Talking Nuklius, Startups and Entrepreneurship with Stefan van der Fluit

Stefan van der Fluit is a man whose experience in startups and entrepreneurship defies his age. A Dutchman raised in Silicon Valley, Stefan started his first business at just 15- a web design company Nafets Solutions, that he ran alongside his studies. During his 4 years studying Management at The University of Warwick, he continued his entrepreneurial activity with a campus discovery tool, Unibubble. 

Having been recognised by the likes of HRH The Duke of York, and now being a TEDx speaker, I caught up with Stefan after his recent talk at The University of Bath, to discuss his latest project- Nuklius- and get his opinion on wider entrepreneurial and business issues.

Your relatively new startup Nuklius is a service aimed towards other budding entrepreneurs. What was your initial vision for Nuklius, and what does it do?

Nuklius is a talent-mapping app connecting people & their skills to projects or startup ideas, within a given network. We help people with ideas find their collaborators and team members; if you haven’t got an idea, we find you projects for you to get involved with which are looking for people with your particular skills.

The initial concept for Nuklius came to me whilst giving a guest talk at Warwick, around my previous startup experiences. The main question asked during the Q&A was where I found my (brilliant) cofounder and close friend, Alex Dobinson. Lots of people there had the issue of having ideas, however none of them had the necessary skill set to act on them. This is when it occurred to me that a big reason why people don’t get involved with startups isn’t because they aren’t motivated, or haven’t got good ideas of their own, etc. Its the very simple fact that, alone, they haven’t got all the skills needed. And this is a very normal problem: no one has all of the skills needed to create a successful startup. If you look at all the fantastic companies now, they all have one thing in common and that is that they were founded by teams. 

I fundamentally believe that startups drive true social and economic innovation, so to me, the more people we could help act on their ideas, the better. This was the initial vision for Nuklius - now it has evolved into something a bit larger; we want to become the platform for the future of work, where we see the future to be moving from “I’ve had x amount of jobs” to “I’ve been involved with x amount of projects”. Now knowing what you are an expert in, how can we find you projects for you to work on, whether they are in your organisation you work for or external to it, which match your personal interests and passion. This helps employees create a more motivating and stimulating career for themselves, essentially empowering them to steer their own careers, internally. 

For the organisation, their benefits include increased talent retention, quicker access to talent which speeds up their innovation processes, cross-departmental collaboration which is key when it comes to innovating, etc. 

50% of our time on this planet is spent working. We believe you should enjoy every minute of it and have a say in what it is.


Having been an active entrepreneur from such a young age, you must have learnt a lot of lessons about entrepreneurship- which one lesson would you say is the most important, and how did you learn it?

I would say the most important lesson I have learnt is to not be afraid of sharing your idea with others. There seems to be a sense of paranoia amongst many starting entrepreneurs where they believe that their idea is the next big thing, and therefore defacto, is worth millions already. After having been through the ring a couple of times, its safe to say that ideas on their own, are absolutely valueless. It is all about the execution of your ideas. 

In order to successfully execute, you need to share your idea, to first of all see if it is something people are looking for - will what you are intending to create resonate with those you are creating it for. This is impossible to do, if you are not willing to open up about your idea.

Other reasons why this is so important: 

• how will you find a cofounder if you can’t tell them what they will be working on with you
• how will you create key partnerships / relationships if you can’t tell them who and what they are partnering with
• how will you undergo the crucial customer development process if you can’t talk about what it is you want to create
• and the list goes on…

To address the paranoia of “stealing ideas” I wanted to share this anecdote. A professor of mine at Cambridge, Simon Stockley has been in the startup sector for 15+ years, and not once has he seen an idea be stolen. Why? Because there are two types of people in this world. One, those who are too lazy to act, and the second; those who are not lazy and therefore are already working on their own things (and don’t have the time, even if they wanted to, to copy yours).

Ideas are unique to the person they came from; you cannot copy this. I may give you an idea where you can probably make out steps 1,2 and 3 but I, because its my idea see step 1-100. So if you have an idea, the best thing you can do is act on it, get it out there and see if its worth pursuing.

One small addition to this: just because it is your idea, do not expect this to be a valid reason to retain 80+% equity within your startup. Your cofounders are key to the success of your business, so they should feel adequately motivated and have the representative ownership position to validate their risk, etc. Technical cofounders are not ‘resources’ as many business people see them as, they are incredibly talented, creative and hardworking individuals who add just as much value as the sales/marketing/business development cofounder. I guarantee you, that if you consider technical talent to be a resource to “go build this for me” - you won’t get very far.


How do you think your childhood in Silicon Valley has influenced your mindset and outlook on business?

Great question and to be honest I think it doesn’t really have to do with where I grew up, rather who raised me (Also I was quite young during my time in the Valley). My parents have always encouraged us as children to not be bound by what we perceive our ‘limitations’ to be, or what others “tell” you are your limitations. This really helped when I decided to found my first company at 15, rather than being told that its daft, or impossible, etc. they simply said, sounds good - go do it. 

Since both of my parents have spent their careers in the technology space, all of our dinner conversations were always evolving the latest and greatest within the industry, from this I developed a deep love and respect for technology as I saw first hand how it was created, who was behind its creation, etc. 

I must admit, it is a bit surreal growing up in an area where you have so many ‘idols’ in one place. When I was a kid we used to trick or treat in Steve Jobs’ neighbourhood (his wife was the one to open the door and pass the candy), my sister was best friends with one of the daughters of an ORACLE cofounder, so we would regularly spend time with his family, etc. 


Which companies or individuals inspire you as an entrepreneur, and why?

I have a lot of respect for anyone who takes a concept from nothing and grows it out to something for others to benefit from. Having been involved with this process for a couple of years now, you never can truly realise and respect how tough and challenging this journey is, until you yourself try it as well.

I am very much inspired by companies whom are design driven; design not purely in its aesthetic meaning but also how a product or service gets created, around and for the individual they are targeted for. Good design, with all these elements combined is incredibly difficult and hard to pull off. Apple, Square and IDEO are companies that I take a lot of learnings from as well as their respective founders, Jobs, Dorsey and Kelly and Jony Ive (not an Apple founder, but a lot of their current success lies with his genius).

