IBMS students who are participating in a double degree program of the Avans Hogeschool and who are leaving in the second semester of the third year are obliged to follow the minor of European Union Policy. Honestly I don’t know why this is obliged. Maybe it is because those that are leaving the second semester are mostly those students that go to the USA, so the school wants to make sure those students will not forget their roots.
Frankly I was not very interested in the minor at all, but I wanted to go to the States very badly so I had to participate anyway. The reason that I was not very interested in the topic is because I’m a bit of a Euro-skeptic. Now that I have finished the block I did not change my opinion about the EU, but I am happy I followed this minor though. It is never a bad thing to study something you might not like to see if there are good reasons to dislike it. Maybe my arguments were just prejudices.
The minor covers a lot of topics that are relevant for doing business on the European market.
It starts with a clear explanation of how the European politics work and where it came from.
It goes back all the way to the signing of the first Treaty in Paris which founded the ECSC. After that it will take you step by step through recent history until what the situation is like today and what it could become in the future. Furthermore the minor covers a big deal of European business law which is important since it is supranational which means that it is above national law. A lot of rulings and landmark rulings are explained. Besides all this also the internal market of the EU plays a big role. It explains how the member states are dependent on each other by business relations and how struggling economies of different member states can be overcome by healthy competition.
To make the theory a bit more tangible also a trip to Brussels was arranged. After our arrival we first got some presentations. After that we got to take a look in the European Parliament which was very interesting. After a long break in the city centre we had some presentations from people that worked for the European Commission which was also very interesting.
In the end I have to say it was an interesting minor. When starting this minor I honestly had no idea what was going on in Brussels, but now I do. Or at least I’m supposed to. I still think it is a little bit odd that third year college students have to learn all this, starting from the very beginning just to get to know how the EU government operates. Most of us do know how our national government operates, so why don’t we know anything about the EU? I guess this is pretty important as well and it certainly concerns our daily life until a certain degree.
woensdag 24 december 2008
dinsdag 23 december 2008
Credit crisis
By the day of today we are supposed to be in a credit crisis. At least that is what the news broadcasts and the newspapers are telling me. So now that I know that we are in a credit crisis, what am I supposed to do with that information?
Let’s first start at where it all begun: Wall Street. Let’s just all blame Wall Street! Of course we can also blame the American government. They were the ones to ease on regulations about borrowing money which gave a lot of American citizens the possibility to spend way more than they actually could. Or we can blame the media because they brought us all the bad tidings which of course had as a result that every single consumer stopped spending money.
Or maybe we can just start blaming the real source: us, the consumers. The reason all this is happening is because we all are unpredictable greedy creatures that all want to live above their standards. People are buying things they can’t afford with money they don’t have to impress people they don’t like. “I want it all and I want it now” seems to be today’s motto. Am I being too pessimistic by now? I would say; check the results.
It started with the American consumers who liked to overspend, until they all the sudden found out that the interest rates increased and they simply did not have the capability to pay back their loans. This had as a result that at first the demand for houses went down followed by the demand for nearly everything. Okay then, let’s just all blame the Americans!
Or should we? Aren’t we having a crisis here in good old Europe as well? We Europeans tend to think, or wish, that we are independent of the USA. Well then, why are we facing the same problems? Probably because we are facing the same source as well; overspending. The reason that the crisis might be a little less severe in Europe is because our European governments were wise enough to make the regulations concerning borrowing money a little more tight.
To come back to my question; what am I supposed to do now that I know that we are currently in a credit crisis? I would say ignore the crisis and just keep spending money. Without consumers that spend money the economy will simply collapse even more. But then again, a little austerity never hurts anyone. Be reasonable and don’t waste money and definitely never spend money you don’t have.
Let’s first start at where it all begun: Wall Street. Let’s just all blame Wall Street! Of course we can also blame the American government. They were the ones to ease on regulations about borrowing money which gave a lot of American citizens the possibility to spend way more than they actually could. Or we can blame the media because they brought us all the bad tidings which of course had as a result that every single consumer stopped spending money.
Or maybe we can just start blaming the real source: us, the consumers. The reason all this is happening is because we all are unpredictable greedy creatures that all want to live above their standards. People are buying things they can’t afford with money they don’t have to impress people they don’t like. “I want it all and I want it now” seems to be today’s motto. Am I being too pessimistic by now? I would say; check the results.
It started with the American consumers who liked to overspend, until they all the sudden found out that the interest rates increased and they simply did not have the capability to pay back their loans. This had as a result that at first the demand for houses went down followed by the demand for nearly everything. Okay then, let’s just all blame the Americans!
Or should we? Aren’t we having a crisis here in good old Europe as well? We Europeans tend to think, or wish, that we are independent of the USA. Well then, why are we facing the same problems? Probably because we are facing the same source as well; overspending. The reason that the crisis might be a little less severe in Europe is because our European governments were wise enough to make the regulations concerning borrowing money a little more tight.
