPhone users, which company refuses to do. The reason for this claim is that the iPhone of a gunman Rizwan Farook (who killed 14 people in December) can contain evidence of his actions and links to other criminal groups. The company refuses to hack the phone, as it can lead to unlimited access to the data that can be used by both government and criminals. In February, the court decided to force Apple to make a special programme that will give access to all the data to the government. Now, Apple is fighting against this decision, as it breaks the rights of the citizens and the company itself. Apple received the support of their action from Google, Microsoft, Facebook and others. A case is scheduled for the 22nd of March. Tim Cook said that he is willing to take this case to the Supreme Court if necessary. Terrorist Attack in Ankara  – by Yana Chernysh On the 13th of March, a car bomb has exploded in the commercial area of Ankara, which lead to the death of 37 people. The exact number of injured people is still unknown, however, more than 125 people are now in hospitals, some in critical condition. Citizens were immediately evacuated from the place of the explosion, as there was a chance that there was more than one bomb. It should be mentioned that Turkey has been under some serious terrorist attacks for the last 19 months, most of them are said to be organized by ISIS militants. The investigation of this particular attack is now in process. President Obama Nominates Supreme Court Justice – by Antoine Steen U.S. President Barack Obama has nominated Merrick Garland, the chief judge of the Washington appeals court, to the Supreme Court after the death of long-serving conservative Justice Antonin Scalia. Senate Republicans have vowed not to vote on any nominee picked by Obama for the lifetime position on the court, hoping that the position can be confirmed after the presidential election – and possibly under a Republican president. Garland has earned praise from both Democrats and Republicans, and is seen as a moderate nominee. Should the nomination be confirmed, the Supreme Court will have a liberal tilt. Indeed, the leading Republican presidential candidate, Donald Trump, has warned that with four Supreme Court judgeships imminent, the court could be dominated by liberals for 50 years. At 63 years of age, however, Garland is the oldest nominee for more than 40 years. North Korean Provocations – by Michel Mijlof In the last couple months, the leader of North Korea, Kim Jong-un, tested and fired missiles that lead to a lot of fuss. Especially, South Korea did not like the provocations of the ‘supreme leader’. Officially, the two countries are still at war but they have had a ceasefire for more than 60 years. The United States of America also disliked the provocations from Kim Jong-un because the USA is supporting South Korea. The important question asked by South Korea as well as the US is: does Kim Jong-un have nuclear weapons? He declares that he is going to test missiles with a nuclear warhead. Scientists and other experts doubt the fact that he is able to use nuclear weapons. It is well known that the leader of the communist country has access to former Soviet Union military gear but many experts think that those weapons and other gear are very outdated. The overall conclusion, formed by the media/experts and, of course, USA and South Korea, is that Kim Jong-un is just acting like a tough guy to let the world know to not mess with him. It’s In the Water – by Raffaele Di Carlo Protests are growing in Flint, Michigan, where the population has risen against Governor Rick Snyder with serious charges: criminal neglect and water poisoning. As a matter of fact, the newly elected mayor of Flint, Karen Weaver, had already started an investigation into the region’s infrastructure at the beginning of her term. What she discovered left the entire State, if not the entire country, in utter indignation: the levels of lead in the State’s water supply were well above the safety standards. The fact had already been stated by Professor Marc Edwards – now appointed as leader of the “Flint Water Interagency Coordinating Committee”, tasked with addressing the water crisis – over a decade ago, but at the time his claims had been dismissed with skepticism by both the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and Washington. Today, the effects of the polluted water are visible all over the city, where there have been hundreds of reports of lead poisoning among the children: a long-term exposure can cause severe brain damage, including aggressive behavior, poor language skills and weak memory. The citizens of Flint are now helping themselves at their best, using bottled water and a supplementary line of supply from Detroit in order to avoid the contaminated water as a short-term solution while Mr. Edwards and his team address the problem. However, the situation in Flint has triggered a series of investigations all over the country that brought many similar cases throughout the US to the surface. Sharapova’s Doping Exposure – by Magdalena Wiśniewska On March 7th, the world’s best-paid tennis player, according to Forbes, Maria Sharapova, publically admitted to fail a doping test due to usage of substance called meldonium. She claimed to have taken the drug her whole career, while it has been finally banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) since the beginning of 2016. Sharapova argues that the situation was an accidental oversight, which happened due to lack of knowledge of the updated prohibited drugs list. Her future tennis career is unknown as she was imposed a four-year ban from the International Tennis Federation. However, Sharapova is not the only athlete caught taking meldonium. On the list we can find as well Ekaterina Bobrova, an ice dancer with a gold Olympic medal, world champion speed skater Pavel Kulizhnikov, and a Georgian Olympic wrestling silver medallist Davit Modzmanashvili. Even though the substance is designed for people with heart conditions, it is also claimed to improve performance, rehabilitation, counteract stress and enhance central nervous system. After the above disclosures, the online sells of meldonium have reached a sharp peak.