One entrepreneur I deeply respect and admire is John Mackey, the founder of Whole Foods. Reason being is his deep respect and understanding for the social responsibilities of business (he also coined the phrase conscious capitalism) as this is something which resonates deeply with myself. I think that for a long time, since WW2 the majority of organisations have been focused around maximising profits and seeing this as the primary metric of a successful business (Friedman Doctrine) whereas I think its quite clear that in order to be a successful business you also need to consider social contributions and your responsibilities to the communities in which you operate, your supply chain, employees, etc. Not only is it the right thing to do from a moral perspective; its actually proven to make good business sense too. 

One of your most popular talks has been the one you gave on the topic of ‘Conscious Entrepreneurs’. Could you summarise what a ‘Conscious Entrepreneur’ is, and why the world needs them?

Great question- and I'm glad you enjoyed the talk! To me, a conscious entrepreneur is someone who has a certain perspective of what a business and its purpose is. Rather than seeing it as a profit machine a conscious entrepreneur sees a problem they are passionate about and seeks to address it through setting up a business/venture. The conscious entrepreneur's vehicle of driving change is through a company, as you can have significantly more impact as an organisation than you ever could on your own.

Conscious Entrepreneurs set off to create value, not only for themselves but for everyone involved in their business operation; from their suppliers, to the end user. They see a business with a more holistic perspective and incorporate values and a culture of openness, transparency, do-good, sense of belonging for this working in the organisation, etc.

One key thing to remember is that conscious entrepreneurs are no different than any other business person, meaning they are most definitely in it to make money - however the purpose or meaning of money is perceived as not the end goal, rather a tool to build more value with.


According to Fortune Magazine, for every start up that succeeds, there are 9 that fail- what do you think are the most notable differences between a startup that fails and one that succeeds?

There are unfortunately way too many factors involved with the success of a venture (speaking to the right people, timing, the founding team, raising capital, the product, the marketing, etc.) that its not all too easy to pinpoint the main differences - though one thing I have noticed and something you probably hear all the time, is the importance of the founding team. 

Having the right people, people who are not only skilled and passionate about what it is they are doing but are also flexible in their ways of working, meaning that they don’t bend at the first sight of setbacks, that they are willing to make changes to their approach if need be, that they are stubborn in the sense that they keep pursuing no matter how many times you are told it won’t work. I’d actually like to stop and focus on this point as this is an important lessons I have recently learnt; there is no universal truth. What I mean by this is that no one in the world can tell you whether you idea is a good or bad one with absolute certainty. Its no one’s place to tell you whether its worth pursuing or not; only you can, the founders. All else is just peoples’ opinion, that’s it (some opinions are backed up by experience, but they stay opinions none the less). 

The only way you can find out if something isn’t worth pursuing, is through trial and error. Thats what entrepreneurship is all about. Lots of trial and error. This is why it is so crucial to truly believe in what it is you are doing as otherwise, with all the nay-sayers out there, you will most likely give up. Believe in yourself and what you know, don’t be afraid to call yourself an expert (as honestly, if you work 13-14 hours a day for two years straight in a particular field, you wouldn’t be wrong to do so) and don’t be afraid to kick back and tell people, who might be older and more experienced than you, that they are wrong.


It is not uncommon to hear every once in a while that this whole startup movement is just a bubble about to pop (á la dot com bubble). Do you think the future is bright for startups like yours?

Honestly I do not think about these things. Sure there might be a lot of “first world problem” solutions out there which after a period of time people might turn around and think do we really need this in our life…but as long as you are creating something which solves a true problem, you will always be needed. 

This is why our team focusses on building something which addresses a true pain point. As an entrepreneur, always try to be a pain killer rather than a vitamin.

Stefan's latest startup Nuklius is open for investment for a limited time on Seedrs. Click here to find out more about how you can become a part of his journey.

How Corporations Are Contributing To Wealth Inequality In The USA : American Inequality Series #1

The power of the Corporate Lobby, according to George Monbiot, is a ‘Great Unmentionable’- rarely discussed in the media or among politicians, it has maintained a firm grip on every level of American policymaking. Not only has it subverted the very system of representative democracy that the West prides itself upon, but it has potentially created conditions conducive to a strong socio-economic imbalance in the States.

Corporate lobbyists have one primary goal- to represent their employers in the political arena, not by competing directly within it but by gaining favour with those already within. 

Outgoing Congressional Speaker John Boehner was seen
handing out cheques on the House floor seeking votes
against the cutting of tobacco subsidies.

Of course, this cannot be done by a friendship alone- since 1998 the nation’s largest lobby, the US Chamber of Commerce, has spent over $1.1bn on lobbying activities. The massive payments involved reflect lobbying’s effectiveness; PepsiCo spent $10m in 2009 lobbying to (successfully) prevent 24 states attempting to pass a soda tax. Even more spectacularly, current House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner was caught handing out cheques to fellow politicians written by a lobbying tobacco company- on the very house floor a debate on cutting tobacco subsidies was to be discussed. The tobacco company saw these payments as an investment to prevent their own subsidies being cut- and, unsurprisingly, the House voted against cutting them. 

But a more appropriate action of the lobby to the topic of economic inequality is the influence of corporations over minimum wage legislation. A minimum wage naturally affects businesses, leading them to either spend more or reduce staffing. However, in a period of constantly inflating costs of living, arguments are being made that minimum wages set by every state are all insufficient to maintain a decent standard of living. Governments around the world have sought to address this issue- the British government, for example, recently implemented a 'living wage' designed to provide enough for workers to maintain a decent standard of living.

Housing is a key indicator of living standards- yet in Florida, the minimum wage ($7.93) is less than half of what is needed to rent a two-bedroom home at official ‘Fair Market Rent’ calculations. Similar results arise in every state- the National Low Income Housing Coalition calculates that it would take two minimum wages to afford a Fair Market Rent nationwide, even with many one-bedroom properties.

Corporate taxes have sunk in recent decades as profits
have boomed.

