Quote of the day

“I find economics increasingly satisfactory, and I think I am rather good at it.”– John Maynard Keynes
Showing posts with label choice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label choice. Show all posts

Monday, 17 February 2020

Essential reading on competition

Europe’s free market outshines America

A new book argues that the US economy has grown uncompetitive while EU regulations give consumers more choice

Gerard Baker
The Times
Share
Save


Love it or hate it, most Americans would probably agree that their economy is a model of capitalism. Competition, choice, free markets; for good or ill, these seem to define the way America works. By contrast, fans and critics alike look across the Atlantic and see a different model with less choice, more regulation, more government intervention.
But what if, in at least one critical respect, this is the wrong way around? A new book by a French economist who lives and works in the US is making Americans think again about the health of their capitalism.
The Great Reversal by Thomas Philippon of New York University argues, with copious data and rigorous analysis, that in the past 20 years America has gone from being a highly competitive free-market economy to one dominated by huge companies that are eliminating choice, raising prices, increasing inequality and impairing dynamism.
In most key sectors, mergers and acquisitions and a system in which big companies are able to exploit the regulatory system for their benefit have diminished competition, to Americans’ detriment. Meanwhile in Europe, the reverse has happened. The same sectors have become more competitive, ironically perhaps, under the direction of regulatory authorities which, far from stifling economic dynamism, have actually stimulated it.
It’s easy to test Mr Philippon’s thesis. Take airlines. In the past few decades consolidation in the sector has resulted in a handful of companies controlling the market. If you want to fly from New York to St Louis, Missouri, these are the options according to the travel website Expedia: Delta Airlines will fly you from John F Kennedy International Airport on a round trip for $299. Shop around and you’ll discover that American Airlines will do the same journey . . . for $299.

Maybe you want to fly a little later in the day, to give yourself more time to get through the ninth circle of hell that is JFK. Prices for a lunchtime flight rise. On Delta you’d pay $340. But now American offers a real bargain. They’ll fly you there and back for a mere $339. You can use that extra dollar perhaps to buy a fifth of a cup of coffee from one of the 85 branches of Starbucks there.
Now look at Europe. London to Rome is almost the same distance as New York to St Louis: about 800 miles. According to Expedia, for a round trip you can get a flight on Vueling for $88. EasyJet will set you back $118. And if you’re feeling really flush you can pay $178 for a luxurious British Airways flight.
In sector after sector the story is the same on either side of the Atlantic. If you want a high-speed broadband internet connection in New York you have two choices. Verizon Fios will charge you $79.99 a month. Never knowingly undersold, Time Warner Spectrum will charge you . . . $79.99 a month.
This lack of choice means that prices are higher, of course. The average monthly cost of a broadband connection in the US is $68. In the UK it is $40, in Italy $30, in France $31.
Mobile phone service is similar: American users pay about $100 a month, while subscribers in Europe pay about half that.
A recent study estimated that concentration — the reduction in the number of companies that dominate a sector — had increased in three quarters of all American domestic industries between 1998 and 2012.
It wasn’t ever thus. Mr Philippon discovered when he moved to the US in the late 1990s that prices were much lower than they were in Europe. But in 20 years there has been a great reversal. Since the completion of the single market, Europe has adopted many of the pro-market, pro-competition policies that the US has long been renowned for.
In the US, takeovers have been a big factor. The number of mergers increased in the 30 years to 2017 from an average of just over 2,000 a year to more than 15,000 a year. More important has been the power that large American companies have to use lobbying to get favourable conditions from regulators and policymakers at the federal and state level. Mr Philippon estimates that uncompetitive markets cost Americans $300 a month, a total for the economy of $1.5 trillion in the space of 20 years.
The phenomenon is a key driver of the growing inequality in the US. Often immune from serious competition, companies are able to generate profits, the proceeds of which go to shareholders and top management, widening the disparity between those at the top and the rest of the country.
“Most US domestic markets have become less competitive, and US firms charge excessive prices to US consumers,” says Mr Philippon. Excess profits are used to pay our dividends and to buy back shares, not to hire and invest.
Of course, overall US economic performance has been stronger than Europe’s, though Mr Philippon notes that in terms of output per head the gap is much smaller. It’s also true that the US has innovated more in the past 20 years. But here too is a twist: since the big tech companies such as Apple, Amazon and Alphabet have grown to exercise enormous power in the sector over the past decade, innovation has declined.
There is, by the way, a Brexit coda to all this. If it leaves the EU, the UK may no longer benefit from Europe’s competitive markets. On the other hand, Mr Philippon points out that Europe deregulated its markets in part at least because the UK was among the strongest advocates of competition and choice inside the EU. Will a post-Brexit EU result in another great reversal

