Food Banks: A Bailout Too Far?

Food banks are somewhat provocative. The outcry of emotion usually triggers off related discussions, often about how austerity has pushed some members of society to use them and also how much food supermarkets and food stores throw away. Their individual usage has been increasing dramatically over the last five years and they have become a sensitive subject relating to the government’s austerity measures; you could even suggest their increase in use is one of the staples of the Conservative government.

But is their usage beneficial in both the short and long run?

Austerity has been covered in some depth on this blog, pieces here and here discuss some of the consequences of a government determined to slash public sector expenditure by the highest historical levels. The discussion here is aimed at the ramifications of such actions, particularly at the exponential increase of food bank supply and usage.

The Independent.

Moral hazard is a useful economic term, meaning when two parties engage into an agreement both can act independent from one another, contrary to the principles of the agreement itself. If you think of a car, a car has seat belts to prevent fatal and other injuries. But before cars had seat belts cars and the roads were safer because people drove slower. By driving slower there were less accidents. Of course you should wear a seat belt when driving, but it is an interesting argument and one that should make you think. If you drive slower you are less likely yo crash.

Another example is a salesperson with zero commission, the person receives a flat wage. Without the incentive of commission his or her business activity may relate to the flatness of the wage because there is no incentive to increase the variable i.e. the selling of more goods and services. A Salesperson is meant to sell as much as they can, without commission a worker that sells one unit receives the same wage as a worker that sells one hundred units. This is moral hazard. Clearly food banks enter into this discussion because as a means to equip oneself with emergency relief food is vital to survival; man’s basic requirements of food, shelter and clothing are the basic necessities required regardless of culture, belief, demographic etc.

The Trussell Trust are the largest food bank group in the UK. They actually began in 1994 and usually work as an intermediary between different social groups as a gap to help vulnerable members of society. This means that people are advised to go to a bank where they will usually be given three days’ worth of food, a person to talk to and advice to help them along what is usually a difficult journey. This is honorable and noble work.

Ultimately Food Banks present society with a huge dilemma. The graph below illustrates the dramatic increase from the market leading food bank.

The Trussell Trust

In 2011 some 128,697 adults used the Trussell Trust’s facilities, there were also ninety six facilities nationwide and these banks would open two to three days a week. In 2015 there are now four hundred and fourteen banks opening seven days a week. This is an increase of over four times the amount in just four years, equating to around a 100% increase every year. This is a huge increase in supply. The growing problem of food bank usage is the poverty consciousness it has instilled into our public psyche. Of course the mass media’s coverage of the economy is usually one of “tough” economic times and buzzwords such as “debt” and “difficulty” also shapes our collective thought and thus helps shape the societal narrative if you will.

This increasing form of dependency represents a complex moral hazard: should some food banks close in order to promote self-sufficiency?

This is one of the problems with strict economic analysis, it can be rather limiting when discussing sensitive issues, such as charity. However, a benefit for this form of analysis is the fact that when we do look at the facts, as crude as that can be sometimes, we can narrow down at what is vital and what is not. If more food banks closed people would be forced to find food elsewhere, agencies such as schools, sometimes police, social services and even GPs in small areas are all responsible for sending members of the public to food banks. The dependency the food bank increase has caused has maybe prompted an over reliance upon their use. And an over reliance on charitable handouts only prolongs the problem; without self-evaluation to confront the larger issue at hand the user will be going around in a slow circle.

The evidence presented does show that the increase in food banks supply from the market leader (ninety six in 2011 to four hundred and fourteen in 2015) a proportionate increase in demand. The users and social agencies utilizing food banks could not send people to food banks if their number was capped or they did not exist, they would be forced to seek nutrition from another means and self-sufficiency is the only cure for people who rely on charity. Another unfortunate problem is the fact that many of the main users of foods banks are children. According to Barnardo’s 33% of all children in the UK live in poverty. Not only does this mean they are immediately more susceptible to health concerns, monetary issues and their educational achievement but they are more likely to be recommended by their schools and social services for food bank usage. From 82,679 children in 2011 to 687,607 in 2015. What kind of future does a child have if they become so used to charitable handouts as a means of provision?

Food banks are a fantastic one off stop to help people in desperate times; a buffer to enable a person or people to get back onto their feet. When they were incepted they probably had this idea. The increase in food banks and thus their usage is an unfortunate concern as an over dependency creates problems and this can only prolong the negativity that the food is trying alleviate. The increase in usage is partly down to an increase in supply of facilities themselves, the mass media coverage and austerity policies. The government could impose a cap on how many banks are allowed to operate but this is unlikely due to the laissez faire attitude from the government.

An increase in charitable handouts is a sad consequence that has no direct route or origin, but austerity has certainly played a part.

Has The Government Improved The Standard Of Living In The UK?

With General Election campaigns well under way and the speculative dust settled from the 2015 Budget the timing is right for an analytical look at the coalition and their five-year premiership so far. This piece is not aimed at dissecting each manifesto claim made by the Tories, rather a commentary on living standards in the UK today.