Corporations have repeatedly successfully lobbied for tax cuts- a significant reason why corporate taxes have sunk in recent decades while profits have boomed (see graph). For example, Whirlpool Corporation spent just under $2m in the year 2011-13 in lobby fees chasing the renewal of lucrative tax credits (equivalent to tax breaks) for creating environmentally friendly appliances. The passing of this motion, thanks to the lobbying, was worth an estimated $120m in 2012-13- a healthy return on the initial investment, and government revenue lost. 

Both movements of corporate lobbies to maintain low minimum wages (such as the success of the National Restaurant Association over employees in 2014) and win tax breaks, subsidies and such from the government have drastically exacerbated the issue of wealth inequality- they have made it easier for those higher up in business to profit more, often at the cost of employees lower down.

The American Inequality Series: An Introduction

“The richest country, is not that which has the most capitalists, monopolists, immense grabbings, vast fortunes, with its sad soil of extreme, degrading, damning poverty, but the land… where wealth does not show such contrasts high and low, where all men have enough- a modest living…”

The famous words of 19th-century American poet Walt Whitman ring true perhaps more than ever in the United States of today. The previous few decades have seen economic inequality in the USA escalating with little end in sight- and recent economic crashes have not exactly helped the situation either. 

Economic inequality has been a theme reoccurring throughout the world, throughout history- from the time of Ancient Greece, where Plato described any city to be split into “the city of the poor, the other of the rich… at war with each other.”, to today where inequality is often a side effect of economic development (India, China are notable contemporary examples). 

But the USA has experienced a more unorthodox growth in inequality. Like China and India, in recent decades the US economy has been growing- yet an almost unique mixture of politics and economic culture has made the USA, according to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, the most unequal of the top 20 developed global economies, scoring a GINI coefficient of 85.1% (the higher the coefficient, the more the inequality). In comparison, the UK scored a relatively modest 67.7%, the aforementioned India 81.1% and China 69.5%. 

The GINI coefficient is the most common mathematical measure of wealth inequality, measuring income distribution. Considering a score of 0% means perfect equality (everyone has the same income) and 100% means total inequality (one person holds all income, everyone else has nothing), 85.1% shows how far the USA’s inequality has grown.

The last time the USA saw inequality at the levels of today was in the years leading to the Great Depression- so what is it that is driving today’s inequality? 

Over the next few weeks at poponomics we'll be discussing all things America, from the idea of the 1%, to education, to politics, to the very nature of capitalism itself, as we closely analyse this massively important question.

Stay tuned- the American Inequality series starts on Wednesday, as we turn our attention to the impact Corporations have had on American society.

The Power of Groupthink

Entrepreneur Strategist and Founder of website entrepreneurialambitions.com Yura Bryant gives an insight into a sociological phenomenon that often escapes our minds.

Groupthink... What is groupthink? Groupthink is defined as the practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility. You could say groupthink is the key process which influences behaviour in mainstream society. It seems quite irrational to say when people are individuals, individuals who have the free will to produce their own thoughts. In actuality though, how free are we to form our own thoughts, when we are moulded from birth to listen to those who hold an authoritarian position over our development?

Think about that completely for a moment. Your development over time occurred under the process of being domesticated by the thoughts and beliefs of others. The world around you became to reflect the perception of those who held influence over you. From family, to school, to friends; your lenses to view the world were tainted by other viewpoints that formed "your" opinion. As this continues over time, you seek to have your opinion of the world validated by others because you need the acknowledgement of group approval.

Take, for instance, the power of social media. Social media platforms are widely used today as a means of communication and for gathering information. One of the most powerful aspects of social media is how a piece of information can be shared with millions of people in a matter of a few hours. But let's backtrack. What is the popular subject in mainstream society, it gets this special treatment, it is put on this pedestal of being ‘trending’ or being the ‘latest news’. What is not so popular gets the silent treatment. A study by Pew Research Centre found that, people refuse to talk about a controversial topic, unless a majority of the their peers agree with their views. That means people are unwilling to engage in open opinion, for fear that they will be persecuted for their thoughts.

If we were to analyse it for what it really is; groupthink is the movement to suppress original thought which can harm the status quo in place. There is a need to stifle opposing thoughts because allowing them to flow freely can lead to dissent and chaos. Going off that conclusion; is it safe to say that the very fragile fabric that holds the United States together is dependent on the power of groupthink? That answer seems to already be illustrated for you by examining everyday society. If a nation was truly operated under freewill; hundreds of small fractions in society would be at constant war with one another to control and rule supremely. But wait... Does this not already occur within the world we live within?

Yes, it does. That is why the power of groupthink resides in the ability to gain control of the majority so that the minority can be labeled as unruly and troubled. Now is this causing you to question your perception of your reality? Your society around you controls your views and opinions, but when given the ability to think and process without distractions, new realisations slowly take form. This presents major problems if this behaviour becomes widespread. Thus you are consistently bombarded with distractions which blocks your ability to think freely without bias.

The majority of society is controlled by some form of groupthink. We all circle around specific ideas, evolving movements and issues that resonate with our manufactured beliefs. But do the majority of people know how to subdue groupthink perception in favour of rational analysis? Groupthink is a danger in modern society, because it develops people who lack the ability to apply common sense in their daily interactions. Groupthink is a double edged sword. It has the ability to suppress opposing forces but it also has the ability to lead its sheep to the slaughter. Be careful of what you allow yourself to believe as truth because it becomes a dictating force in your life.

Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

Applying For Economics At University

Applying for economics at university? From someone who has just finished the process of university applications, here are the 5 things you need to do to give you an edge when applying for economics.

1. KNOW THE COURSE.

It's most essential to know exactly what it is that you are applying for. Economics at university is quite a different beast to most A-Level Econ courses, and this is something many applicants fail to recognise. Maths is incredibly important, that's why it's a compulsory A-Level for most Econ courses, but you have to make sure you're comfortable with doing a lot of it: many people (including myself) underestimate the dominance of maths-based work in an Economics degree.

