Are Humans Rational?

Economics is a fascinating subject to learn from; it deals with an endless range of topics, from the markets and businesses of the world we live in to poverty and social welfare, from how best Nike could produce shoes to how you are affected by your government's policy. This is really just the tip of the iceberg, but for everything that happens in the world it could be argued that there is an economic explanation behind it. No, really- economics can explain things ranging from health phenomenons like obesity (largely due to the flooding of cheap fast food onto the streets), to why BMWs are often so good (apologies for the shameless self promotion). Just read the brilliantly accessible Freakonomics books and you'll get the idea- economics is everywhere.

However it's important to remember that many of the conclusions economics produces is reliant on us, as humans acting rationally- that is, simply put, in a way where we evaluate the pros and cons of a decision we are faced with, and take the decision should we see the pros outweigh the cons. 

Economics relies often on this notion of rationality with its modelling- a basic example is how economics predicts we as consumers may react to a sale. Take a very basic economic model, one that concludes that consumers are more likely to buy a box of Quality Street chocolates from Tesco, if the same box in every other supermarket is more expensive. This is a perfectly rational decision to make- why would you pay more for the chocolate and buy it from Sainsbury's when you can get the same one from Tesco? This economic model relies upon the axiom that all human actors in an economy are rational- they will always choose the option that benefits them most. 

But questions recently have been raised over this reliance on belief in rationality in economic modelling; the major argument against this is simply that not all humans act rationally. This argument may seem a bit strange in essence but there are two levels to this that we must consider first:

1) We may not act rationally with regards to the economic modelling we are subject to 

Taking the example of the Quality Streets in the supermarkets, the rational choice according to the economic modellers will be that people will take the cheapest option (Tesco); but almost certainly people will fall outside of this category. People almost definitely will buy Quality Streets from Asda even if they have knowledge that the chocolates are cheaper in Tesco, and this is likely to be not due to their lack of judgement but a whole host of potential factors- convenience, for example. 

Even if Quality Streets in Tesco are cheaper than Asda, if I live next door to an Asda and the Tesco is a 10 minute drive away, the overall rational decision would be to walk to Asda (and save fuel money), yet people who behave rationally and take such actions, in the economic model will not be considered so, giving potentially inaccurate impressions of factors such as price that are being tested.

Or, I may have a lack of information- buying the chocolates from Morrison's, ignorant of the cheaper prices in Tesco is still a rational decision as I am still taking the best decision as far as I know.

So factors other than price play important roles in our decision making- the use of rationality as a leveller does little to emphasise a certain factor in economic modelling.

2) What is rational? 

There's arguably no single measure of rationality- what I mean in saying this is that there is a concept of individual rationality but there can be further complications to this- such as being part of a larger group. Let's look at an example: say you need to buy your Quality Streets but this time it's on behalf of your boss, who will use company finances to pay you back for your purchase. The money-saving side of you tells you to go to Tesco, but your laziness tells you to go to the Waitrose nearby, where the Quality Streets are more expensive. Some people would go to Waitrose, (it's not their money after all), acting for their own rationale of convenience, whereas others would find it rational to go to Tesco and save money. In both cases, the person will be acting rationally- but both of them will have separate reasons and thus their rationales are different!

3) Humans are often irrational.

A failure of the claim to total human rationality is that, simply put, humans are often irrational. Our judgements are often clouded by emotion- to our benefit and detriment. A real life example of this could be behind one of the main causes of the recent economic crisis- as the bubble of borrowing grew larger and thrived, bankers got caught in the wave of optimism, willingly giving loans to people who in reality had a low chance of being able to return the money (though there is a conflicting reasoning for their actions). Emotion inevitably plays a large role in a lot of our decisions; think of every time you hear someone 'going with their gut', or 'taking a punt'-  these are examples of relatively irrational decision-making.

IBM's Watson supercomputer: an example of the pure, cold
rationality that no human can possess? 

Interestingly, this is often seen as an advantage that computers and technology as a whole has over humans; for example, this rationality and lack of emotion in judgement has been highlighted as a positive of IBM's Watson supercomputer, especially regarding its ability to perform medical diagnosis.

Of course there is another side to the argument- a common economist's response to these claims of human irrationality is that, when we observe a large group or population as a whole, these individual irrationalities are likely to balance each other out, as people may take different decisions irrationally. Perhaps a better way to put the assumption would be to phrase it as assuming humans are rational actors as a population, as a whole, rather than as individuals.

This is certainly a fair point, however doubt remains over smaller groups of people, where an individual's irrationality will hold more weight.

So, can economics afford to rely on this assumption that humans are rational? And in any case, is there anything that can replace it as a leveller of the population in economic modelling?

What makes Apple so special?

This is an adaptation of a previous article on the iPhone 6 and Apple Watch.

So, just a few days ago the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus went on sale worldwide, to much fanfare, and, as with many Apple products, the traditional queuing outside Apple Stores in anticipation.

The traditional iPhone queue outside Covent Garden Apple
Store, London [Luke Westaway, CNET]

No other technology product (or any product in fact) receives this much attention. Why is it that Apple have become so desirable a brand?