Financial technology is hot. Abbreviated to Fintech, it is the financial spinoff of the tech start-up and has been making waves across the world. Big banks and financial firms are channelling significant amounts of money into fintech. Even “nuchter” Holland has not escaped the hype: fintech is being actively supported by the Dutch government and large banks and on the 14th of April Amsterdam will welcome the second annual Fintech 50 conference. A lot of words and money are being spent on the topic of financial technology. But what exactly is fintech?  Does it have the potential to be more than just a phase and how relevant is it to our everyday lives? While the discussion on whether fintech is just a bubble or a real revolution is far from being settled, this article discusses some perspectives on fintech’s future potential and highlights several ways in which fintech can support the broader economy. Before getting into this, first a quick definition for those less familiar. In general, fintech firms are those providing services normally provided by banks (or other financial institutions). These firms try to gain a competitive edge on traditional financial services by using innovative technology in pretty much the same way Uber is taking on taxis and Whatsapp has conquered text messaging. Deciding on the potential of these fintech firms is today’s billion-dollar question. Providing an adequate argument on a business’ potential (let alone that of an entire sector) requires business skill, solid understanding of the market and most of all intuition. For fear of lacking most, I present a fairly straightforward perspective on looking at this issue. Fintech’s potential rests largely on two factors. The first is their ability in the long run to obtain customers and built a sustainable business from just a “good idea”. To a large extent, I have discussed this challenge for tech start-up’s in general in another article for Rostra. This same challenge applies to fintech as well. The main difference when discussing fintech is that these innovations often directly involve people’s wallet or pay check. Whether this makes people more open to advancements that solve inefficiencies or more reserved to changes in general is a key, but as of yet unanswered question. A second factor playing a large role in determining fintech’s potential is inefficiency in the financial world; or in other words the need for (or lack of) innovation in the sector it’s trying to take by storm. Text messaging on mobile phones was using outdated technology and failed to innovate, creating a chance for Whatsapp to sweep in and take over the market. The same essentially goes for fintech firms: their capability comes from the incompetence of today’s entrenched financial corporates. From this point of view there appears to be room to gain for fintech. The financial sector is one of the most heavily technology investing sectors. But even though a lot of advancements have been made in certain fields of finance such as trading (through for example HFT), the “ordinary” finance that deals with everyday customers and businesses has experienced less revolutionary changes. Aside from additions such as online banking apps they have benefitted relatively little from technological investments. This provides opportunities to disrupt the market and partly explains why people are so excited about fintech. However, as stated before, big banks are putting a lot of sources into acquiring and promoting fintech start-ups. When these disrupters are being so generously funded by the old guard they are supposed to overthrow, this places a big question mark to if they will act “disruptive” at all. Overall it seems, the case for fintech success appears to be strong. The question that remains is how will the rest of the economy gain from this? This question is highly relevant. Before the crisis, financial deepening and widening was believed to support economic growth almost unconditionally. Now, financial innovation is accepted as one of the origins of the Global Financial Crisis of 2008. Financial innovation; including derivatives, default swaps and collaterized debt obligations (in order of destructiveness), worked together to substantially weaken the financial system to the point where it almost collapsed. Financial growth and innovations have its limits and in the past years both academics and politicians have become increasingly aware of this. New financial innovation, including fintech, should therefore be judged on the benefit it brings to the broader economy. Most of the innovations done under the name of fintech are at the business-end of finance, which means they are in general directly targeted at consumers or other businesses. On the consumer-side, fintech can improve the financial health of individuals by allowing them to more optimally smooth their income and thereby consumption. Large financial institutions are often bound by strict regulation and corporate rules preventing a more optimal allocation of funds to its customers. An example of this is how fintech is helping the advance of micro-finance in both developed and emerging economies. According to the World Bank, 48% of adults in Africa are making payments using their mobile phones. Fintech has the potential to support financial inclusion and bring the benefits of finance to those currently left out. On the business side, fintech provides businesses with new ways to acquire funding. The financial sector is not isolated, but connects to the rest of the economy through primarily the issuance of credit and the saving of deposits. A renovated financial sector could in turn drive business ventures in other sectors across the economy as these now find easier ways towards capital resources. An example of this can be found in the rise of manufacturing start-ups around the world. A new well-received book (by two Dutch authors) argues that abandoned industrial cities around the world are reinventing themselves and are at a rapid pace becoming “the hotspots of global innovation”. In part, this revolution is made possible by easier access to capital through fintech solutions such as Kickstarter. It’s too early to provide a final verdict on fintech. There is a real potential for the sector itself as well as benefits to be gained for the overall economy. The financial sector is ripe for disruption, particularly  from the supply (bank) side. From the demand (consumer) side, the necessity and eagerness for financial innovation are less assured. When we judge fintech for its ability to support the broader economy, the verdict is more positive. There is evidence that suggest the fintech supports start-up activity across the economy and that it is allowing more people around the world access to financial products. In the long run, a key determinant of fintech’s success will be the consumers’ openness to change in the way they deal with money. These changes are not likely to succeed overnight but will need time to root themselves in consumer behaviour. But if cash can slowly become history, why can’t fintech slowly become the future?