Make sure you read up the syllabi (yes, that really is the plural of syllabus) of whichever universities you are applying for. Look at the units offered, and make sure that there are sufficiently interesting units at whichever universities you want to apply to. Not only does lacking interest in the course reduce your chances of getting admissions to give you a place, but even if you do get in, you don't want to suffer 3 years studying topics you lack interest in.

2. READ.
You probably know the importance of reading outside of the literature prescribed by your school/college, to note in your Personal Statement and discuss in any interviews. But remember, as admissions officers work through piles of cookie-cutter Personal Statements, you want to leave a lasting impression on them.

Saying you've read Freakonomics will not do this.

For sure, it's an excellent book that I would recommend to anyone, but the fact is that it's so popular that it shows off little about your interest in economics.

So find your own, lesser-known books to discuss. These don't have to as formal as academic papers, but there are plenty of economists who write superb literature. If you have a particular interest in a certain area of economics, browse around on Amazon to see what's out there. Putting a more obscure book (that is still from a credible source) will be likely to impress an admissions officer more, as it will highlight you using more of your own intuition.

3. ANALYSE, DON'T JUST STATE.
It's very easy to just regurgitate the outline of any books you've read in your PS, but, again, this would not be a particularly spectacular display of your passion for economics.

You need to ensure that your repetitions of the author's messages are brief, and your own, original analysis and commentary is longer. In this process, universities care more about what you, as a potential student, think than any author.

A way in which you can ensure you are analysing as well as stating is by using a method often ignored when it comes to the PS by many people: the PEE method. That is:

Point

Explain

Evaluate

There's a reason why the last 'E' appears the biggest- because that's how much attention you must give it compared to the others.

4. APPLY EARLY.

Applying early is a great idea for everyone- not just if you're applying to Oxford or Cambridge. Remember, the sooner your application has been sent off, the sooner your time will be freed up to pursue things like a social life, or sports- or, most importantly, the exams that are coming up in the summer!

Also, applying early can give you advantages in the application process. Some (not all) universities deal with applications as they arrive. This gives a slight advantage to candidates who apply earlier, as there are fewer applications to process in October, for example, as opposed to January, when the official deadline for everyone is. This can mean more attention is paid to your application, and also that there may be more available spaces and thus more chance of success for you earlier on in the process.

However, this doesn't mean you should rush your application- do make sure that it is of the highest quality you can make it before finally sending it off.

(Bonus Tip)
Applying to university is a stressful process for most people. But remember, it's one of the most important decisions of your life, one that (hopefully) will allow you to pursue exactly the kind of studies that you want to, rather than being prescribed subjects you may have lacked any interest in. University will also be a gateway to new friends, new surroundings, and new experiences that will influence greatly the person you will become.

So, my final piece of advice would be to work hard to achieve your future goals. Recognise how important and exciting the next future is for you, and ENJOY CREATING IT.

What's Happening To Poponomics? FAQ

Hello there. My name is Mohammad Lone. This is what's happening to poponomics.

So here I am, bashing away at my keyboard, alone, in a dimly lit room packed with empty boxes, books and a variety of knick-knacks. It's 11:11pm. I've just had a criminally powerful coffee, and am now nibbling on some grapes my mum bought for me earlier from Sainsburys as I pause to think about what to type next. I am feeling both excited for the time that lies ahead for me, and also a little mournful of my childhood life living under the roof of my family.

Welcome to university. Welcome to the promised land of education. Welcome to £27,000 of debt.

My confusion of emotions may be reflected in this piece of writing, and for that I do apologise- but here is, as briefly put as I can, an update on what exactly is going on with poponomics, among other things, in the form of answers to questions I have received from time to time. Hopefully this can clear a few things up.

What does poponomics mean?
Poponomics is a mashup of two words that I hope encompass some of the values of this website- 'popular' and 'economics'. Popular not necessarily in the sense that loads of people do read it, rather in the sense that loads of people can read it and understand it. Accessibility is one of the key things I focus on when I write- that readers are not overwhelmed with complex jargon and statistics.

'Economics', is pretty self-explanatory- the majority of the content on this site is on the topic of economics.

You haven't uploaded a video in ages. Are you still alive?
Yes, I am still alive. Thank you for your concern.

The video situation has been complex, as I've been facing difficulty finding a new camera that suits me (until now I have solely relied upon my laptop camera), and also with committing the large amount of time required to plan, film and edit a new video I am satisfied with.

But, the video production will continue soon. I have acquired a new, better quality camera and you can expect poponomics to return to YouTube on the 16th of October.

Do you write everything for the website yourself?
Not everything- I have been fortunate enough to have worked with some outstanding guest contributors, such as entrepreneurial guru Yura Bryant and InTouch CRM executive Didi Zheleva, who have lent their expertise on their specialist areas to poponomics.

However, the majority of the content is indeed written by myself- but I would like to gradually reduce my contributions to allow a greater spectrum of writers for the site.

Can I contribute an article for the website?
You want to contribute? Excellent! It doesn't matter whether you're a PhD in Economics or have never studied it in your life- as long as you can write, send an email over to us at mohammadlone@icloud.com and I'd be happy to take any request further and feature you on poponomics!

What credentials do you have to write about economics?

To be totally honest, not many. Yet. I haven't sat in a single economics class in my life (though now as a university econ student, hopefully that will change soon), and most of my thoughts have been derived from reading the news and books. 

Could you recommend any good introductory economics books for a non-economist? One that isn't Freakonomics?
Sure. 'Free Lunch' by David Smith is a great starter text, as it gives easily understandable yet in-depth introductions to various economic theories and concepts.

'The New Capitalist Manifesto' by Umair Haque is an incredibly thought-provoking yet accessible commentary on today's economic climate, particularly with regards to the failures and successes of today's businesses. And whatever economics book you're reading, the 'Penguin Dictionary of Economics' is always helpful to have at hand in case you come across any new words.

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions for future poponomics articles and videos, don't hesitate to send them to mohammadlone@icloud.com.

Pros & Cons #3: Going To University

As thousands of teens throughout the UK and the world over begin to prepare their applications for university, today we take a look at whether a university education is worth the often hefty outlay. 