Have the government’s policies actually improved the living standards of the average UK citizen?

Measuring living standards and the statistics and data used is critical to illustrate an accurate portrayal of actual living standards for the average person. Undoubtedly aggregate figures are important, especially when making macro comparisons with other economies. Nonetheless individuals should also be made aware with stats and figures they can truly relate to; GDP Per Capita figures give a clearer indication of this because they show the average wage per person. Moreover, people can see what the average person earns; they can also use the figure and compare how they are doing in comparison.

To arrive at a GDP per capita figure we take the Gross Domestic Product, (the sum of all work, spending and production) and we divide that by the total population we then arrive at a GDP per capita figure. This figure is a more accurate representation of the living standards for the average Briton as it provides the mean wage for everyone in the nation. Like all stats, always take them with a pinch of salt and never consider them to be final or conclusive, rather a useful analytical tool used to portray the bigger picture.

If we go back to 2009 the UK and most advanced economies were in the midst of the worst financial crisis since the Wall Street crash of 1929. I have opined my thoughts on the matter here and here. Prior to the hung parliament and David Cameron assuming leadership, Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister at the time and his Chancellor Alastair Darling, sanctioned tax payer’s money to be used on “bailing out the banks.” The term often used to describe the process that saw taxes being deployed as a monetary safety net for the struggling banks; banks that would have been crushed by their own recklessness had the tax funded finance package not arrived.

It is worth mentioning the background to the crisis in some minor detail as Prime Minister David Cameron has described this election as the “most important in a generation.” This is because the Tories have structured their election campaign on their idea of economic recovery and why continuity rather than change is required for the citizens in the UK. In the pre-election Budget Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne claimed, “Our economy had suffered a collapse greater than almost any country.”

Britain’s GDP like other nations suffered as a result of the global financial crash but can The Chancellor truly suggest that the financial crisis hit Britain as hard as some of the less developed nations such as Ireland, Greece or Portugal? The UK is not a Eurozone member, so it does not have to adjust economic policy in line with eighteen other nations, unlike the mentioned nations. In addition, nations such as France and Germany have higher GDP and GDP per capita figures than the UK. Both are members of what is clearly an unbalanced monetary union and still have had a stronger recovery in living standard terms since 2009.

Mr. Osborne added:

“Five years ago, living standards were set back years by the great recession. Today, the latest projections show that living standards will be higher than when we took office.”

At a time when the electorate needed reassurances and tangible evidence of a recovery it seemed a little odd to refer to living standard projections rather than the subsequent record during the coalition’s time in office. The graph below highlights GDP per capita from 2007-2014:

World Bank

As you can see in 2009 when the coalition took office living standards where at the lowest point on the range displayed. This is no surprise as the aftermath of the banking crisis combined with the deficit reduction policies imposed by the government caused a shock to the economic system. Since then living standards have been the lowest among Britain’s adversaries, Germany and France respectively. So it remains unclear what the Chancellor meant when he proudly professed “Britain was walking tall again.”

According to ONS figures, unemployment in the UK ( February 5.7%) is lower than France (10.6%), Germany (4.8%) has a lower rate however; but the news was welcomed by the coalition. With French unemployment higher than the UK’s it highlights the importance of looking at the average wage per person as opposed to other figures because they do not portray a clearer picture of living standards.

Unemployment figures cannot account for underemployment. Underemployment looks at labour utilization (how productive workers are) as opposed to just labour (people in jobs). For example, a PHD holder working in a fast food restaurant is said to be “underemployed” because they posses a skill set that exceeds their requirements for the role, yet they are employed nonetheless. An extreme example yes but the idea is to look at situations where highly qualified individuals are accepting roles where their skills are not enhanced or utilized. This is a likely factor behind the UK’s laborious productivity and why it can have more people in jobs yet lower wages for those workers. According to the Bank of England in their Quarterly Bulletin 2014 Q2

“Since the onset of the 2007-08 financial crisis, labour productivity in the United Kingdom has been exceptionally weak. Despite some modest improvements in 2013, whole-economy output per hour remains around 16% below the level implied by its pre-crisis trend.”

In addition to that, Stephanie Flanders writing in the Financial Times suggests:

 “That the average UK worker, in Yorkshire or anywhere else, now produces less in five days than a French one does in four.”

Clearly the recovery is not close to pre-crisis levels so the government has not raised living standards for the average UK citizen. With slothful productivity levels systemic of what little recovery the nation has seen, it is difficult to fathom how the Chancellor could be so optimistic when clearly the past five years have been subdued. Political rhetoric should not be confused with economic reality and the reality is clear: living standards in the UK are not close to pre-crisis levels.

Scottish Independence: Be Careful What You Wish For

Scottish not British

This is a special piece about the SNP’s attempts for a Currency Union with the rest of the UK. It is flawed and the implications could be drastic. All patriotic rhetoric aside, the Scottish people should be careful of what they wish for.