To come back to my question; what am I supposed to do now that I know that we are currently in a credit crisis? I would say ignore the crisis and just keep spending money. Without consumers that spend money the economy will simply collapse even more. But then again, a little austerity never hurts anyone. Be reasonable and don’t waste money and definitely never spend money you don’t have.
maandag 22 december 2008
SolidGround
I am from a small town so dear beloved party animals, those that wish to go crazy, don’t come over to my place. I am not such a party animal but yes, I have to be honest, every now and then I like to go out. The place where I usually go is a club called SolidGround. It is located in Goes in Zeeland. In the center of Goes you can find many bars and clubs, but this specific club is located on some remote location in the outskirts of the city.
Just like its location also the atmosphere is different than most other places in the city center.
And that is exactly what I like. The volume of the “music” (depends on what you want to call music) is significantly lower compared to that of most other clubs, which gives the opportunity to have a nice chat with your friends without shouting the lungs out of your body.
The personnel of the club are pretty strict on alcohol consumption. I have been visiting this place for quite a long time already but I have never seen anybody getting drunk in there.
If I have a friend over I would definitely know where to take him on a Saturday evening.
But before going to this club I would first arrange us a nice dinner. Maybe there are not too many places to go out in the town I come from, but luckily enough there is at least one good restaurant. It is called; “Het hart van Tholen”. I have been there only once, but my experience until now is that they have quite a variety of good food for reasonable prices and proportions. The place also looks really nice inside and it will offer just the right amount of privacy and coziness anybody could wish.
My conclusion; I don’t have too many options to go out, but the ones I have suit me well.
Just like its location also the atmosphere is different than most other places in the city center.
And that is exactly what I like. The volume of the “music” (depends on what you want to call music) is significantly lower compared to that of most other clubs, which gives the opportunity to have a nice chat with your friends without shouting the lungs out of your body.
The personnel of the club are pretty strict on alcohol consumption. I have been visiting this place for quite a long time already but I have never seen anybody getting drunk in there.
If I have a friend over I would definitely know where to take him on a Saturday evening.
But before going to this club I would first arrange us a nice dinner. Maybe there are not too many places to go out in the town I come from, but luckily enough there is at least one good restaurant. It is called; “Het hart van Tholen”. I have been there only once, but my experience until now is that they have quite a variety of good food for reasonable prices and proportions. The place also looks really nice inside and it will offer just the right amount of privacy and coziness anybody could wish.
My conclusion; I don’t have too many options to go out, but the ones I have suit me well.
donderdag 4 december 2008
Intolerant Jews?
I read an article of the economist about combating intolerance on global level:
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12705743&source=hptextfeature
The main topic of this article is why Israel will not be present at the next World Conference against Racism. The following conference will take place in Geneva and is a follow-up of last conference in Durban, 2001. First Canada, and now also Israel have already left the preparations and several other Western countries are threatening to do the same.
The source of all these tensions can be found on the last conference in Durban. Radical countries wanted to safeguard themselves from criticism by blaming the West. During that meeting the Americans and the Israelis walked out because according to them the criticism on Israel was out of proportion. The meeting was marked by hatred and extremism and at a certain point of time the result of the meeting became exactly the opposite of that for what it was meant to be.
Israel, fearing a repeat of a wave of hatred and extremism, decided to bail out of the preparations and not to attend the meeting.
What I like about this article is that it fairly states what happened without blowing the story out of proportion. The reader will have a clear view of what exactly happened. My personal opinion about the way those “radical countries” tried to persuade their viewpoints is that it is ridiculous and childish and it is not even worth the time listening too.
I have always been interested by the recent history of the state of Israel since modern Israel is only about 60 years old. But people already tend to forget what really happened. Racism is a very actual problem in this country, but the big question remains; who are the racists? The Israelis or the Palestinians? (Because that is simply what those Durban tensions were about)
According to me the media has done a bad job on picturing the actual situation in and around Israel.
They tend to show the emotions and the violence instead of that what is really happening. Because that is what people want to see otherwise even the news channel gets boring. The result of this is a heavily criticized Israel. Israelis are being violent and cruel because they kill innocent babies is what people get to know these days. Has nobody ever realized that Israel is just trying to defend its own people by specifically attacking militant targets of their opponents who cowardly hide between their own people?
Whatever will be said in the near future about Israel (and other countries) refusing to attend the coming conference in Geneva, my opinion will be that Israel has the fullest right to do so.
Breath used negotiating with those that led hatred and extremism direct their decisions is breath wasted!
http://www.economist.com/world/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12705743&source=hptextfeature
The main topic of this article is why Israel will not be present at the next World Conference against Racism. The following conference will take place in Geneva and is a follow-up of last conference in Durban, 2001. First Canada, and now also Israel have already left the preparations and several other Western countries are threatening to do the same.
The source of all these tensions can be found on the last conference in Durban. Radical countries wanted to safeguard themselves from criticism by blaming the West. During that meeting the Americans and the Israelis walked out because according to them the criticism on Israel was out of proportion. The meeting was marked by hatred and extremism and at a certain point of time the result of the meeting became exactly the opposite of that for what it was meant to be.
