The benefits of privatisation.

In the previous article we went through a brief introduction of privatisation; now let's go onto the benefits of it.

The benefits come under various categories, however a theme runs throughout- that is of efficiency, a key component of business management.

A prominent difference between private and state companies is the (usual) difference in motive. Whereas state companies can have an unclear, difficult-to-measure motivation (usually to 'serve the public'), private companies are generally far more strictly profit-driven; they seek to serve shareholders primarily (who want their pockets to be lined handsomely).
Now there is debate over whether profit is such a good motive for companies (that we'll discuss in the next article), but profit motivation usually drives companies to increase their efficiency.

A common criticism of state-owned enterprise is its tendency to over-employ, often in order to score the ruling political power popularity points when it came to annual employment figures. Another crucial factor in this overemployment was the power of unions- public-owned enterprises were often under strong pressure from labour unions to avoid firing staff, which in many cases was not so helpful in terms of keeping staff in line and also efficiency.

Overemployment is crucial as it leads to increased losses in the form of wages, for employees who the company could, essentially, perform healthily without. Private companies tend to avoid inefficient practices such as overemployment- in fact they look at doing the contrary, to shed costs: and cutting down on staff is often the easiest way to do this.

British Airways, under Lord King's leadership developed from
an oversized, outstretched struggler to a world-class airline.

The privatisation of British Airways was notable for its crackdown on 'unnecessary' employees. Before privatisation, BA were employing almost 60,000 staff; a huge number, especially when compared to close competitor Qantas' 15,000.
However, following privatisation and under the rugged leadership of Lord King, the workforce was reduced to 38,000 in a period of just three years- among these over 50 senior executives, the company was rebranded entirely to a more 'American' style- enlisting help of a San Francisco-based design firm to lead rebadging, and cutting costs wherever possible- in inefficient flight routes, in excess staff members and so on.
These almost ruthless cutdowns paid dividends indeed- in 1987 BA posted after-tax profits of around £166 million, among the highest airline profits globally and certainly one of the highest BA had ever experienced.

Introduction of competition is often heralded as a crucial feature of privatisation. Privatisation often comes with an opening of the market to other private companies as well, a good example being the gas market following the privatisation of British Gas. Competition is often a great thing to have in a market, as it forces companies to innovate and provide what consumers want, in order to maintain and expand their market share (and receive more profits, of course). Competition introduces pressure on businesses; often a good influence from a customer's perspective.
This argument has its pitfalls- but in general competition in a market is necessary for development (think how competition between Apple and Samsung has boosted the rate of development in the technology market, or BMW and Mercedes the car market).


Another feature of privatisation is that it is a a way for a government to quickly raise some cash, to reduce deficits in particular. Between 1979 and 1999, the Treasury raised over £70 billion from asset sales such as that of British Airways, British Gas and other companies that were privatised.
However, this is not such a strong proponent of the pro-privatisation argument as we'll explore in the next article (but I'll give you a hint: *cough* Royal Mail *cough*)

So efficiency is the general theme of the pro-privatisation argument. Privatisation can cut down on the poor decisions driven by political motives rather than efficiency, it can introduce competition into a market by smashing state monopolies and it can be a quick boost to a nation's coffers.

Stick around: next time we'll explore the other side of this argument, and have a look at why privatisation may be in fact quite a bad idea.

SOURCES:
http://www.baserler.com/onur/isletme/Privatization%20of%20British%20Airways-Before%20and%20After.htm

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=R1YVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=a-QDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4326,3087813&dq=staff+british+airways

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/British_Airways.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/shares-and-stock-tips/9989430/Thatchers-legacy-how-has-privatisation-fared.html

Poponomics trailer (short)

The first poponomics trailer- giving you a reminder of what's happened and a taste of what's to come! 

Privatisation: what is it?

Royal Mail- the latest major privatisation. 

Privatisation: it's been a contentious issue in the UK, especially since the Thatcher era. It's salvation to some, a criminal act to others.

Thatcher, guided by the principles of free-market, non-interventionist saint Friedrich Hayek, led the privatisation of over 50 British public sector companies- notably British Gas, British Telecom (BT) and British Leyland (see, the names all make sense now). It's interesting how privatisation has integrated into our society over the last 30 years or so- while there was outroar from many when Thatcher privatised utility, automotive, financial industries and so on, nowadays it's difficult for much of the youth to believe that companies like BT, Jaguar and British Airways could be owned by their government.

So what is privatisation? It's a relatively simple concept to explain- there are various particular types of it, but privatisation is essentially the transfer of public, nationally owned assets (companies in this case) into private hands, which can be via sale, like we saw recently with Royal Mail.
Royal Mail was until recently a public sector company, essentially run by the government- but in October 2013 the company was broken up into shares and sold on the stock exchange (it was later
discovered to have been shockingly undervalued). It was open to investment from anyone.
A portion of the Royal Mail is still owned by the government via an intermediary, 10% by its 150,000 staff, and significant amounts are owned by foreign state-backed organisations from countries such as Kuwait and Singapore.

So, that's a basic introduction to privatisation- but stick around for a more detailed evaluation of the benefits and negatives of this controversial transformation. It'll certainly be an interesting ride.