At the beginning of the year 2016, the freedom of the press is yet another value that we thought to be at its all-time high, but then we suddenly were brutally disillusioned. And this is not only about the regions of the world where the freedom of the press has always been a big problem, where journalists often risk their safety and lives to report the news. This is also about developed societies, in which the freedom of the press seemed to be a sure thing. And yet, recently we have seen an increase in the number of threats to this elemental freedom, which should set off all the alarm bells. Once again, we have to turn our gaze back to our own courtyard to make sure that human rights and freedoms, which have been engraved (just like this article’s title) in the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are still fully respected in our own homes. The new Polish government, which took power in November, has since passed a series of laws that were met with opposition both domestically and internationally. One of them is the new media law, which gave the government direct control over the choice of the executive posts of the country’s public media. Subsequently, they were given to people directly related to the current ruling party Law and Justice, including a party’s former member who is now the general director of public TV. Since the changes were made, many journalists who are not affiliated with the ruling party have been fired from public media companies and many people heavily criticise the new programmes, which are often sympathetic towards the new government and present ‘uncomfortable’ news in a more positive (or at least limited) manner. The news manipulations are being caught by the watchful eye of Internet users and have become a source of many memes and jokes. However, Poland has become yet another EU country in which the government exerts influence on media on a scale that should not be seen in a developed European democracy. On March 4th, after a court order, the control over Turkish opposition newspaper Zaman has been seized by the state. Yet another one in a series of extremely worrying actions in Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the move has been heavily criticised as an attack against the freedom of the press and democracy. In response, people protested against the takeover in front of the newspaper’s offices in Istanbul, but were later dispersed by the police, which used tear gas and rubber bullets. After the takeover, the newspaper resumed operations. However, the new issues are clearly pro-government and leave no doubt that President Erdoğan is successful in silencing his opponents. Meanwhile, he has threatened to shut down the land’s highest court, which recently ordered the release of two journalists who were detained after publishing information about the government’s involvement in sending arms to Syria. One would expect that the European Union firmly opposes any measures taken against free press, especially in its neighbouring countries. Nevertheless, most of the European leaders have limited themselves to only expressing their worries, as they do not want to anger President Erdoğan, who, after the recent agreement, is supposed to solve the ‘politically inconvenient’ refugee crisis for them. Once again, our values have to give way to short-term political gains. It’s hard to keep up with Donald Trump’s controversial ideas and, because of that, some of them do not reach public opinion. Recently he said that, as president, he would allow libel lawsuits against journalists who write negative stories against politicians. Now, some would say that journalists often slander people’s reputation with false stories and take no responsibility for their actions. Although that might occasionally happen, creating a possibility for a journalist to be sued for large sums of money because they wrote an article that puts a politician in a bad light sounds more like an autocratic regime than a developed liberal democracy. This is especially worrying because those words come from a person who is likely to be a candidate for one of the most powerful political posts in the world. On Friday, March 11th, at two faculties of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (Hogeschool van Amsterdam – HvA), the newest issue of the university magazine Folia has been removed until Monday. The reason? On the following weekend, the university was open to prospective students, while the issue’s cover features an article called ‘De Boobie Bible: feminism anno 2016’ and a picture of naked breasts. The article is about the Boobie Bible project, organised by a feminist organisation called FemCom and aimed at raising awareness about the sexualisation of women bodies. When asked, the chairman of one of the two faculties, Jean Tillie, said that a magazine with naked women on the cover is not within the context of the open days during which young people come to HvA to make one of the most important decisions of their lives. In response, Folia, student union ASVA, and many people criticised the decision, while on Saturday, an UvA student, Matilda Medard (whose breasts are on the cover), handed out the magazine in one of the HvA buildings while being topless. Some will argue that the situation has become bigger than it should have and that it’s hard to call it censorship, while others will say that there should be no room for limiting the freedom of expression. One thing is certain: in the year 2016, a university in Amsterdam, in a country that takes the 4th place in the World Press Freedom index, is the last place one would expect to have public morality as an argument in a discussion about the freedom of the press. All in all, some will say that the above examples might be worrying, but certainly not proof that the freedom of the press is violated around the world, and some might agree with some of the decisions presented above. However, the freedom of the press is one of the key ‘checks and balances’ in any democratic society, and it is citizens’ first and last line of defence against aspirations of those in power to limit personal rights and freedoms. As such, every violation of it, be it legal threats against journalists, attacks on media’s independence, or censorships of a university magazine, should be pointed out and immediately opposed. In the 21st century, things like traditional values, national and state interest, short-term political interest, and public morality should not be used as arguments in a discussion about the freedom of the press, especially not in societies that claim or aspire to be developed liberal democracies. And that is why the recent events should set off the alarm bells; all the aforementioned examples are from countries that were supposed to have free and independent media, or were thought to be on the right track to achieve them. Therefore, the current situation seems like a huge step backwards. The freedom of the press is certainly not dead, and, with the existence of the Internet, it would be extremely difficult to reach that point. However, we cannot take it for granted and should always fight for it.