Their products alone can be argued to be not that revolutionary.
The iPhone's larger displays? The Samsung Galaxy S5 currently on sale worldwide already has a 5.1 inch display, bigger than the expected 4.7 inch iPhone. The HTC One Max has a whopping 5.9 inch display, larger than the 5.5 iPhone.

NFC on the iPhone? Not a big deal. The Google Nexus 7 had that two years ago, and via Google Wallet you can already perform touch and pay payments.

Heard of this before? Don't blame you...

The Apple Watch- the first digital watch companion? Wrong again Bob- the past year has been chock full of watch announcements, from Samsung, from Motorola, and various other tech companies. They can relay notifications, they can monitor your heart rate, and they've been out for ages- heck, Samsung has already released two iterations of its Samsung Galaxy Gear.

A few weeks ago, if you didn't follow tech closely, you may not have heard of Samsung's Gear (which was first announced a year ago), or Motorola's 360 smartwatch, yet you probably would have heard of Apple's mystical 'iWatch', whose existence we were not even certain of.
Isn't this weird? Why is this?

There are numerous reasons. Many indeed. A key reason is of course the quality and consistency of Apple's product environment, and the products themselves- but Apple's business strategy also has been hugely successful.

Apple has built for itself a truly iconic brand. An Apple logo, be it on an iPod nano, an iPhone or a 27-inch iMac, carries with it connotations of high quality materials (note how commonly that silver aluminium material is used in Apple products), luxury (take a look at some of Apple's prices) and reliability (most Apple product owners would agree on this one).

A large part of this has been thanks to consistency- a key factor in a business' success, but only if it is done right- of course no company should be creating consistently poor products (*cough*Blackberry*cough*).

Apple has created consistency at every corner of its business. Take a look at the two screenshots from Apple's webpage below, and the event invite at the top of the article. The same font (Helvetica Light I am led to believe) is used consistently, the same white-grey colours, the same minimalist design in general is consistent throughout most of Apple's site.
Of course certain products are given their own display style reflective of the product's character, but in general Apple's design (be it the design of the site, the design of the advertisements or the design of the products themselves) are all cohesive. They are certainly decisively minimalist- Apple doesn't make use of any cheesy patterns or frilly designs, it just selects one or two colours and sticks with it throughout the product. And this is throughout Apple's whole product line.
The Mac line is a particularly good example of such consistency- the distinctive aluminium material used as the outer shell for the devices act as a cohesive for all Macs- it links them all together, it lets you know that an iMac is from the same family as a Mac Mini. Not only is this beneficial from a design standpoint, but it creates a subtle familiarity in product users, one that makes people more comfortable in purchasing a second or third or fourth Mac computer.

Consistency spreads further than just the design of Apple products- Apple's retail stores are among the most valuable in the world, thanks largely to their design. Apple makes use of the same materials for all the tables, the walls to give customers familiarity and comfort in their environment- while still allowing for stores to have their own individual appeal (such as the Regent Street store in London).

Consistency goes into the use of the products, too- Apple is well known for its lack of device software fragmentation (basically most Apple users are always running the same latest software on their devices, as opposed to say Android where people are spread across numerous iterations of the software, or Windows where many people are still running XP), its iCloud service allows people to access photos and videos across all of their devices without having to transfer anything manually, and features of the upcoming Mac OSX computer operating system will allow Mac users to send and receive phone calls and text messages on their computers- provided there is an iPhone connected to the same wifi network.
This feature, named Continuity, is another genius move from Apple. Creating this greater connection between the Mac and iPhone is a very effective way of attracting customers to purchase both- as items that complement each other rather than separate items completely. This could easily sway an iPhone user to purchase a Mac, and vice versa.

Through design, brand and functioning consistency Apple is successfully crafting not just a line of products but more an environment of products, all related and cooperative with one another.

We know this, perhaps unawarely, but this expectation of consistency that many people have come to associate with Apple is perhaps the greatest reason why we are so interested in the Apple Watch and the iPhone 6s, despite the competence of these products' already existent competitors.

Consistency is key in a business- and clearly for Apple, when combined with quality products, it has paid dividends, big time.

SOURCES (and recommended reads):
apple.com/iphone
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s5-1226990/review 
http://www.htc.com/uk/smartphones/htc-one-max/
http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/06/apple-iphone-6-event-predictions/
http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/05/what-to-expect-when-youre-expecting-an-iphone-6-or-iwatch/
http://www.cnet.com/how-to/how-nfc-works-and-mobile-payments/
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/apple-iphone-6-goes-on-sale-around-the-world/

Scottish Independence: INFLATION INCOMING?

So today's the day- the final installation of our short series on Scottish Independence is here.
Oh, and it's the Scottish referendum today.

If Scotland are to become independent a great argument of the 'No' campaign is that Scottish consumers would be hit by increased prices, for everyday goods and luxury items alike.

This could have pretty bad consequences, and it is certainly possible that these increases will come in the event of independence. Recently the Chairman of the John Lewis Partnership (John Lewis and Waitrose) Charlie Mayfield claimed a Yes vote would have consequences because of the apparently higher cost of trading in some parts of Scotland, causing prices to rise in their stores.