Without question the potential breakup of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a monumental and truly unique event. The Scottish people have been granted their request for the right as Scots to self-determination. This would result in much greater powers shifting away from Westminster and into the Scottish Parliament.

From an emotional and patriotic perspective their cries for independence are fully justified and understandable; the fact is Scotland was an independent nation a very long time ago. Most people in Scotland do not consider themselves British and feel disillusioned with the decision making process over four hundred miles away in Westminster. This is not a matter of mere geography, the distance purely emphasizes the point that they are culturally their own people.

It is this reason why the SNP have completely sold the Scottish YES campaign short by seeking a currency union with the England. If we analyse this call for ‘independence’ how independent can independence be if your currency; the common factor and medium that binds the market based society together, is determined by the same people you are claiming to want to leave? Surely that creates a more dependent nation than before?

Currency union is what the Eurozone is based on. Because the ECB (European Central Bank) controls all monetary policy (interest rates & supply of money) across the entire region. Nation states are rendered somewhat useless to self-determination when it comes to economic planning, specifically fiscal policy (government spending and taxation). Therefore, the ECB must always factor in contrasting economies when deciding what interest rates will be. Think of large economies such as Germany and France and then smaller economies such as Portugal and of course Greece.

Hypothetically, the ECB may raise interest rates across the Eurozone in order to curtail an economic boom. This could help the nations that are booming at a higher rate. Booming in the sense of higher and more potent economic activity. This is certainly possible when you look at just how different the economies are in the Eurozone. Some nations may benefit from higher rates of interest, whilst some may suffer. It will help some nations and hurt others.

This is a very realistic scenario for Scotland. All patriotism aside and let the facts dictate. Several businesses such as RBS, Lloyds, Standard Life and others have all stated they are in unwavering support of the Union and will leave Scotland if they get their independence. Firms such as Next and John Lewis suggest that Scottish versions of their stores could have to increase prices in order to maintain price stability with the rest of the union. Can you imagine Scottish people driving to Northern England just to save money for the same goods and services? This could boost England’s economy and deplete Scottish business in the long run.

There is a simple and rational solution and it is a genuine surprise that the SNP have not considered a fully independent Central Bank and Currency. Rather than seeking a currency union with the UK why not create your own? This is what a truly independent Scotland deserves. This hybrid, this poorly choreographed collaboration between two neighbours is not independence. It is dependence. This top-heavy relationship is highly unlikely to work for Scotland. As the evidence suggests for currency union in the Eurozone, (Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal) without fiscal AND monetary union determined by one single body tailored to the needs of your own economy there will ALWAYS be an imbalance. Mark Carney accurately described a currency union as “incompatible with sovereignty.” The SNP have however suggested a fiscal framework to avoid a Greek and Spanish like currency imbalance situation but it simply does not go far enough. The Union have made it clear what their view is and they want Scotland to remain. They have no obligation to make special arrangements for Scotland.

For true, unaltered and FULL independence Scotland require full control over both fiscal (government spending) and monetary (interest rates) policies. Without control over both Scotland need to ensure they have enough of a thriving and stable market to ensure their economic activity does not stray too far from that of England if they want to use the Pound Sterling. It will be very difficult to maintain that balance however, especially considering the unwavering stance from the Union.

Being Scottish is of the heart and mind and not necessarily of the ballot. Of course officially being an independent nation and having full national recognition is something to savour and for Alex Salmond, he gets to write his name into history forever. It should be approached with caution because the SNP’s approach lacks the real vision and authenticity the Scottish people deserve. If the Scottish economy does not create enough well paid and productive jobs in both short and long-run, if it does not open itself for real and beneficial investment then Scotland will suffer.

 

Good luck to the people of Scotland no matter what the outcome.  

 

Tricky Situation

Government’s current stance with regards to the potential Pfizer takeover of AstraZeneca sends mixed messages about UK recovery. 

Chairman & CEO Ian Read

David Cameron’s stance with regards to Pfizer’s potential takeover of AstraZeneca is somewhat peculiar. Research & Development especially in the Science industry signals innovation, persistence and longevity. Therefore the employment associated to the Science industry appears to be the kind that the UK economy desperately requires in order to aid the fragile recovery. The anomaly comes as a surprise because both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor favour a takeover bid from US firm Pfizer, albeit with “more assurances” from Pfizer. The government are of course powerless to stop the takeover and Pfizer have no obligation to pander to Westminster’s requests, still, supporting a takeover bid that is most likely to remove highly skilled jobs away from the UK is not exactly a favourable position to adopt. More potently, the wrong message about the UK labour market is being sent.