Are referendums a desirable way of making political decisions? To anyone who has been following the news for the last the few months, the answer might seem ‘yes’, with seemingly more and more referendums being held in various countries across Europe. In fact, two important referendums concerning the future of the European Union, be it directly or indirectly, are just around the corner: the first about the association agreement between the Netherlands and Ukraine, the second about the future of Great Britain within the European Union itself. An often-heard argument in favour of these referendums is that there are no practical limitations to organising them anymore. However, direct democracy certainly has its drawbacks as well, the most important of which I’ll address in this plea. Differing definitions A referendum (in some countries synonymous with a plebiscite) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal. This might result in the adoption of a new law. Some definitions of ‘plebiscite’ suggest that it’s a type of vote to change the constitution or government of a country, while others define it as the opposite. Australia defines ‘referendum’ as a vote to change the constitution, and ‘plebiscite’ as a vote that doesn’t affect the constitution. In contrast, Ireland has only ever held one plebiscite, which was the vote to adopt its constitution, and every other vote has been called a referendum. ‘Referendum’ is the gerund of the Latin verb refero, and has the meaning ‘bringing back’ (i.e. bringing the question back to the people). Lastly, for all you grammar geeks out there: since the word is a gerund, its only correct plural is ‘referendums’. Arguing advocates Although some advocates of direct democracy would have the referendum become the dominant institution of government, in almost all cases the referendum exists merely as a complement to the system of representative democracy, in which most major decisions are made by an elected legislature. This is by far the most common form of state government in the Western world. An often-cited exception is the Swiss canton of Glarus, where meetings are held on the village lawn to decide on matters of public concern. In most jurisdictions that practice them, referendums are relatively rare occurrences that are restricted to important issues. The most frequent type of direct popular participation is the referendum on constitutional matters, but there are plenty of counterexamples that you can think of, such as the aforementioned referendum about the association agreement between the Netherlands and Ukraine, which will be held on April 6th. Advocates of the referendum often argue that certain decisions are best taken out of the hands of representatives, and determined directly by the people. Some adopt a strict definition of democracy, stating that elected parliaments are a necessary expedient to make governance possible in the large, modern nation-state (although direct democracy is still preferable), and that the referendum takes precedence over parliamentary decisions. Other advocates insist that the principle of popular sovereignty demands that certain fundamental questions, such as the adoption or amendment of a constitution, the altering of national boundaries, or the secession of a state, be determined with the directly expressed consent of the people. One recent example of that is the referendum that’s currently being held in New Zealand, where people get to decide on the future of their national flag. (The reason for this is that it’s supposedly too reminiscent of Australia’s flag — judge for yourself!) Ignorance isn’t bliss… However, deciding on something as simple as a national flag is clearly not the same thing as settling the future of an entire nation, as in the case of the upcoming British vote. It’s highly questionable whether we, as simple citizens, are capable of making informed decisions on topics that require a great deal of research in order to understand at all. You’re not going to tell me that a layman is capable of overseeing the consequences of Great Britain leaving the European Union, when even our political leaders can’t seem to agree with each other. (Fortunately, economists do a stellar job…) The same holds true for the referendum about Ukraine. This particular referendum is often reduced to a very basic question, such as whether or not one is in favour of further European integration. Needless to say, this is not at all what the question on the ballot paper will read, but rather an oversimplification that’s typically used by people who mean to sketch a black-and-white image in order to persuade floating voters. With the amount of people taking no interest in complicated economic analyses whatsoever — that’s to say: virtually everyone — this tactic is bound to pay off, as the outcome is extremely likely to be influenced by other factors, such as expensive advertising campaigns, strong personalities, and propaganda. James Madison, the fourth president in the history of the United States, even went so far as to say that direct democracy is the “tyranny of the majority”. While I wouldn’t go that far, it’s certainly true that voters in a referendum are more likely to be driven by transient whims than by careful deliberation. We’re simply not as well-informed as politicians ought to be. That’s nothing to be ashamed of, for it’s their work, but it does mean that the effects of a referendum always remain to be seen. In fact, even if we were as knowledgeable as politicians, I don’t think it would make much of a difference. After all, we don’t have to commit to party ideals, but can instead make decisions that are relevant to us (and us alone). That might not sound like such a bad thing, but if it means losing the bigger picture in the process, it could actually put the country at a disadvantage in the long run. Maximise utility? Well, thanks, homo economicus. …it’s oblivion Anyway, the most convincing argument against referendums that I can think of would have to be that there’s simply no need for them. The whole point of constructing a parliament is to create a representative sample of society, with all the different opinions represented in it, so that we don’t have to go about consulting every single citizen for every single political decision every single time. Also, think about it. Who’s more likely to show up at the vote: a moderate person sitting somewhere in the centre of the political spectrum, or someone who feels very strongly (and, going by the Dutch news, rather angry) about an issue? It’s more likely to be the latter. Trust me, if you have people chopping off pigs’ heads and hanging them to church buildings in order to express their anger, it’s more likely to be the latter. This means that referendums are not only unnecessary, but also likely to produce less accurate (rather than more accurate) results than if we were to keep things in-house. So, there you have it. To all the Dutch readers out there: if you feel that you’re not knowledgeable enough about the association agreement, why not consider staying home, like me? If we’re lucky enough, it could mean not meeting the required 30% turn-out, thus making the referendum invalid. Let’s hope so.