PRO - Academic Stimulation

The primary reason for (most) people to go to university is, of course, to learn. Universities create a structured, systematic environment for students to learn in. 

Universities provide key academic tools to students, tools ranging from buildings and advanced learning facilities, to access to tuition from academic experts in any field, to things that often overlooked, such as a syllabus, a structure to a student's learning experience. 

These are the results of years of planning and a large amount of investment, that anyone who goes to university can take advantage of.


CON - Information is Everywhere

The ever-widening access to information that we are all receiving (primarily via the internet), however, could be argued to be reducing the academic importance of traditional universities.

Yes, going to a university gives you access to tuition from academics who have a great deal of knowledge in their field, but, today, so can youtube.com. Just search 'lecture' on here and you can find thousands of videos of esteemed academics teaching pretty much any topic you want to know about. 

What's more is that the breadth of content on YouTube (and other video streaming sites) means you can find talks from not just experts in a particular field, but experts who are world-renowned, from some of the best academic institutions in the world. MIT, for example, have over 3,000 lecture videos on their YouTube channel- for most people, giving higher quality content than they would receive at their own university.


PRO - Job Prospects

But, even if you listened to all 3,426 MIT Lectures on YouTube, it's pretty difficult to convey that on the key to a good job that is your CV. 

Of course, there are a number of prominent specialised jobs that are inaccessible without a university degree; you can't be a doctor, or for example, without having studied medicine at university.

But as the jobs market is becoming ever more competitive, it appears the demand for a university degree is growing. In 2013, the number of jobs in the UK requiring a degree overtook the number of jobs requiring no qualifications at all.

Virgin founder Richard Branson is often cited as an
example of why university is not important.

Some people cite success stories such as those of Richard Branson or Alan Sugar in opposition to the notion that a university degree is a requirement for a successful career- and indeed that is sometimes the case. 

However, we must not fool ourselves into thinking the likes of Branson and Sugar are not the exceptions, but the rule. The large majority of us won't see their success, and in that case a university degree is a pretty good thing to have to fall back on.

In his paper The Effects of Education as an Institution (1977), Stanford University Sociologist John W. Meyer affirms that our society's values put a graduate in a special position: "The education he receives has a very special status and authority: its levels and content categories have the power to redefine him legitimately in the eyes of everyone around him and thus take on overwhelming ceremonial significance".


CON - Cost

Were we having this debate pre-2000, this wouldn't be such an issue, as university tuition in the UK was free. But now, with universities charging as much as £9,000 a year in tuition fees, many students are having to weigh up whether university is worth the outlay of £27,000 for a regular 3-year course- plus, of course, the costs of living (accommodation, food, etc.).

Again, the condition of Britain's jobs market means graduates are not guaranteed to be better off in terms of jobs, either. As more and more people attend university, being a graduate alone is now not enough to succeed in attaining many jobs. 

The apprenticeship is becoming a popular alternative
to university among many young people.

Plus, the growing number of apprenticeships, school leaver programmes being offered by some top companies means there is an alternative route to a high paid job- one that not only means you avoid tuition fees, but actually pays a decent salary.

CON - No Guarantees

It is a myth that going to university for however many years automatically turns a student into an academic. The University is a facilitator for learning- it allows students to learn if they make the effort to do so. 

It's not just a question of effort, however. University is not a one-size fits all process- some people thrive, and others don't. Whether you thrive or not is not a problem- it's just making the right decision with regards to allocating your talents. Because performing under-par in university can make things tough.

Earning anything less than 2.1 in University can put graduates in a difficult position these days, especially considering it's the minimum requirement for over 75% of graduate employers. Of course, it is not impossible to get a job with a 2.2- it's just a lot harder. 

University is an investment, remember- it is not guaranteed to pay you back in returns.

PRO - Social Experience

A major appeal of university is the social aspect. 

Most people go to school in their hometown, but university often means a move to some place relatively far away. This makes universities melting pots of students from all over the world, enabling cultural exchanges that can have very positive effects on an individual's personal development.

University also provides one of the biggest networking opportunities for most students- because despite whatever cultural differences there may be, everyone attends in pursuit of academic interests. You can meet many more people who are interested in similar things to you, which not only helps you to thrive academically but also helps you to become part of a new, wider community. 

The community aspect of university education, whether it's joining societies, doing sports or just living with other people, is a very valuable thing. For most people, it can create friends- or even spouses- for life.

What Is Corbynomics?

With the results of the UK Labour Party Leadership Elections set to be announced this Saturday, it's time to take a look at the economic policies of one of the candidates considered the frontrunner, and also the furthest to the left, by many- Jeremy Corbyn.

The Islington MP's economic proposals have made such an impact that they have come under the new title of 'Corbynomics'. Though, admittedly, adding 'nomics' to the names of his rivals would lack the front page appeal of this title (especially 'Burnhamnomics', or would it be 'Burnhamomics'?), it is undoubtedly the unique nature of Corbyn's policies in the leadership race that has brought them a name to come under.

So, what are Corbyn's policies, and are they credible? Here are 4 of his policies that are making the headlines.

An End to Austerity

"You just cannot cut your way to prosperity so Britain needs a publicly-led expansion and reconstruction of the economy, with a big rise in investment levels."

Corbyn is a strong opponent to David Cameron and
George Osborne's policy of austerity.

One of the most appealing policies to his supporters on the left, Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to bring an end to the money-saving spending cuts that have been enforced in recent years by the Conservatives.

This means that a government under Corbyn would end spending cuts on public services such as the NHS, the education system and transport- in fact, he would be likely to increase spending on these as demand increases due to a growing and ageing population.

Corbyn would also reverse one of the most controversial austerity tactics, that is the privatisation of public services. He has pledged to renationalise the railway system, and also prevent the further privatisation of the National Health Service.


Reducing Foreign Military Presence

Jeremy Corbyn believes Britain should learn lessons from
an intervention in Iraq seen by many to have failed.