Pfizer Chairman Ian Read will have fully comprehended the saving potential by transferring 20% of AstraZeneca’s R&D department to a more cost-effective location. Pfizer shareholders will support the move away from the UK as dividends will rise due to the vast savings, an estimated £595million will be saved if the Pfizer manage to forsake the UK for a more cost effective location. Savings on such levels will provoke a reaction from shareholders who will always look to maximise their dividends. It is their right to exercise that privilege and governments are powerless to stop such an action. It should be noted however that sovereign governments have a debt to its citizens to ensure that everything is done to at least show firms why the UK is an attractive place to conduct business. To stay silent would be questionable; supporting the bid that possibly ends some 6,700 jobs in such a specialist and labour-rich sector such as Pharmaceuticals is a surprise. When one considers the economic rhetoric propagated by the government has been focused on full employment, safeguarding highly skilled jobs should subsequently be high on the list of priorities for the government.

Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna said the assurances Pfizer had given ministers were “not worth the paper they are written on,” as it had declined to rule out breaking up AstraZeneca in the future.

“The government could act immediately to work to put in place a stronger public interest test encompassing cases with an impact on strategic elements of our science base and seek a proper, independent assessment of the potential takeover as Labour has called for. Instead, ministers have sat on their hands.”

Although it is the job of the opposition to opine an alternative perspective to that of the government, Chuka Umunna’s point does reflect the public interest and the Society of Biology, Biochemical Society, British Pharmacological Society and Royal Society of Chemistry all reflect his views. Nobel Prize winning Professor Andre Geim “fears” for the future of R&D in the UK. They all concur that recent mergers have led to firms seeking economies of scale, simultaneously translating to laboratory closures and job losses. This makes it even more astonishing that the government would encourage this particular takeover.

Hitherto both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have maintained their faith in British business, especially in creating long-term employment opportunities. Just last month the Chancellor pledged to “fight” for full employment and of course he was referring to employment on a much larger scale. In the case of Pfizer, some 6,700 jobs could be lost. This case is more poignantly about what kind of message the public receives. Economies need something that is not tangible to fully recover and that is confidence. This contradiction does make the government look somewhat inconsistent. Had the government distanced itself or highlighted some of the features that make the UK an ideal place to conduct business, features such as the lowest corporation tax in the EU or Universities with rich heritage and so on it could at least tie in with the other messages they are sending about the recovery. Its current stance however leaves them looking somewhat flustered.

 

 

London: Gentrification Capital of the World

London is undergoing rapid transformation. It has been the case since the mid-1990s and it shows no signs of slowing down. With this upsurge of development are qualities lost in the areas that are developed? Are the newer traits and trends in developed areas better than what was there before? 

Savilles

London Mayor Boris Johnson has been a stark proponent of inviting wealthy foreign investors to London. In October he suggested that VAT and import tax should be relaxed for our foreign neighbours in order to encourage Foreign Direct Investment (FDI).

“VAT and import duty – those it seems to me are classically things that can be resolved by growing trade and co-operation between London and China, London and Beijing. We need a proper, thoroughgoing free-trade agreement. If the EU won’t do it we can do it on our own”

If this were to occur, many non-domiciles would be spending even more of their wealth in London. The idea of facilitating foreign wealth on new enterprise opportunities in London is one fully supported by the Mayor and several other politicians, including Chancellor George Osborne. The video below outlines some of Johnson’s plans for London. When you combine the Right To Buy scheme proposed by the Government it could be suggested that both the London and National government are looking to create another property boom.

The idea of new business, new stylish housing developments, newer communities and a new beginning for those who concur with the Mayor strike a positive cord. The fact that a prosperity bomb if you like, can explode and a plethora of new businesses can suddenly replaces older ones surely translate to a better, more profitable society. The fact that bigger businesses seek to expand to areas that are ripe for development ensures that plenty of jobs will be created, more of us will work and in a macro sense the economy will grow. Surely this is what we desire….

Or is it the case that newer developments and everything associated with it impose a revised culture that virtually replaces the existing one. Ensuring that this newer culture, this different way of life that imposes itself on existing residents is cohesive with the established culture is not usually a priority for developers or investors. In fact you could suggest that their priorities take precedent because their interests are deemed more important and their main priority is profit maximization. Much of the rhetoric is aimed at what is coming, what the future holds; new developments rarely acknowledge the qualities that the area had or look to uphold or maintain some of the non-monetary merits a community had. So residents that reside in areas that are listed for development are often left marginalised because the rate at which they usually have to adapt is relatively quick and it could be suggested that they no longer feel they are part of their community.

London is undergoing rapid transformation, many people welcome the new age of “prosperity” and many view it as an inevitable outcome of what our society eventually leads to. Nevertheless, there is a growing concern that the rate of change tends to strip away some of the qualities some communities once had, qualities that cannot be monetized, nor measured, nor necessarily tangible, but certainly potent and very much real.

This movement of people towards inner city London is peculiar because it tends to be to areas that were written off by several, deemed not fit for purpose by some, but home to so many who are now marginalised. What is even more striking is the fact that property prices, both rents and house prices are increasing. So demand is inelastic, in the sense that it is relatively unresponsive to a change in price. Therefore if you are a landlord or a developer the profits are virtually guaranteed due to this wave of perpetual inner city London demand.

