The potential outcomes of Syriza's win

On the 25th of January, Greece had an election and this was won by the far-left populist Syriza party led by Alexis Tsipras. He demands a big cut in Greece's debt and promises more public spending, going against austerity measures set by Angela Merkel, Germany's chancellor. After the euro crisis five years ago, the euro-zone countries in the south have continued to suffer from stagnant growth and high unemployment. With deflation setting in, the debt burden will rise despite fiscal austerity. Therefore, when policies failed to work, it was no surprise that we saw Greek voters flocking to the opposition.

A good solution can be reached to benefit both Greece and Europe. Mr Tsipras is correct that austerity in Europe has been excessive. Austerity policies have had negative results in Europe and caused deflation to occur. The fact that the European Central Bank (ECB) introduced quantitative easing (QE) reinforces this. Mr Tsipras is also correct in saying that Greece's debt is unpayable despite tax increases and spending cuts. The debt has risen from 109% to a whopping 175% of GDP over the past six years. However, Mr Tsipras is wrong to neglect reform in Greece. He aims to introduce a large rise in the minimum wage, abandon privatisation and to rehire 12,000 workers in the public sector. This will reverse Greece's progress into improving competitiveness.

The Economist magazine proposes that Mr Tsipras rejects his insane socialism and to carry out structural reforms in return for debt forgiveness. This can be achieved by either pushing the maturity of Greek debt out even further or by reducing its face value. Besides that, he could get rid of the protected oligopolies as well as cracking down on corruption. This mixture of macroeconomic easing with microeconomic structural reform would provide a good model for other euro-zone countries such as Italy and France to follow. On the other hand, this may not happen because Mr Tsipras might be an extreme left-winger and as it is, Mrs Merkel is finding it difficult to accept the current QE plans. The result of this could be Grexit where Greece withdraws from the eurozone.

This can have catastrophic consequences. In Greece alone, it would lead to banks going bankrupt, onerous capital controls, an even further decline in income, an unemployment rate that is even higher than the current 25% rate and Greece's potential exit from the European Union. There will also be a knock-on effect on the rest of Europe where doubts will arise about whether countries such as Portugal, Spain and even Italy should stay in the euro.

Thus the most likely outcome is a temporary compromise however, it is unlikely to last long. In the event that Mr Tsipras does not manage to get debt relief, he will lose credibility and support from Greek voters. But even if he wins small improvements in Greece's debt situation, other countries will probably resist. Bail-out terms changes have to be voted on in some national parliaments and if they are passed, it could lead to voters in Spain and Portugal demanding an end to austerity. Populists from the right and left wing in France and Italy who are against not only austerity but also EU membership may gain stronger positions.

What's worth mentioning is the technical problems associated with this. Any impasse can cause a run on Greek banks because the ECB cannot give emergency liquidity to Greek banks or buy up its bonds unless Mr Tsipras' government is in an agreed programme with creditors. This can be prevented by stretching out maturities. But that may be too little for Mr Tsipras and too much for Mrs Merkel.

It is difficult to see how the single currency would be able to survive if Mrs Merkel continues to obstruct reforms to stimulate growth and to get rid of deflation in the euro zone. She will cripple the European economies and will bring about a lost decade that is even worse than the Japanese economy in the 1990s. That could lead to a populist backlash similar to the one seen in the recent Greek elections.

The reasons for the falling oil prices

Currently, the falling oil prices are making headlines in the news. This is not surprising considering its effects on the world economy. For example, while consumers benefit from having to pay less for oil, the oil prices has had an adverse effect on the Russian economy. The low oil prices has resulted in a decrease in oil revenue for Russia and a weaker rouble. Being one of the world's largest producers of oil, the country is heavily dependent on it, with oil and gas revenues accounting for 70% of export incomes. For every dollar fall in the oil prices, Russia loses around $2 billion in revenue. After five years of stable prices, the price of oil dropped from $115 a barrel in June to below $50.