SOURCES (and recommended reads): 

Margaret Thatcher: one policy that led to more than 50 companies being sold or privatised http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/9980292/Margaret-Thatcher-one-policy-that-led-to-more-than-50-companies-being-sold-or-privatised.html

Royal Mail: Government of SINGAPORE is the second biggest private owner of our postal service

http://www.mirror.co.uk/money/city-news/singapore-governments-sovereign-wealth-fund-2558278#ixzz3BaHXfUtW 

Royal Mail: Sovereign Funds To Get Shares
http://news.sky.com/story/1152622/royal-mail-sovereign-funds-to-get-shares

The Uber Issue

Uber, a relatively new business seeking to revolutionise the taxi services of cities around the world, has been one of Silicon Valley's hottest new startups. Valued in June 2014 at $18.2 billion, the company has taken the world by storm, with its simple model: you can, via your smartphone, hail a taxi to your GPS destination, and get it to take you to any destination you choose on your device. You don't need cash- money is transferred via online payment, with a credit
card or PayPal, just with a press of a button.

Uber's driver hiring process is relatively simple- you need a car, a driving licence, insurance and need to pass various background checks. Uber takes commission from every ride and pays drivers the rest of their fees weekly.
What's more, passengers can rate and review drivers (and drivers can rate passengers), giving all parties involved the incentive to give good service.
It's a simple, efficient system.

However, Uber has come under increasing attack in recent times- not so much from its customers, or the public in general, but from its competitors (unsurprisingly) but most importantly the governments of various local and national authorities.

Cabbies took to the streets of London to protest against Uber

The main issue seems to be that Uber is undercutting local taxi fares- at most times offering fares lower than their standard counterparts. Also, Uber drivers are not forced to pass the same background checks and inspections as their counterparts- a separate background check is needed. Local cab services claim this is too dangerous and should be outlawed.
London has seen protest from taxi drivers against Uber in the form of 4000 cabbies causing a huge traffic jam in the centre of the city, claiming that Uber illegal due to its lack of a meter on every cab.

There has been anger across the world from drivers part of the same cause- to remove Uber from their streets.
Is this a fair point from the taxi drivers or are they simply trying to eradicate what they may see as a growing threat to their comparatively dated services?

Firstly, it's important to consider that Uber is usually cheaper than the regular taxi services. I took an Uber once from Paddington to a friend's house; normally it cost £24 by cab, but by Uber the same route at roughly the same time was £15.
The cheap fares, quick payment, the lack of a need for cash, these are all advantages that have made Uber so popular- and undoubtedly their nearing obsoletion is frustrating many traditional taxi drivers (though they may not admit it).
As for the question of Uber background checks, perhaps more needs to be done- Uber drivers have received their fair share of bad press, but so have taxi drivers. However, perhaps a unified background check system would ensure all transporters are relatively reliable (background checks don't ensure total safety).

As for meters, it's fair to say that they can prevent exorbitant fares- though perhaps regulation should allow for different systems of fare calculation and regulate those, rather than give them all a blanket ban.

My personal opinion is that the taxi drivers must accommodate innovation in their industry, and, even better, take it up themselves. As a customer of taxi services I want a low fare, I want to be free from the worry of 'do I have cash?', and I want to be able to pay quick and easily. I want a service like Uber, that is innovative and not caught up in 'tradition'- and obviously I am not alone, considering the company's popularity.

So perhaps taxi drivers should embrace change, and innovation. Uber has shown that in this case (though refinement is needed), it will be for the best of the average consumer.

SOURCES (and recommended reads)
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/breaking-news/uber-drivers-will-be-fined-sa-govt/story-fnn9c0hb-1227036403657?nk=c226658d765e4f3742a7ba82aefc4ed4

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f07810f6-293f-11e4-8b81-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3BPEs4lxZ

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-27799938

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/11/why-london-taxi-drivers-protesting-uber-tfl

What Happened To Freddos Being 10p? Deflation; Part Two

So, in the previous article we looked through the negative effects of inflation- how it can spiral, leave people impoverished, and so on- and we also looked at a positive if you like borrowing.
However, let's talk deflation- the reduction of general prices in the economy.

What causes deflation? It's exactly the opposite of inflation. Inflation is caused by an oversupply of money in the economy- deflation is caused by an undersupply of money. Whereas inflation decreases the value of money, deflation increases it, causing things to become cheaper. Sounds good, right?

There are many consequences of deflation however that can be damaging- profit loss for businesses being the root of the major ones. Dropping prices to an extent are beneficial- it can grant more people access to essentials such as heating, which, as discussed in the previous article, can save lives.

However if deflation gets out of control, falling prices will mean profits of businesses will fall- and thus most businesses will cut down on costs, leading to people being made redundant, factories and offices shutting down, work being outsourced, and so on.
Unemployment would increase, and even those fortunate enough to keep their jobs would see their pay decrease.
Unemployment can be devastating- it would lead many to default on any loans or mortgages taken out, it can cause people to lose their homes (though this is more likely in the USA than the UK).

You may be thinking, why have we heard so much more about inflation in the news than deflation? Well deflation can often be more easily controlled by governing authorities. In the USA, the Fed (the central bank) prevents deflation by flooding the market with money, thus increasing prices. The UK follows a similar protocol- we mentioned previously the idea of Quantitative Easing.

So should we be happy that the price of a Freddo has increased over the past two decades? Not really- but perhaps the fact that it didn't drastically fall in price is something we should also be well aware of.