New Dwelling house prices

New Dwelling house prices

Both graphs illustrate the rise and rise of property prices and the second graph clearly highlight the disparity between London and another large economic area: the North West.

According to the latest Census, Newham (East London) lost 38% of its white British population. This does suggest that many of its residents are opting for areas such as Essex to reside. On the contrary, between 2001 and 2011 Brixton, an area that used to be associated with a predominately Caribbean demographic has seen ten continuous years of increases. The same is noted in areas such as Hackney, Wandsworth, Camden and Islington. Moreover, Stoke Newington and Dalston have had increases from 15% in 2001 to 26% in 2011. What this highlights is that inner city areas ( mainly Zones 1 & 2 on the Tube map) have gradually become more accessible and more appealing to many.

My qualm lies with the fact that this movement of people inflates prices of rents, property, goods and services and it leaves existing people, many of whom have lived in that area for a long time financially constrained. Should more be done in order to reduce the negativity associated with prices you can no longer afford? Or does the onus lie with the individual? Clearly, this conundrum is not a priority for a government, especially this Tory led coalition that favours individualism and self-sufficiency. They have not hid the fact that they are looking more people to buy their homes. Perhaps they are merely continuing a legacy they prospered from so it is a continuation of what they believe in. It should be noted that I personally believe in helping yourself and becoming self-reliant, but helping each other is critical to upholding what is left of any community. This does seem to be eroding rapidly however. If you can unite and help one another, you are helping yourself whilst helping others and that is the current that binds a community. But this new wave of social cleansing and this message sent out by property developers and the government of profit over people gears our society for something that we are just at the beginning of. The future of London seems to be gearing towards only those that can afford it and prices do not seem to be going down. It will be a shame if the vast majority of London transforms into a city where only those with enough money can afford it. The way government policies are aimed, market power is structured and consumption trends are there only seems to be one outcome. The next twenty years will see the London demographic rapidly transform.

Economics A-Level, how would you do?

Hello World. This is a short quiz hosted by The Financial Times. It includes ten questions from last year’s Economic A-Level (AQA). Have a go and see how you do.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6a03d5e2-05b3-11e3-ad01-00144feab7de.html#axzz2l5VVJbgR

The illusion of competition

Hello world. My posts on this blog have been sporadic, I’m generally moved to write by economic activity and the global economy (Africa excluded) has been, by and large plodding along in its sluggish manner. There has been no breakthrough policy shift; no ideological shift away from the current set of policies, rather, a continuation of what we’ve seen, which is public sector cuts and the detrimental consequences of such actions.

What this prolonged period of economic activity has shown us is the fact that profits will always by certain sections of our society. Despite policies that have had a nefarious effect on large sections of our community, profits have been made and if we look at the market structure of the firms making profits then it is clear that they mainly resemble oligopolies and monopolies.

Before I explain the ramifications of this apparent anomaly, I should stress that I am not here to lambast profit making. Profits are a sign of an efficient business, whereby costs are controlled and a business can expand. Without profit business would not exist, not only would there be no incentive to innovate and take ideas to market, but a firm would have no means in which to continue producing their good or service. In an ideal world however, profits would be generated in a naturally competitive market. And a competitive market has no room for oligopolies and/or monopolies to form.

My previous pieces here and here show how oligopolies are bad for consumers because they allow firms to charge whatever prices they feel suitable, leaving consumers with no choice. What is so distasteful is the fact that goods and services that are essential to our wellbeing are the ones where competition is non-existent and legal barriers are erected in order to prevent newer entrants from challenging established firms.

It may be coincidence but as the weather gets cooler the utilities market seems to increase prices and this year is no different. If we look at British Gas, one of the largest firms in this market, they are increasing gas by 8.4% and electricity by 10.4%. Ian Peters of British Gas admits it is “unwelcome news” but in an industry where there is no effective competition comments such as his could act as a condescending reminder of the contrasting fortunes of our increasingly divided society. Whilst I do not doubt the sincerity of his comment, it comes during an extremely difficult period of stagnant economic activity, where households have been forced to cut spending therefore demanding less. Comments such as his can only add insult to injury. The Energy Secretary Ed Davy was not pleased, adding that the price increases in general were “extremely disappointing news.” He and the Prime Minister advocated that consumers “shop around” for the best deals. Therein lies the fundamental problem. Even if consumers switch from one energy company to another the market structure itself dictates similar prices, thus the savings are marginal at best. For savvy consumers looking to save every penny (and in this climate, who could blame them?) this is a restrictive option. It should be noted however that collusion in any oligopoly is either deliberate (which is illegal) or tacit. So firms will mimic their rivals.