"Thousands more deaths in Iraq ... will set off a spiral of conflict, of hate, of misery, of desperation that will fuel the wars, the conflict, the terrorism, the depression and the misery of future generations." (2003)

However, the only cut that Corbyn proposes is with regards to the military. He is a fervent anti-war activist, something highlighted by his strong criticism of past actions such as Tony Blair's move to invade Iraq, and current proposals like those to militarily become involved in Syria. So, a Britain under Jeremy Corbyn would reduce its military presence in areas like the Middle East, thus saving a considerable amount of money.

Furthermore, as a believer in non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Corbyn would close down Britain's nuclear weaponry facility Trident, located in Scotland. This would not only save money, but also be a welcome move, considering a significant proportion of Scots are against the facilities themselves. However, some worry that such military contraction would endanger Britain, in what many see as an increasingly threatening world.


'Quantitative Easing for the People'

"QE for people instead of banks"

Banks would no longer benefit from government QE
programmes under Corbyn.

Quantitative Easing is nothing new in government policy, but the manner in which Jeremy Corbyn seeks to implement the divisive policy highlights the new direction in which he seeks to take Britain.

Put simply, in the current system of QE, the Bank of England creates new money that is inserted into the accounts of national banks, with the aim of encouraging these banks to lend more openly and thus stimulate spending in the economy.

Corbyn wishes for the Bank of England to continue creating new money, but proposes that the finances created should not go to the private banks, but a state-owned 'National Investment Bank', that will "head a multi-billion pound programme of infrastructure upgrades and support for high-tech and innovative industries".


National Education Service

Tuition fees have been a source of discontent for many
of Britain's young people. Under Corbyn they would not exist.

"To become a high skill, high pay, high productivity nation we need to invest in education throughout peoples' working lives - that is the path to prosperity for all." 

A significant part of Corbyn's anti-austerity programme would be the increasing of government spending on education. There has been much uproar in the past decade over university tuition fees, first introduced by Labour's own Tony Blair, and increased to as much as £9,000 a year under David Cameron.

Not only would Jeremy Corbyn abolish these tuition fees, but he has also proposed the reintroduction of university grants, which have just been replaced by loans.

Free university forms a major part of Corbyn's 'National Education Service' proposal. This system would see the government increase spending on education (funded by tax increases, government military spending cuts and the economic productivity boost the Corbyn camp believe their policies will bring), in order to make education accessible to all, providing universally free childcare right up to free university.

Currency Wars: Why Did China Devalue Its Own Currency?

China's 3% devaluation of its renminbi currency in relation to the dollar over the 11th and 12th of August was the largest single shock to the currency since 1994. The question is, though: why would a country devalue their currency?

Doesn't it make more sense for a country's currency to be stronger than everyone else's? Is a strong currency not a sign of a strong economy?

Well, in a way it is. One of the major factors in a currency's strength is the amount of foreign trade attracted by the country using it. For example, if India is exporting far more produce than it imports, the demand for the Indian Rupee will increase as countries seek to use it to import from India. As demand increases, the value of the Rupee will also grow. In this sense, the strong Rupee would be a positive sign that India's foreign trade is going relatively well.

Having a strong currency means your citizens have a greater deal of purchasing power when travelling internationally. If the pound is much stronger than the dollar, for example, British citizens will be able to buy most goods more cheaply in the USA than at home.

But it's not all rosy- a strong currency has other implications on a country, particularly with regards to foreign trade, that make it not so appealing.

History is a great teacher, so let's take a look at a past example of when a strong currency has led to an economy's downfall: Britain, in the 1950s and 60s. Though the time of Empire was coming to a close, Britain's Pound Sterling currency remained strong. This was primarily due to the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement, which artificially tied the value of the Pound to $4.03.

The Pound's strength brought a decade or so of general prosperity for most of the British public. A strong currency enabled British businesses to import goods far more cheaply, and these benefits were passed onto citizens primarily in the form of a consumer goods. Appliances we take for granted, like fridges, freezers, and washing machines were introduced into the British household for the first time, as was television- the first major broadcasted event being the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in 1953. Car ownership also increased, as parts became easier to import for British factories- by 250% between 1951 and 1961.

Go forward to 1967, however, and under-pressure PM Harold Wilson announced that the value of the Pound was to be lowered to $2.40. This was an incredibly difficult move to make- reducing the power of the nation's currency was a politically damaging move for any Prime Minister, and Wilson's predecessors had all shied away from doing it. And after all this prosperity brought about by a strong currency, why did he make this difficult decision?

Devaluation in 1967 sent a shockwave throughout Britain.

It turned out the prosperity was more short-term than most believed it would be. The strong Pound boosted imports to Britain to such an extent that Britain was importing far more than it could export. This gap between the value of exports and imports is called a balance of payments deficit- and while it is not necessarily harmful for a country to have such a deficit, Britain's had grown too large to sustain.

Imports from other countries had become cheaper for the British, but on the other side of the coin, imports from Britain became more expensive for other countries. This meant British business had lost a lot of foreign trade due to being just too expensive, meaning reduced profits in Britain and thus wages for workers. This effect began to kick in particularly in the 1960s. The lack of British exporting dug the economy deeper into the balance of payments crisis.

Therefore one of Prime Minister Wilson's primary motives in devaluing the Pound was to make the Pound more accessible, and China's motivations this August were pretty similar.

Chinese exports in July 2015 were 8.3% lower than in July 2014, and according to many, China's economic prosperity in the past decades has damaged its ability to provide cheap labour to other countries, as the value of the currency has increased, along with wages and regulation. Countries like Bangladesh and Vietnam have begun to emerge as competitors to China with regards to providing cheap labour- and China's devaluation of its currency is a move to undercut them.

Why Is Donald Trump So Popular?

In one of the most interesting run-ups to a Republican Presidential Nomination Election in recent history, multi-billionaire property magnate Donald Trump has emerged as an unexpected leader for many in the party. 

Trump's initial announcement that he was running for President was trivialised by most commentators, as a publicity stunt by a man seeking to simply push further his name brand into the public spotlight. His failed 2012 campaign had also done little to convince anyone that Trump had the capacity to sustain a strong campaign to gain Republican nomination. 