Friday, 7 February 2020

How capitalism creates choice

Better Gym and the emptiness of ‘people over profits’ marketing

By Julia Behan
“I chose a gym that puts people over profit”.
In its bid for a slice of the New Year’s Resolution gym membership market, the latest ad campaign from social enterprise Better Gym has pitched for the anti-nasty-capitalist crowd.
But although this kind of glib virtue signalling might appeal to a particular kind of right-on fitness enthusiast, there isn’t much sign that consumers feel particularly antagonised by commercial gyms.
Indeed, it’s hard to think of a worse target if you were trying to prove how unfair modern British capitalism is. Health and fitness is one of our most competitive industries and seldom have consumers had such power, influence and choice in a market.
The raw figures on the UK industry are remarkable. According to the 2019 State of the UK Fitness Industry report, total gym membership in this country has now passed the 10 million mark, with well over 7,000 different fitness facilities available.
The range of different options is equally impressive – and a fine example of the power of a well-functioning free market to offer people what they want.
For shift workers, there are now a host of 24-hour gyms. For those who only want to work out every now and then, there are pay-as-you-go, no-contract gyms. For the more upmarket customer there are establishments such as London’s KX, which doubles as a private members club. There are LGBT gyms, women-only gyms, gyms in Mayfair’s old boys’ clubs, and gyms that double up as brunch spots and coffee houses.
The spike in demand has also meant all manner of classes are on offer, from hot yoga to zuu (primal movement exercises).
All of these options offer something just a little different to each other and quite a lot of them are booming as people try to improve their health, but also move away from traditional retail experiences.
And a diverse market means plenty of opportunities for entrepreneurs too. Young mothers who run their own yoga business build small communities with other parents, the city worker who’s headed off to become a personal trainer creates a community of like-minded folk in the big city.
Nor is the industry confined to the well-heeled professional classes – even in London there are now options that cost less than a fiver a week, and there are all sorts of concessions and discounts.
This all comes down to the abundance of supply, which forces providers to engage in cut-throat competition, all to the benefit of us, the consumers. To paraphrase Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations ‘the price of free competition … is the lowest which can be taken’.
So, whatever Better Gym’s marketing team might have you believe, no one is being punished by greedy profit-seekers. If anything, it’s Better Gym’s own customers who are getting a raw deal. Despite its grandiose claims of putting people before profit, it’s not actually the cheapest option around.
For example, In my own London suburb BetterGym charges £30.95 a month for its standard membership – just down the road at The Gym it’s only £23.99, while PureGym is £26.99. This is not just the case in the capital. In Leeds, PureGym charges £14.99 per month, Trinity Fitness £15 and BetterGym £15.95. It seems for all the group’s lofty rhetoric, the free market is better at providing a low-cost option.
Which brings us back to the vacuity of the whole ‘people before profit’ sloganeering. In a properly functioning market, a business only makes profits by providing a service that customers want at a price they are willing to pay – what could be more people-centred than that?
Indeed, if you were being cynical, you might observe that the ‘people before profit’ message is actually that most capitalist of phenomena – a canny marketing ploy from a business trying to grab market share from its competitors.