I am quite allergic to the broad idea of coaching. I feel like my generation became some kind of seminar junkies – we need motivational talks to eat well, to work out well, to do our jobs well or to create relationships with others. We need other people, who motivate us to live our lives and to fulfil ourselves. We are running from one conference to another, from the therapist to the personal trainer. We switch from watching youtubers telling us the only secret of life to reading populist psychologists preaching what should make us happy. We look up uncritically at the ones who are more self-confident and fancy, somewhere in between completely losing our self-sufficiency and the ability to draw conclusions from our own experiences. What usually doctors recommend, and what I try to follow, is to keep distance from what makes you allergic. Therefore I am not a person, who you can find at the gathering like ‘Ten easy steps to eternal happiness’. The only exception I make from the rule are TED conferences, getting lately more and more popular, widespread and diverse. Citing from ted.com: ‘TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design — three broad subject areas that are collectively shaping our world. But a TED conference is broader still, showcasing important ideas from any discipline, and exploring how they all connect.‘ Most of the conferences, which can be attended by an average human being like me, have an ‘x’ addition, giving as a result a TEDx – a conference licenced by the TED organisation, but independently organised. Photo Source: Tracy Gander The only reason I make that exception is the fact I believe TEDx events have added value. At least for me, they have some important features, which make it worth to come and take the risk of exposure to some motivational talking. What are they, you’ll ask? Let me point them out: The break is here, go out there and mingle! The break is the crucial moment, when the stage-audience division disappears, when the coach-student attitude melts and when you finally can mingle. What a posh, ridiculous word – ‘mingling’. It perfectly describes what I mean, though. The moment, when you can approach whoever you want, ask questions, compare ideas and even… criticise! This is the moment when, at least from my point of view, the learning actually happens: when the monologue turns into the dialogue. The need to respond, the need to show your interest and ask the right question and, finally, the need to construct, contrast and defend your own opinion is the situation in which our world-views are shaped, not the moment when you sit staring up to the person in the light spot, absorbing every world she/he says. This is as well the point at which the greatest conclusions are drawn. And the great advantage of TEDs is the fact that during the breaks the distinction between participants and guests of honours disappear, everybody is open to strangers, unpretentious and ready to discuss. You have a great vision, but you lack the great people to bring it to life? This is your chance. I strongly believe that the people factor is everything. Not only are they irreplaceable in our self-development process, but also they are necessary for everything we try to reach in the professional career. Their creativity, talents and devotion are the biggest propulsion of every project. At the same time, the challenge of finding people, who would share our values, goals and who would possess the knowledge and predisposition needed, is the biggest one we face. Especially, if it is not about the money, but – phrasing it only partly metaphorically – about changing the world. So if you think you know how to fight the world hunger, how to defeat radicalism or how to make the world safer place for minorities, it will not be easy to find people willing and capable of helping you in the pub around the corner. This is the point when you hop on that stage with red, circular carpet and share you idea. It is in the end an ‘idea worth spreading’, especially among people who are like-minded and ready to take actions. Or the other way around – you feel you have a lot of energy, expertise and willingness to make the world to a better place, but you just need to define your path? Watch closely which speaker to approach during the break. Photo Source: Aleksandar Aleksić I want to avoid giving an incomplete picture of the situation, so let me set a few things clear. First of all, I believe that TED talks, especially ones selected and published online, are often a worthy source of information about unconventional issues. However, at the same time, this source is usually quite superficial and tendentious, aimed at sparking the interest and helping realise the existence of problems or facts, while not really supplying you with the knowledge. Secondly, there are of course other benefits for the speakers – if we want to skip the prestige matters, we can point out different awards or grants admitted. But those are neither the main goal of the organisation, nor are they comparable with the human aspect. Summing up, I believe that TED or TEDx conferences are a great opportunity and they reach the goal they had been set for. But it happens only when we go there with the attitude for giving of ourselves, not getting something out of it, whether we attend to listen or to speak. Some may go there to passively get ‘stoned’ with free motivation, but I do not recommend it, as it does not last for long. Go there, get engaged into discussions, meet people who will give you opportunities for action or, even better, go and initiate actions yourself. In the end, seeing results of what you do is what motivates for real.

On April 6th, a referendum gives Dutch citizens the chance to advise their government on whether or not to ratify the association agreement between the European Union and Ukraine. It might be that you – in spite of Room for Discussion’s session on the topic and ample media coverage – have completely missed the fuzz about this referendum, but this is about to change as political parties are on the verge of launching their referendum campaigns. Soon there will be no escape from discussing the topic and you will wait in fear of the moment that the guy/girl you have had a crush on for ages walks up to you and says: “Hi! What do you think of the treaty?”. Do not worry, there is no reason to start making a fool out of yourself when that moment arrives. Rostra guides you through this multi-faceted and complex issue, and saves you once again from social humiliation. What is at stake? Roughly and briefly, the association agreement is aimed at intensifying the economic and political collaboration between the EU and Ukraine. According to the long list of agreements, import and export tariffs will be lowered as to foster Ukraine’s integration in the European market. Furthermore, Ukraine will be able to count on European financial support, Ukrainian and European security policies will gradually converge, and Ukrainian law will be made compatible with European values. After reading the full treaty, one cannot elude the sensation that the agreement is the first step of a longer process that is supposed to culminate in Ukrainian EU membership. Without a doubt, the agreement has only marginal economic consequences for EU member states, whereas the potential consequences for Ukraine are huge. Currently, Ukraine’s economic dynamic is characterized by an influx of western technological products of high quality and the export of agrarian products and raw materials. Ukrainian economists Kravchuk and Popovych acknowledge the importance of the war in bringing Ukrainian industrial activity to a standstill, but they also see links with the country’s reorientation towards the West. They stress that Ukraine’s technologically underdeveloped industry is of no match for advanced European industries like Germany’s. Meanwhile Russia, traditionally Ukraine’s most important trade partner, is looking for other sources to meet its demand for industrial products. All in all, it remains questionable whether the fragile