Source: BBC

The formation of the energy cartel in the UK is an explicit example of market failure. Market failure is where the free market fails to effectively distribute resources efficiently. In order for governments to erode this failure there are a number of political and economic tools it could utilise in order to help correct this failure. Governments often spout the notion that markets are regulated. Regulation is a surrogate form of competition that probably disrupts the flow of business activity as oppose to aiding it. What governments should do and what they claimed they were doing when they privatised several important industries was ensure that market power cannot become concentrated into the hands of a few large firms. This has not happened. Rather, the inefficient government owned industries have been replaced by the inefficient privately owned firms. In fact, when government owned them they had to answer to the taxpayer, now these firms answer to shareholders, the stakeholders i.e. consumers have no say. Their acquiesce is a formality.

The same situation is prevalent in transport where prices will rise again in January by 4.1%. Again the traits are synonymous with other oligopolies, consumers have no choice.

Powerful firms often use branding as a way to create the illusion of competition. Branding allows consumers to associate that good or service on its own merits, but as the diagram below highlights, rather poignantly, so few firms actually have substantial control over goods and services we have to demand.

The 10 major food companies

I began this piece by stating that profits are still being made by sections of our society. I am not advocating for some quasi profit distribution to the lower echelons of society. I am however suggesting that the public demand much more from national government. Where oligopolies are formed, governments should be pressured by the public to erode the legal barriers preventing a number of newer entrants challenging the dominant firms. Until actual competition is established and markets resemble a monopolist market structure, where there a lot of firms and new entrants can enter the market easily, prices in essential industries are only going to go in one direction.

5 ways to make yourself recession proof

Don’t let a recession do this to you.

Technically we are no longer in a recession, but the slow economy, the stagnate demand and the prolonged miserable feeling in society does make it feel as if we are in one.  In the likely event that there will be recessions in the future, follow these steps and you’ll have more than enough tools to make the most of what are difficult times.

1)   Stay positive.  Maintaining a positive mindset is critical to ensuring the negative economic activity does not have the desired impact. Yes one must be realistic and admit things like credit will be harder to obtain and jobs are more difficult to get. But staying positive about what you do already have, i.e. a good education and ambition should provide a solid foundation on which you could make yourself exempt from the negativity associated with a recession.

2)   Work hard. Nothing can beat putting in a solid shift and few things are as rewarding as when you focus on a goal and achieved it through sheer hard work. Moreover, the difficulties of the current situation ensure that there has never been a more important time to work hard. It sounds a little condescending, but rest assured, it is a quiet and effective remedy that could set you apart from others. It applies to any field, any occupation and it has proven results. Working hard is even more important during a recession. Hard work always pays off.

3)   Try to save for long-term gain.  As there is less economic activity going on, the majority of society is simultaneously feeling the effects of less demand; therefore people’s consumption patterns tend to be the same. Therefore, now is a better time than any to put some money away. This idea may seem paradoxical in nature, the fact is when an economy has weak demand you want people spending, not saving. However, on a personal level, those that have utilised savings in the past often enjoy consumption more, mainly because they can afford more, because they have saved. This step does involve sacrificing certain goods or activities but if you think long-term, then it will prove to be an essential method of making yourself recession proof.

4)   Invest in yourself.  This is open to interpretation, but investing in yourself, i.e. increasing your skill set is a valuable way to make yourself more employable, make you feel better about being you and you’ll have a new skill/skills for life. People should always look at ways they can improve. There are thousands of free online courses, podcasts, ebooks and so on out there for people to utilise. Gone are the days where education was exclusive to classrooms. Make the most of it.

5)   Pay attention to the media, but put issues in a personal perspective. Ensuring that you are well-read, clued up and know various facts about an issue will help you deal with it a lot better. However, there is a real danger that the media goes from informing to dictating certain views and on economic issues, this can be detrimental. So always remember to take issues on the economy with a pinch of salt as the news deals in aggregates and cannot accurately factor in individual households. You can however, so ensure to use the media to your advantage.

What actually happened? A brief look at the Global Financial Crisis.

How did the global financial crisis result in large government sector cuts?

The events of 2007 are very well documented. There has been a plethora of texts published, journal articles, books, magazine articles etc. dedicated to covering the horrific downturn of several leading financial markets in 2007. The crash ensured that several billions worth of Sterling, Dollars, Yen and so on were given to numerous financial institutions that were deemed “too big to fail.” The term “too big to fail” is theoretically questionable to say the least, a point I shall discuss further as this piece develops. The significance of the bailout funds were the fact that they were generated from taxes. What was clear however about the government bailouts, particularly in the UK, was the fact that institutions such as Northern Rock (now Virgin Money) and RBS would have collapsed had the government chosen to ignore their pleas and let them fail. It is worth remembering that between 1995-2006 a period of unfettered market capitalism allowed substantial financial products to penetrate several economies. A brand new phenomenon that several households had very little exposure nor knowledge too. It would become clear in the years to follow that this imperfect information would have devastating effects on the entire global economy. This period where credit was “pumped” into the economy was truly unique.