However, 'The Donald' has surprised his doubters so far and currently stands head and shoulders above his Republican competitors in the polls. According to Newsweek, he is almost two times more popular among Republicans than his closest competitor, Jeb Bush, with a stunning 32% approval rating.

So, why is Trump doing so well in this election, when he failed miserably in the last? From his first step on the escalator down to his announcement speech, to his challenging the Pope in a recent interview with CNN, here's a look at 4 reasons why 'The Donald' is coming up trumps in 2015.

1) He doesn't give a damn about PC, or general manners whatsoever.

To some, Donald Trump is a self-made business visionary to some, and to others a bombastic example of the evils of capitalism- but what is pretty much certain is that he is a bold, often divisive personality who is rarely afraid to say what is on his mind. 

Some truly hilarious moments have emerged out of Trump's campaign as a result of his apparent lack of limits in what he says and does. Whether it's giving out fellow Republican Lindsey Graham's personal number out during a speech, saying that he likes "people that weren't captured" when John McCain's time as a POW was being applauded by the public, or claiming that a female interviewer was on a period because she was asking him difficult questions, Trump's often wacky remarks have ensured him the public spotlight in recent months. 

  

But there is a more serious side to Trump's lack of restraint (and views in general). Certain statements of his, notably his claim that immigrants from Mexico are mostly rapists and criminals ("some, I assume, are good people" he brazenly claims), suggest a darker side to Trump that did turn off a large proportion of the population- but at the same time must have had the opposite effect on others.

2) He's rich.

Multi-millionaire 2012 Republican Candidate Mitt Romney became noted for his attempts to hide his wealth in the run up to the election, trying to shake off the 'Corporate Republican' image that turned many voters off. Donald Trump, on the other hand, couldn't care less about showing that he is a 'man of the people'- indeed, he believes his position high up in the economic ladder puts him in a perfect place to be President, and he's not afraid to show off the fact. 

"I'm proud of my net worth. I've done an amazing job," announced Trump in his announcement speech, before revealing his supposed net worth of almost nine billion dollars. 

The man is clearly unafraid to show off his wealth, and this works on many voters. Not only does it boost his image as a successful businessman (despite his numerous bankruptcies in the 1980s), thus reinforcing his claims to become the "greatest jobs president God ever created", but it creates an aura of aspiration, the American Dream, around Trump. Some people see Trump as a man who has succeeded in life, by achieving The Dream and becoming extremely wealthy, and these people take this to be a sign that he will be a similarly successful president.

Not only is his vast wealth helpful in this sense, but it proves a necessary boost in a political system in which money is king, for anyone who wishes to partake in it. For Trump, it seems his own money has come very handy indeed- during the second quarter of 2015, Trump's campaign raised $1.9m. Of this money, Trump had donated $1.8m. Yes, that's right. Just 1/19th of Trump's campaign donations came from people other than himself. More recently, Trump has announced that he would be willing to spend up to $1bn in his campaign to become President.

3) He's a celebrity.

Donald Trump really likes his name.

Donald Trump is not just a person, but he is really a brand; as anyone who has visited his flagship Trump Tower knows, his name and image is a massive part of who he is (of course, as well as his money). Trump T-Shirts, Trump Teddy Bears, Trump Mugs- you can find an abundance of Trump goods in his New York skyscraper. 

The man has also hosted the popular but also 'Celebrity Apprentice' on NBC, and was the owner of the 'Miss Universe' vanity competition. 

Compare this with Trump's competitors. Before entering politics, Jeb Bush had positions in banking and oil companies and Rand Paul was a doctor. Marco Rubio has basically always been in politics. Trump's career is by far the most glamorous, something that by default is likely to win him some voters. People who liked him from The Apprentice, for example, are by far more likely to vote for him rather than his competitors. 

Trump has for a long time worked in the television industry, one that relies almost entirely on approval, popularity. Therefore, he is likely to know what 'sells' in the arguably similar political arena. His divisive comments may mean that the audience he attracts is not always going to be the same, but his audience may see a shift rather than a shrinking.

4) His policies are popular among Conservatives.

In a way (other than just his hair), Donald Trump reminds me a little of Boris Johnson. Behind all the buffoonery and show, there is a functioning Conservative mind that is proposing policies that do actually appeal to those on the right as much as they infuriate the left.

One of the things that really puts Trump on the map in the Republican Party is his stance on immigration, for example. This is clearly something he wants at the forefront of his campaign; as he stated in his announcement speech, he would "build a great, great wall" on the southern border between the USA and Mexico, to supposedly end the illegal immigration issue.

Putting aside the logic of his proposal beside (he claims he will build it "inexpensively", yet he will "have the Mexicans pay for that wall"- so what's the point of making it cheaply?), this solid anti-immigration approach has great appeal on the Conservative side. 

His economic policies are also textbook Republican- push for lower taxes and less regulation on businesses.

And of course, a Republican candidate is incomplete until they make the typical announcement to put their mark on the Middle East- "Nobody will be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump", according to the man himself.

With such issues in which there is a danger of anti-immigration proponents being branded 'politically incorrect', Mike Adams from Natural News comes to an interesting conclusion- that Trump is so popular because he is "the surrogate mouthpiece for the things most Americans deeply believe (but are too afraid to say)". While I am not so sure whether most Americans agree with him, it seems apparent that there are many in the USA who are in such a position.

But in being so honest and bold in his Conservative statements, Trump is running a dangerous risk of alienating even his supporters- his feud with his previous supporter Bill O Reilly, who now warns Trump will turn the Republican Party into one of 'racist brutalisers', suggests that Trump may be about to fall off his peak.

Read Donald Trump's announcement of his running for the Republican Presidential nomination here: http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/

The Labour Leadership Election: Who Are The Candidates, And Who Will Win?

Who are the candidates? What do they stand for? Should I vote for them? Today, we take a quick look at these questions, and more.

NAME: Andy Burnham

THE ONE WHO... is constantly waging war on the 'Westminster Bubble' every time he speaks.

LEFT OR RIGHT?: He's swayed about a bit, but his campaign has generally been slightly left of centre.