Furthermore, this event will impact negatively on the risky and vulnerable areas of the industry including the American oil producers who use the fracking technique and have borrowed heavily because of the expectation that the price of oil will continue to rise. It also includes Western oil companies with expensive projects such as drilling in the Arctic.

However on the whole, the falling oil prices will have the most significant effect on countries that are very dependent on high oil prices to fund social programmes and foreign endeavours. These include Russia and Iran. The situation in Russia is made worse by sanctions imposed by the West for its meddling in the Ukraine and Iran has to fund the Assad regime in Syria.

There are several reasons for this. Just like any other good, the price of oil is determined by the forces of demand and supply. The demand for oil is low because of declining economic activity, increased efficiency and a rising tendency to switch to other fuels, which are substitutes for oil. Low demand results in a decrease in the price. Besides that, fracking has boosted America's oil output by two-thirds in just four years. This means that it now imports much less, leading to spare supply. In addition, Saudi Arabia and their Gulf allies have refused to limit supply to increase the prices because they want to retain their market share. Also, cutting the supply would benefit countries they detest such as Russia and Iran. The Saudis are able to cope with low oil prices because they have $900 billion in reserves while the cost of producing oil is low at around $5-6 per barrel.

The consequences of excessive pork consumption in China

It is no secret that the Chinese love pork. Pigs have been at the heart of Chinese culture and cuisine ever since the civilisation began thousands of years ago. The pig symbolises prosperity, fertility and chivalry as well as being one of the twelve signs of the Chinese zodiac. Those born in the year of the pig are believed to be hard-working, empathetic and generous. During the Communist era, most households in the rural areas owned a pig. This is because pigs ate waste and acted as a recycling system. According to Fuchsia Dunlop, a food writer and cook, pork has "the perfect flavour for Chinese cuisine". The Chinese don't waste any parts of the pig. Their brains are described as "soft as custard, and dangerously rich" by Ms. Dunlop. Pigs are also thought to have medicinal benefits.

Today, pork consumption has risen almost sevenfold in China after the government liberalised agriculture in the 1970s. The Chinese now consume and produce almost 500m pigs a year, which is half of all the pigs in the world. However, this will pose a danger to not only the Chinese economy and environment but also to the rest of the world.

Keeping pork affordable for the people is vital for the Communist Party because the Chinese consume so much pork to the point that if the price of pork rises, the prices of everything else rises with it. In 2007, there was an epidemic among pigs called the "blue ear pig disease" and this killed an estimate of 45m pigs. This led to a sharp increase in the price of pork and was followed by panic buying. The inflation rate, according to the consumer price index, reached a ten-year-high. Imports also doubled in that year, damaging the trade position. To combat this, the Communist party created a pork reserve. The idea was that when the price of pork becomes too high, the government can release some of its stock to keep prices at a good level. When the price becomes too low, the government can buy more pigs so that farmers can make a profit. Using statistics from Chatham House, a British think-tank, the Chinese government subsidised pork production by $22 billion in 2012.

Excessive pork consumption will also damage the environment. The majority of pigs that the Chinese consume are from China however, each kilogram of pork needs 6kg of feed (processed soy and corn) and the government has to resort to importing feed from overseas because of the scarce land and water in the country. In 2010, China's soy imports made up more than half of the global soy market. As a result, Brazil used over 25 hectares of land (some of it is part of the Amazon rainforest) to cultivate soy. In Argentina, thousands of hectares of forests were chopped down to make way for soy production.

Antibiotics, hormones and growth promoters are used by farmers in order to prevent the pigs from catching a disease. These drugs can pass through the pig's manure. The billions of tonnes of waste produced by the livestocks are the main source of water and soil pollution according to the Ministry of Agriculture.

Lastly, the waste coming from pigs contribute to methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which is a greenhouse gas and is 300 times worse than carbon dioxide. The emission of greenhouse gases from Chinese agriculture increased by 35% between 1994 and 2005. According to Tony Weis of the University of Western Ontario, Canada, "The global expansion of livestock production is one of the primary causes of climate change". It accounts for nearly a fifth of emissions produced by human activity.