Israel, fearing a repeat of a wave of hatred and extremism, decided to bail out of the preparations and not to attend the meeting.
What I like about this article is that it fairly states what happened without blowing the story out of proportion. The reader will have a clear view of what exactly happened. My personal opinion about the way those “radical countries” tried to persuade their viewpoints is that it is ridiculous and childish and it is not even worth the time listening too.
I have always been interested by the recent history of the state of Israel since modern Israel is only about 60 years old. But people already tend to forget what really happened. Racism is a very actual problem in this country, but the big question remains; who are the racists? The Israelis or the Palestinians? (Because that is simply what those Durban tensions were about)
According to me the media has done a bad job on picturing the actual situation in and around Israel.
They tend to show the emotions and the violence instead of that what is really happening. Because that is what people want to see otherwise even the news channel gets boring. The result of this is a heavily criticized Israel. Israelis are being violent and cruel because they kill innocent babies is what people get to know these days. Has nobody ever realized that Israel is just trying to defend its own people by specifically attacking militant targets of their opponents who cowardly hide between their own people?
Whatever will be said in the near future about Israel (and other countries) refusing to attend the coming conference in Geneva, my opinion will be that Israel has the fullest right to do so.
Breath used negotiating with those that led hatred and extremism direct their decisions is breath wasted!
dinsdag 18 november 2008
Hotel Rwanda
Dear reader,
This essay will be a description of a 'boring' movie, namely Hotel Rwanda. Sometimes I'm just wondering; why are realistic movies boring? In this essay I will try to explain what, from my point of view, can make realistic movies so boring.
First of all there is the movie itself; Hotel Rwanda. I could have taken a lot of other movies as an example as well, but I thought that according to my experience this movie is one of the most striking examples. The movie is about the ethnic conflict in Rwanda, 1994, between the Hutu race and the Tutsi race. The conflict was known for its horrible genocide on a lot of Tutsi Rwandese civilians. The movie shows a moderate and tolerant Hutu hotel manager (based on a true story), who tries to save as many Tutsi people from the Hutu rebels as possible by transforming his hotel into a UN bulwark. After several attacks from Hutu rebels and weak attempts from international peacekeepers to save the Tutsi refugees in the hotel, the manager finally succeeds in getting most refugees to safer areas in the country.
The movie is in some cases shocking and shows in a clear way the different perspectives of any modern war; cruelty, heroism and the ignorance of the western world. The striking difference with other movies is that in this movie, although present, both violence and romance/sex are not playing a major role. The manager is not shown as some strong bullet-spraying war machine but as a smart and caring person who tries to persuade his goal by outsmarting his opponents and thereby risking his own life.
Now again; why is this movie so boring? According to me it is simply because this movie shows real life in its worst conditions. Most movies will show a surreal world that is represented by strong men and beautiful women who change the world. It sorts of makes us willing to be those persons. They show life as an adventure and it makes us forget the real world we are in today. Hotel Rwanda however, together with some other realistic movies, is showing us no mercy in reminding us that we are wrong if we think violence is adventure. Therefore according to me this movie is something that is very worth watching, not for entertainment but to sharpen the mind and create some values.
This essay will be a description of a 'boring' movie, namely Hotel Rwanda. Sometimes I'm just wondering; why are realistic movies boring? In this essay I will try to explain what, from my point of view, can make realistic movies so boring.
First of all there is the movie itself; Hotel Rwanda. I could have taken a lot of other movies as an example as well, but I thought that according to my experience this movie is one of the most striking examples. The movie is about the ethnic conflict in Rwanda, 1994, between the Hutu race and the Tutsi race. The conflict was known for its horrible genocide on a lot of Tutsi Rwandese civilians. The movie shows a moderate and tolerant Hutu hotel manager (based on a true story), who tries to save as many Tutsi people from the Hutu rebels as possible by transforming his hotel into a UN bulwark. After several attacks from Hutu rebels and weak attempts from international peacekeepers to save the Tutsi refugees in the hotel, the manager finally succeeds in getting most refugees to safer areas in the country.
The movie is in some cases shocking and shows in a clear way the different perspectives of any modern war; cruelty, heroism and the ignorance of the western world. The striking difference with other movies is that in this movie, although present, both violence and romance/sex are not playing a major role. The manager is not shown as some strong bullet-spraying war machine but as a smart and caring person who tries to persuade his goal by outsmarting his opponents and thereby risking his own life.
Now again; why is this movie so boring? According to me it is simply because this movie shows real life in its worst conditions. Most movies will show a surreal world that is represented by strong men and beautiful women who change the world. It sorts of makes us willing to be those persons. They show life as an adventure and it makes us forget the real world we are in today. Hotel Rwanda however, together with some other realistic movies, is showing us no mercy in reminding us that we are wrong if we think violence is adventure. Therefore according to me this movie is something that is very worth watching, not for entertainment but to sharpen the mind and create some values.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)