Ukrainian economy will benefit from the association agreement. For this and other reasons, some economists recommend to postpone the full implementation of the agreement. Although the association agreement will destruct important segments of the Ukrainian economy, it is not to say that competitive markets, financial support and the inflow of western capital are not going to be beneficial for the country. However, we must admit that the proposed policies are far from ideal. That is, taking into account Ukraine’s economic dynamic, Kiev should always aim at taking advantage of both the European and the Russian market. Noticeably, there is no fundamental reason as to why such a plan of action would involve two mutually exclusive strategies, were it not for geopolitical reasons. Impact of the referendum Since July 2015, Dutch law allows citizens to request ‘recommendatory’ referendums about laws and treaties that have already been approved by Dutch parliament. The referendum of April 6 is the first example of such a requested recommendatory referendum. The referendum was officialy approved by The Dutch Electoral Council, after GeenPeil – an  action committee of Dutch citizens – presented the necessary 300.000 signatures. Noticeably, the outcome of the referendum is not binding. That is, even if the majority of voters reject the treaty, parliament will still have the final say on the ratification of the association agreement. In that regard, Prime Minister Mark Rutte has already promised to take the outcome of the referendum “very seriously”. Then there is the issue of voter turn-out, since at least 30 percent of the electorate needs to participate for the referendum to be valid. It is highly uncertain whether this limit will be met, since the turn-out is expected to be historically low. For this reason, several municipalities have decided to diminish the amount of voting sites. A decision that has been lamented heavily by people who argue that this will make low voter turn-out a self-fulfilling prophecy. One feels tempted to think back of the summer of 2005, when Dutch and French citizens voted against the implementation of the European constitution. Nonetheless, the European constitution was de facto implemented in the treaty of Lisbon without having received any form of direct approval from the European populace. With the danger of being overly cynical, history teaches us to have little faith in national referendums when it comes to influencing EU policy. Geopolitics The association agreement cannot be understood in isolation from geopolitical developments in Eastern Europe. It is well-known that Russia feels threatened by NATO’s eastward expansion and that Moscow is strictly committed to preventing the emergence of a Westernized Ukraine right on its occidental border. In that regard, the annexation of Crimea is illustrative for Russia’s realpolitik. According to John Mearsheimer, one of the world’s most respected political scientist, the West misinterprets Russian political interests and is primarily responsible for the political instabilities in Ukraine. He argues that “the United States and its allies should abandon their plan to westernize Ukraine and instead aim to make it a neutral buffer zone between NATO and Russia.” Others blame the Ukrainian crisis completely on Russian aggression. They argue that it was a long-standing imperialistic desire that made Vladimir Putin decide to annex Crimea. Accordingly, the EU should do everything in its power to retain and isolate Russia, for if the country is not a serious threat yet, it will be in the future. Obviously, the association agreement between the EU and Ukraine fits this train of thought fairly well. Conclusion It is curious how things play out in this complex world. If I had the ambition to become a novelist, I would highlight the absurdity of the current situation: almost 2 years after flight MH17 was shot down, the traumatized Dutch people, who felt utterly powerless at the time of the horrific incident, are going to decide on the future of Ukraine. But this is not a novel and we must admit that the referendum has little potential to change European policy. Nevertheless, we should carefully consider the pros and cons of the association agreement for Europe, for Geopolitical stability and, above all, for the people of Ukraine.

Economic growth does not get into gear yet. Declining prices for oil and materials have hindered economic growth. Consequently, official forecasters have reduced their growth expectations for the current year. Parallel to this, inflationary expectations tilted downwards. Eurostat even reported a deflation of 0.2 percent in the month of February. Mario Draghi, the President of the European Central Bank (ECB), made it clear that he would not hesitate to expand the policy of quantitative easing (QE) if necessary. Location was the European Parliament. Now these are firm words; but should an expansion of QE be seen as a real exploit? Unlike spending and tax policies of a national government, a change in ECB’s monetary policies does not require approval by a parliament. Similarly, unlike spending and tax policies of a national government, a change in ECB’s monetary policies does not require much preparation. Rules and laws do not need to be adjusted, only the number of financial transactions should be increased, which, disrespectfully speaking, boils down to just some more mouse clicks. However, more important than the language is the policy proposal. This calls for two qualifications. The first concerns the benefits of QE. According to Draghi, these are huge: calculations made by the ECB would have shown that half of the economic recovery in the euro area in 2014 and 2015 is to be attributed to ECB policies. That is a nice result. At the same time, it seems at odds with what we observe, to say the least: inflation and economic growth did not improve remarkably since central banks in the euro area started to buy bonds. However, to be sure to avoid drawing wrong conclusions, we should rely on econometric research. But such research is difficult, given the scarcity of data. The ECB started its QE program only in March last year. This time period is way too short to be able to find robust results. Analyses of other countries are also scarce: worldwide, QE is a new form of monetary policies. The Bank of Japan introduced it in 2001 and the Fed, the Bank of England and the ECB only after the financial crisis of 2007/2008. What are the findings of the few econometric analyses of QE? An analysis regarding QE policies of the Bank of Japan states that the effects of these policies upon aggregate demand and prices have been small. An analysis of QE policies in 2009 and 2010 by the Bank of England indicates that it exerted little effect: GDP increased with only 1.5 percent and inflation increased not more than 1.25 percentage points. The second qualification concerns the costs of QE policies. In the euro area, low interest rates have reduced income available for private consumption. This effect may be even stronger in the Netherlands due to its large share of contractual savings in the economy. Obviously, weak private consumption is little helpful for economic recovery. Moreover, low interest rates induce investors to switch their portfolios towards other financial assets such as high-risk equity. This may add to the risk of new bubbles on these equity markets, a development that one would like to avoid in light of the recent financial crisis (see also the report by the Bank for International Settlements). A third problem of low interest rates is the economic behavior of national governments. Noting that QE policies make debt accumulation cheap, these governments are induced to delay policies of debt reduction, again a development that one would rather not see happening. The ECB Governing Council will have its next meeting March 10 this year. Let us hope that, rather than firm words, an assessment of costs and benefits will form the basis of the decision on whether or not to expand QE policies in the euro area.