5 HEADLINE POLICIES:
- Plans to reduce the deficit, but "not through the Tory approach of exclusively relying on spending cuts".
- Renationalisation of railways (a move supported by as much as 60% of the British population)
- Introduction of votes for 16 and 17 year olds in future general elections.
- Abolition of student loans, replaced with a 'graduate tax'.
- Further government support for housing- notably 'Rent to Own', allowing zero-deposit mortgages to be taken.

WILL HE WIN?: In the most recent YouGov poll, Burnham came second, with 21% of the vote. Born to a working-class family in Liverpool, he claims regularly that he's never been one of the disconnected career plutocrats of Westminster, and for many this has a rather charming effect. Many see Burnham as just plain nice and pleasant- Jon Elledge of The New Statesman describes him as "unfailingly pleasant and courteous".

However, others see him as more of the same for Labour- not a significant enough change from Ed Miliband to win at the next election- but, to be fair, this is the case for some of his opposition too. Some also see his past support of Tony Blair as an indication he will be too centrist for Labour.


NAME: Yvette Cooper

THE ONE WHO... was part of the first ever married couple in Cabinet.

LEFT OR RIGHT?: More towards the centre than Burnham- she has stated herself the need for Labour not to "veer to the left or the right".

5 HEADLINE POLICIES:
- She seeks to address the vast socio-economic gap between the rich and poor, but without returning to "the remedies of the past, of Gordon Brown or Tony Blair".
- Reversing this Tory government's abolition of tax credits for third children.
- Creation of a 'Welfare Reform Commission' that will overhaul Universal Credit, reform housing and ensure easily accessible childcare for working parents.
- Boosting vocational education, to help Britain's tech industry. Cooper has proclaimed her belief in taking advantage of the 'white heat of the technological revolution', a reference to 1960s Labour PM Harold Wilson.
- Reduction of corporation tax- Cooper is of the belief that Labour must "reset our relation with business".








WILL SHE WIN?: Cooper arguably has the most impressive CV of the candidates. A graduate of Oxford, Harvard and the LSE, she has had a lengthy career in politics, beginning in researching roles, going on to help Bill Clinton's presidential campaign in the 90s, and returning to the UK to continue in various roles in government. She is proud of her instrumental part in rolling out Sure Start, believed by many to be one of Labour's most effective policies in recent times. However, she can be equally labelled a career politician, having spent little time out of the political sphere after graduation.

Many also see her as lacking definition- she has given very few indications of what her real policies would be as leader (the section above this took a long, long time for me to collect). Some say Cooper is playing it too much like a politician, too safe, by not making specific indications of her policy.



NAME: Jeremy Corbyn

THE ONE WHO... Part of 'bats**t Labour' according to many a Conservative, the "real deal" to those further on the left, and is simply 'OK' to Donald Trump.

LEFT OR RIGHT?: The furthest on the left out of these candidates by far.

FIVE HEADLINE POLICIES:
- An end to austerity (the cutting of government expenditure), in order to protect and improve state health, education and transport systems and help those reliant upon welfare. This will be counterbalanced by an increase in the tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.
- One government expenditure that would be cut, however, would be on military. The scrapping of the Trident nuclear system and reduction in international intervention would free money for other plans, such as scrapping of university tuition fees.
- A refocus of 'Quantitative Easing'- a government under Corbyn would continue to print money, but this would go to a pot supporting "new large scale housing, energy, transport and digital projects" rather than investment banks.
- No military intervention in the Middle East- Corbyn is a staunch opponent of the tactic.
- Renationalisation of energy companies and the railways.

WILL HE WIN?: If you asked this to anyone a couple of months ago, you'd get a definitive 'no'. But, in typical British fashion, as the underdog he has surged in popularity, now in first place by as much as 32%. His being far further on the left than his opponents is deeply appealing to those disenchanted by the current right-wing state of British politics, those who see the main cause for Labour's defeat in May as their being simply 'Tory-lite' rather than a true alternative.

Jeremy Corbyn has equally been savaged by the right and even centre, both by individuals and the press. Tony Blair has described fans of the left-wing candidate as 'in need of a heart transplant' and the Daily Mail has frequently described him as the 'bearded loony' of the Labour Party, and some Labour MPs have voiced concern over Corbyn's leadership. MP Barry Sheerman has even called for the vote to be paused, to prevent him winning. This comes from a belief in both the Conservative and some of the Labour camp that Corbyn's election as leader would condemn Labour to a defeat in the 2020 General Election.

But for now, with his 30% lead, Jeremy Corbyn seems set to take hold of the Labour leadership. However, the pollsters were wrong in the General Election, and they could well be the same this time.

NAME: Liz Kendall

THE ONE WHO... some see as Labour's Margaret Thatcher.

LEFT OR RIGHT?: The most right-wing of the Labour leadership candidates. She is a great supporter of Blair's 'New Labour', an ideology largely shaped by the right-wing leadership of Thatcher and John Major in the 1980s and 90s.

FIVE HEADLINE POLICIES:
- Increased support of business by the Labour Party- Kendall has announced that she wants "to lead a Labour Party that's genuinely as passionate about wealth creation as we are about wealth distribution".
- Continuation of the current government's spending target of 2% of the GDP on defence, and maintaining commitments to NATO.
- Investment of funds into improving early education for children, rather than cutting tuition fees.
- Backing of free schools and academies- something no other Labour candidate has promised.
- Kendall has implied strongly that she would make compulsory worker representation on company boards.

WILL SHE WIN?: It seems rather unlikely. Kendall's political position is certainly further to the right than any of her opponents, and thus is unlikely to appeal to a great deal of the Labour Party, a party dispositioned to the left. Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper have occasionally sought to present themselves as left wing candidates to compete with Jeremy Corbyn, but Kendall has made no such move.

However, it could be argued that Liz Kendall is the leader that Labour need, judging the current political climate of Britain. Some people believe the public is in favour of the right-wing Conservative policies, and thus in order for Labour to have a chance of winning in 2020 they need someone to compete. In this case, Kendall would be the ideal candidate to take away some of the centre-right votes of the Tories.