Supermarkets Sainsbury's and Asda have also claimed they would raise their prices, citing potential increase in costs that would occur, as technically they would have to adjust to trading in a foreign country, without being at the cost of the rest of the UK. Morrisons have also stated similar claims; though apparently they have kept open the possibility of even lowering prices if possible.
Many supermarkets claim to already have lower profit margins in Scotland due to its more spread out, rural nature- transport costs are presumably higher due to how far Scottish cities such as Aberdeen are from distribution centres.

Tesco have remained impartial on any potential consequences of the referendum on prices; though perhaps this is partly due to their unwillingness to risk backlash after their recent profit troubles rather than a commitment to not increase prices.

This seems to be a clear warning from some major businesses to the Scottish 'Yes' party, but will they really follow through?

It is certainly a possibility that this is part of the large scare policy being used by the 'Better Together' campaign- rumours are abound that these statements have been made upon special request by PM David Cameron, whose job would be in huge jeopardy in the event of a Scottish Independence.

Nevertheless, could the aforementioned businesses really raise their prices after Independence?

Inflation from the major supermarkets could serve to the benefit
of the likes of Aldi and Lidl.

Take the supermarkets- already we have seen in recent years the rise of the value-driven Aldi and Lidl , and supermarket price inflation could really make a field day for the bosses of these countries.
Aldi has steadfastly refuted any claims that they would raise prices after Independence: they cited their existence in 18 markets and how they are already adaptive enough to adjust to an Independent Scotland with no price increases.
So what will happen if Sainsburys and Co. increase their prices? Well it seems natural that even better value would drive customers to the budget supermarkets Aldi and Lidl, certainly bad news for the big supermarkets.

So what we are hearing from the supermarkets could certainly be simple another scare tactic from the 'No' campaign. If they are to follow through on their claim to inflate prices, it could really cost them even more customers to the already threatening value-driven competitors such as Aldi and Lidl.

Sources for this article can be found linked within.

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE: Oil's Well That Ends Well? (VIDEO)

Scottish Independence: THE CURRENCY QUESTION

VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CZjyXH3FTc&feature=youtu.be
Thursday has the potential to be the most significant day in 2014 for Britain, or even perhaps Europe- it is the day of the Scottish Referendum. It's been talked about for months, with various 'Yes' and 'No' campaigners working tirelessly to attack the other side whenever possible, notably in the form of numerous intense televised debates between Scottish firebrand Alex Salmond and curiously black-eyebrowed pro-unionist Alistair Darling.

The world has never been quite certain over what the result of the referendum is to be- while an ICM poll for the BBC on the 11th of September claimed 42% to vote No, and 40% to vote Yes, a poll from the same agency for the Daily Telegraph on the 13th of September found 54% of Scots to be in favour of a 'Yes' vote. It really is shaping up to be an incredibly close call.

But what are some of the economic arguments for and against separation?
This is the first part of a series looking at some of these arguments.

It's been one of the biggest conflict points in the independence debate- in the event of a Scottish Independence, which currency would it use? Well there are three main possibilities, and they all don't seem too welcoming:

Currency Union- the most likely possibility in the event of independence, this would mean Scotland would continue using the pound and relying on the Bank of England. 
A Currency Union would in the main be in the interests of both an independent Scotland and the UK- Scotland is the UK's second largest trading partner, and the UK is Scotland's principal trading partner. 
A Currency Union would allow for trade between these two partners to continue relatively smoothly- there would not be the currency exchange fiasco that would be inevitable should Scotland create its own currency. It would allow the flow of money and labour to continue more smoothly.

'Sterlingisation'- this would be similar to a currency union, in that Scotland would continue to use the pound- but the similarities would pretty much stop there. The Scottish would have even less power than currently over the currency, and the UK would be less careful of Scotland when designing monetary policy- meaning certain policies that affect the pound could have negative effects on Scotland. 
Sterlingisation is kind of like desperate hitchhiking- you can't really control the car, or the route to a certain extent, but at least you can get a lift.

Creation of a new currency- This would certainly have the most interesting outcome of the three mentioned options. A new currency would indeed extend Scotland's powers of autonomy- a 'Bank of Scotland' would be able to control money supply and programmes such as Quantitative Easing, though it could have serious ramifications with regards to Scotland's international trade.
A new currency, especially one created by an independent Scotland whose international political power would not be as solid as it is currently, would create uncertainty in its initial years. Businesses may hesitate to trade in whatever currency Scotland create, unsure about its long-term stability, and as a result transaction fees (costs for making sales in ones own currency) would increase for Scottish businesses trading abroad. 
This would make it more difficult for the new Scottish currency to achieve that initial boost that it would need to announce itself on the worldwide stage.

So Independence would indeed have a profound effect on Scottish currency.
Despite the numerous warnings from the pro-unionists, it seems as though an Independent Scotland would go on to form a currency union with the UK- while it's not the ideal result for Westminster, perhaps the alternatives present complex and fiddly issues both the UK and Scotland would prefer to avoid.