Stock crash

Austerity policies have been discussed in some depth on this blog, my pieces here and here are pieces I wrote, I attempt to ask certain questions about government policy and question the notion that government policy could actually be having an adverse effect on the UK economy. The UK (much like the rest of the areas affected heavily by the global banking crash) have adopted a set of rigid public sector cuts, designed to reduce the large dependency on government for goods and services and also because the current government deem the current debt-to-GDP too high. (86%)

If one were to assess austerity in the UK so far could anyone deem the set of policies a success? Of course, the government intends for their policies to have much longer effects, a legacy effect if you will, but that should not come at the peril of current generations, for governments should dictate policy for both now and the future. Moreover, economists such as Stiglitz, Krugman, Solow, Diamond, Sharpe, Skidelsky and several others all warned against excessive fiscal cuts. There is no empirical evidence of any large economy cutting its way to prosperity. Yet what could easily be described as a gamble or the set of ideologically driven policies have ensured that in the UK and much of the developed world have had their economies remain flat since 2011, having slumped from 2009-2011.

In 2009 the rhetoric around fiscal policy changed. If you go back to Tony Blair’s premiership I do not remember anybody on either side of the House quibbling about government spending, in fact the opposite. The then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne stated that he would match Labour’s spending. Spending he would later tirade about once he became Chancellor. Moreover, Labour made several economic mistakes one of them was the heavy deregulation of the financial markets that actually allowed a steady and then volatile flow of cheap and available credit to flood the economy. Too many people binged on cheap and available credit and several institutions capitalised on this and were making substantial profits as a result. Making profits is part of our societal fabric and that is not my issue, but in the business world, if a firm does not make profit, eventually that business is driven out and replaced by one that will. This to me that is the essence of capitalism. Why then was RBS, Northern Rock or Lloyds bailed out? Okay, anybody with an account with those firms would have lost their money, which is very unfortunate, but in a market economy, an economy In which proponents of free-market capitalism constantly bombard against government interference, where more than happy to accept taxpayers money. Some clarity would be great because these are the same institutions that support, lobby and advocate for laissez faire policies yet accept the ultimate form of government intervention. This anomaly still baffles me and it is unfortunate that we are still paying the heavy price for the actions of a few financial institutions. Moreover it was the substantial bank bailouts, not excessive government expenditure that caused such a sharp rise in the high levels of public sector debt. Debt that is being tackled with austerity policies. Nothing should ever be “too big to fail” because that is the antithesis of a competitive free market, the kind of market that is encouraged in the UK. The government should have let the failing banks fail so other banks could learn that reckless and irrational behaviour should not be tolerated. It would have been a message of biblical proportions. Without bailing the banks out we would not need austerity and six years and more of lost or flat output. It appears that policy has not favoured the majority of the population who are still readjusting to the large structural changes that have taken place since 2009. The graph below is an economic outlook for the UK and makes for miserable reading.

My main qualm lies with blaming government spending. I have maintained from the outset that some government cuts are good, just like in a household or with your personal consumption; you assess what you are spending and cut what is not required. Fair enough. The extent at which the government in the UK and in several nations in the Euro Zone has undertaken huge public sector cuts and perhaps more importantly, the rate at which they have penetrated society is likely to have long lasting negative effects. So far they have proved highly ineffective in producing genuine economic growth as the graph above displays. It should be noted that anything above zero is “growth,” however, in reality people need what I call tangible growth. If more buildings go up, more roads are finished, more bridges and so on are completed then people up and down the nation will actually see growth for themselves. Obviously all those examples require large labour input. We have not had enough of that in the UK. Those examples also highlight investment and investment has what we call in economics a multiplier effect. Simply put, the government spends £1, that £1 generates more that the initial £1 invested say another £1, then the additional £1 can be reinvested on top of the original £1, so the good or service can generate a much higher multiplier, say £3 in the future. What is important is that it comes from the initial £1 investment. This period (2007-period day) of flat economic activity has needed and needs fiscal investment.

Even with an extremely accommodative monetary policy in the sense that the interest rate has been 0.5% since March 2009 the government’s reluctance to deviate away from an ineffective set of policies is detrimental to the economy. Now is as good a time than ever to undergo strategic and logical investment programmes. Instead, the large public sector cuts have actually been damaging to the government’s deficit reduction plan because unemployment is rising, therefore, transfer payments in the form of Job Seekers Allowances and Unemployment benefits have increased. If the government were to run public sector cuts with substantial investment programmes and run them simultaneously, shifting resources away from areas deemed to be wasting government funds and invest in areas with high returns this would be a better set of policies. Instead, we just have the negativity associated with public sector cuts, which has made the private sector less responsive as a result of the lack of economic activity and weak demand from majority of the public.

It is impossible to cut your way out of a recession; nations need to invest wisely in order to grow. America pulled itself out of recession because their production levels in the late 1930s and early 1940s substantially boosted their economy. The point is, they invested. There was an economic crash and the government invested. The New Deal (America’s recovery plan) took several years to have a noticeable effect on the economy, but it was investment that helped aid their recovery.

The government’s gamble still has not paid off and the UK does not appear to be changing any time soon. Governments need to spend in order to get a return. Without it, our economy shall remain sluggish for some time and this is a direct result of the aftermath of the global banking crisis, not excessive government expenditure.