The visit to Amsterdam Careers Days made me realize, that contrary to what you may think, job market offers plethora of opportunities for graduates and companies invest huge amounts of money for attracting and hiring new talents. However, searching for your first job is not a piece of cake. You not only have to decide upon what you really want to do, be aware what you are good at, but also it is extremely important to think about what kind of company would fit with your ambitions, interests and provide you with opportunities for future growth. Since you will spend quite a large portion of your life at work, working for a company that does not invest in you or does not reflect your personal values, may be a disaster. Our Millennial generation does not anymore want to work just for money or prestige, but we expect to have some joy in this work, maintain the work-life balance, fulfill needs for self-realization and have a sound impact on the societal issues. Therefore, companies like Google or Facebook acknowledge the needs of new generation an provide all of these great opportunities for future careers. However, as we all know, getting to these companies is quite of a challenge and you really have to stand out from the crowd. But what does it nowadays mean to differentiate yourself?  You may think that the optimal target these companies search for are 20 years old graduates with fresh mind and enthusiasm with 20 years of work experience. Forget about this myth! The work experience is fine, but nobody expects you to be the expert in the given field. Companies provide lots of training, which will develop your firm-specific knowledge. Good university grades never hurt, but at the same time, they are not the most efficient indicator for your future performance. University conditions us to think within certain patters, while companies appreciate skills such as adaptation, flexibility and creativity in solving problems. So, what is it that can really help you become the one in a million and shine through the others? Surprisingly, things that are not that difficult to acquire! I found for you 5 universal factors, which can yield you a job, even at Google. Ready? Here we go! Analytic thinking– business world is nowadays extremely complex and making any decision requires outstanding analytic skills. This demands being prepared to think both inductively and deductively. Therefore, companies look for people, who are able to translate complicated problems into smaller, solvable questions and effectively search for the solution. Also, one have to be able to connect fragmented information and deduce what can be the concussion, in other words: you must know how to connect the dots. But how to master analytic thinking? Very easily, because we do it every day at uni. Hence, don’t feel despair when solving another mathematical equation, which seems to be anyhow related to real work context or when writing an assignment, which probably nobody will ever read. These are perfect exercises of analytical thinking! Not necessarily work experience, but experience with working – Sounds confusing? Recruiters do not necessarily require you to have experience related to the field of their expertise, but they want to make sure you know how to work. If you had any part-time job or worked for a student association, there is a high change you had to deal with managing your time effectively, work with a team and face stressful situations. Also, it is important that you were able to learn from the failures or handle difficult situations. Many companies require using STAR method when answering questions during interview: you must explain Situation you were in, Task you were responsible for, Action you took and Results you achieved. It is nice when you are able to give a lot of examples of such working situations and therefore, it is really good you had some experience with working. Leadership skills- not confuse it with being manager. You can be a great leader having any position in the team. Leadership is about inspire others within your team and care about the cooperation. Google appreciate showing emergent leadership. The idea here is that you are able to spot a problem and step in as a leader in order to solve it. Subsequently, when the issue is solved, you are able to step. As Laszlo Bock, the head of Google HRM, said: the willingness to give up power is really important. Being likeable– it does not mean that you have to be cheesy and try hard to be liked by everyone, but recruiters surely look for someone who will be nice to work with and be able to get along with other team members. Therefore, all the social skills count a lot! Also, many companies will appreciate your efforts in contributing to local community or doing a volunteering job. You can show that you do not necessarily focus only on being competitive, but you can show initiative and do something nice for others. Show your motivation for a given job- do you know how many people come to an interview not knowing anything about the job? Way too many… Even though it sound ridiculous, fresh graduates focus too much on just getting the job and not on getting it to the certain company. However, recruiters can immediately spot it: if you CV is very generic or motivation letter does not emphasize skills needed for the given position, it means you do not really care. Therefore, even if you are not planning to apply for any job soon, try be interested in different companies: their culture, values and type of business they operate in. You will not only be able to identify, which type of companies would match your interest, but maybe it will sparkle your motivation to apply for “the one” company. As you can see, there are some important factors, which can yield you a job and they are not necessarily related to your grades or specific hard skills. Make sure to keep that in mind, both during your university years and when applying for a new job! Lots of luck with it! #career #fivethings #getthejob

On June 23rd the British public will make a decision that could alter the fate of Europe in a referendum on whether the UK should leave the EU. Despite returning from Brussels negotiations having secured Britain a ‘special status’ in the union, including an emergency brake on welfare payments to EU migrants, protections from eurozone regulations for the City and an exemption from the EU’s ideal of an ‘ever closer union’, Prime Minister David Cameron has a fight on his hands, with several of his cabinet ministers actively campaigning for an EU exit. The decision to hold a referendum is the governing Conservative Party’s response to the rise of the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a Eurosceptic party that went from being a fringe party to being a political force, winning the most votes in the European elections and becoming the third biggest party in the most recent general election. The ballot is expected to be tight. And how Britain votes could ultimately come down to the irrational impulses of the day. With the vote scheduled just days after the Euro 2016 football tournament group stages, it has been speculated that the future of Europe could come down to whether the England football team put in a performance against Wales, Russia and Slovakia – research has found that a local sports team victory in the days leading up to an election boosts the incumbent vote share by a significant margin. It could be that a strong performance from England increases the country’s hopes for the future and the spectacle of European countries engaging in friendly competition fosters a greater appreciation for European culture and values – a shared sense of European-ness. A poor performance, however, could inspire soul searching and a questioning of England’s position in the status quo. A decade ago the idea that a country might decide to leave the EU would have been considered absurd. But since then, two developments have come to the fore and will dominate the referendum debate in the months to come – the eurozone crisis and the ongoing refugee crisis. The Eurozone Crisis Paul Krugman is not alone among economists in arguing that it has been obvious for some time that the creation of the euro was a terrible mistake. Economists argue that Europe has never had the preconditions for a successful single currency. And yet the single currency was introduced anyway. Under the Stability and Growth Pact, which was engineered to enhance fiscal discipline, eurozone countries had been obliged to keep sound fiscal policies, with annual deficits limited to 3% of GDP and debt limited to 60% of GDP, and yet these rules were completely ignored in the absence of any political will to enforce them. After the credit crunch took hold, attention turned towards excessive government borrowing in peripheral euro area countries, leading to spikes in interest rates on government bonds. Of all the eurozone economies, Greece was by far the worst-hit. Without the ability to devalue its currency Greece has been subjected to one of the deepest and longest-lasting recessions on record, and even after years of crisis, Greece – and the rest of the eurozone – faces sclerotic growth for the foreseeable future. Meanwhile, GDP growth in advanced European economies outside the eurozone has been relatively robust. The failures of the euro have led people to wonder if the Eurosceptics were right. To them it seems obvious that if the EU is capable of making such a colossal mistake on a matter as important as a currency, it shouldn’t be trusted with anything at all. The Refugee Crisis Cameron’s “no ifs, no buts” promise to reduce net migration from over 200,000 to the tens of thousands lies in tatters – net migration instead climbed to 323,000 in the year to September. And where does most of that immigration come from? The EU, of course. In the two years leading up to December 2014, EU immigration increased from 158,000 a year to 268,000 a year. Cameron’s promise is literally impossible to fulfil with the freedom of movement enshrined in EU law, and his ‘special status’ deal will do little to deter EU migrants, the vast majority of whom are not benefit recipients – less than 5% of EU migrants are claiming jobseekers allowance. The British electorate’s opposition to migration extends to refugees, and ‘Leave’ campaigners have seized on reports that the UK may have to take more refugees in future, with polls showing that support for Brexit increases in response to images of the refugee crisis. With Germany receiving 1.1m refugees in 2015 – a level of migration unthinkable to the British electorate – the current refugee crisis has very much been seen as a European problem from which the UK is relatively isolated. But there are fears that Britain could see similar numbers of refugees if the so-called Dublin regulation collapses. Under the Dublin regulation, refugees are obliged to seek asylum in the first country in which they arrive. The system, which had been under strain for years, was, in effect, finished off, after German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that all Syrian refugees would be eligible to seek shelter in Germany. With the rules due to be scrapped, perhaps in favour of a relocation quota system, voters are concerned that the UK could face a refugee crisis on a similar scale to Germany. As an island nation, the UK has had the privilege of being able to reject refugees without risking appearing inhumane, however, dehumanisation has recently entered the political vernacular, with Cameron describing migrants attempting to reach Britain through Calais as a swarm. Interestingly, French authorities have recently moved to destroy the site near Calais where thousands of migrants live while attempting to enter Britain illegally, in a development which should go some way to reducing the number of tabloid front pages dedicated to the issue. Ultimately, if the union is to remain united, more must be done to show British voters that the EU has a viable solution to the migrant crisis that doesn’t involve mass immigration to the UK. The End of the European Dream The eurozone crisis and the migrant crisis are leading Britons to seriously consider whether the EU is a club they want to be a part of. People find it hard to say what the EU does for them. Tabloids publish headlines touting how much Britain puts into the EU compared with how much it receives and sensationalise regulations in such a way that the purpose of EU institutions is deemed trivial at best, meddling and wasteful at worst. ‘The EU is to ban selling eggs by the dozen’ is just one such example. The strongest arguments in favour of the EU are the most subtle. Through its gradual enlargement, the EU has enhanced democracy and fundamental freedoms, increased cooperation and created a huge single market across the continent. The referendum isn’t just a vote for Britain’s exit. It is a vote for the future of the union itself. For accession states, seeing Britain leave the union will be like turning up to a nightclub and seeing people exit as you queue to get in. Never a good sign. Voters in accession countries will see Britain leaving the party and wonder whether it’s any good. Assuming Brexit becomes a reality, the likes of Serbia, Kosovo and Turkey may end up drifting from their democratic roadmaps. JP Morgan economists estimate that credit markets are pricing in a 52% chance of Brexit. I suspect the odds of a UK exit are somewhat lower than that. I think voters will not want to venture into the wilderness that Brexit offers. The EU is far from perfect, but without Britain, Europe would be weakened in its ability to tackle the world’s biggest issues: climate change, interstate conflict and terrorism, to name a few. ‘Remain’ campaigners would do well to emphasise these arguments in the run-up to the referendum.