Understanding cultural differences is critical to global business.

Globalization has ensured that international borders are heavily relaxed so large and profitable domestic firms from one nation can pursue business interests in other nations without compromising domestic business interests. Several large multinational firms conduct business in several nations and this has become normality in today’s world. It should be noted that large market share of the respective market and large profits are usually strong motives for large firms to pursue business in other nations.

Culture is a complex, multidimensional concept that is crucial to conducting global business. It is a learned, shared, interrelated set of principals that bind members of a certain society. These principals, beliefs, symbols and so on are often embedded into the fibre of that area and amongst certain people, so you could suggest that business must be pragmatic and adopt a polycentric approach in order to fit in as opposed to trying to dictate or impose itself on that culture, especially during the preliminaries of entering a new market. Regardless of firm size, experience, or product or service, cultural implications have a huge impact on longevity and reception to a new brand and failure to understand will almost certainly lead to an exit.

TESCO is the largest supermarket in the UK and they had to pull out of the US market due to “disappointing” performance levels. From 2007 to 2013 TESCO had operated under the brand name of Fresh & Easy. They decided to close some 199 stores across the US. This was also the case for Wal Mart, whose attempts to penetrate the German market ended woefully back in 2006. No matter the size of the firm, or profit levels, a concise and accurate understanding of the cultural differences of the market one wishes to enter is fundamental when conducting global business. TESCO and Wal Mart’s failure to recognise this has led to their respective exits.

McDonalds understand the importance of serving your hosts.

Wal Mart is the largest supermarket in the US, when they wanted to expand into the UK they acquired the well-established firm ASDA. ASDA is still one of the largest supermarkets in the UK and business has been a moderate success. However, Wal Mart’s attempts to enter the German market proved that their myopic and frankly arrogant approach demonstrates that large profits in one market do not always translate to another market. Despite huge levels of revenue and profit, global business cannot function if one domestic firm tries to impose its values onto another culture. It is simply not compatible. Even though Wal Mart has stores in Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, China, Japan, Canada and Puerto Rico, their failure to break into the Europe’s largest economy will have damaged morale amongst senior members of their board.

Acquisitions provide several benefits and the ASDA case proves this, but When Wal Mart tried the same approach in Germany it impeded rather than aided their business. They purchased two second-tier stores, Interspar and Wertkauf. Both of these stores were mainly located in poorer areas and were geographically dispersed, it made business far from easy.

They arrived in Germany in 1997 and established firms such as Lidl, Metro and Aldi already posed a threat, but their board members assumed that their high profits would be sufficient and they could simply expand and take their competitors market share, consumers were loyal to their competitors however. They also tried to import many American traits into the German market and it was not understood. An example of this was 24/7 and Sunday shopping, although ASDA was the first to adopt the 24/7 model, culturally, the UK and the US are extremely similar, so the UK’s acceptance of this came as no surprise, in Germany however it was not the case. It was tremendously unpopular and highlighted a waste in resources.

Culturally German consumers prefer to bag their own goods, a simple study of behavioural traits prior to entering the market would have identified this, but their insistence on bagging their customer’s goods had an adverse effect, often putting people off their stores. Also, when Wal Mart managers insisted that their staff should smile at the customer again this put off many customers. And again, simple preliminary market research would have alerted them to this. According to Peng (2009) they left the German market with just 2% of the overall market share.

Wal Mart also hired an American to head their operations in Germany. Speaking English was a requirement and it damaged morale amongst senior members of the workforce. Productivity suffered as a direct result of the low morale.

Blockbuster Videos also ventured to foreign markets, they entered the Japanese market in the early 1990s and hired several Japanese senior managers to oversee the transition of the new venture. This enabled business to be cohesive and allowed their American counterparts to learn about the new market, Wal Mart’s approach was clearly wrong, one of several mistakes they made and highlights the need for a true understanding of cultural differences.

The TESCO led venture ended in failure for the UK giant

Despite having monopoly power in the UK TESCO could not gain any significant market share in the largest single market in the world.

According to BBC, Ajay Bhalla, professor of global innovation management at Cass Business School, said that at the root of Tesco’s US problems was a failure to understand that the US retail landscape is different from the UK’s.

“The falling star of Tesco in the US is a harsh reminder that scale [economies of scale] is not the recipe for sustainable value creation. For years, Tesco managers paid attention to perfecting the mix of supplier driven cost efficiencies with low prices.

Tesco’s exit from the US is a reminder for managers of the dangers of going blindly for scale and cost leaders, the wheels of which are difficult to reverse if you need to change course to becoming a retailer known for first-class customer experience.”

Understanding and appreciating cultural differences is critical to conducting global business. Without a sound understanding of the new market any firm, regardless of size, product or experience will find it almost impossible to conduct business in that market, hence knowing how deal with potential cultural barriers will alleviate several problems and ensure business can go on.