The Following Collection of Articles Were Written by Lower the Following

PETERNOMICS The following collection of articles were written by Lower

Sixth pupils studying A-Level Economics2020 and/or Business at St Peter’s School.

The following collection of articles were written by Lower Sixth pupils studying A-Level Economics and/or Business at St Peter’s School.

ARTICLE AUTHOR PAGE

AUTONOMOUS CARS AND THE LAW Kitty Black 3

TAX AVOIDANCE VS TAX EVASION James Brent 4

PARKS IN CITIES Polina Andreeva 5

THE 2020 AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRES Lewis Jefferson 6

PRICE FLUCTUATIONS IN AGRICULTURAL MARKETS George Pears 7

IS GLOBALISATION REVERSIBLE? Harry Shi 8

THE VALUE OF MODERN MONEY James Hatfield 10

WHY IS THE HOUSING MARKET IMPORTANT TO THE ECONOMY? Tudor Maude 11

THE UK CAR INDUSTRY – WHAT WENT WRONG? Charlie Black 12

WHY THE MONEY INVOLVED IN FOOTBALL HAS CHANGED THE GAME Josh Gath 13

FINANCIAL CRISIS VS COVID 19 Olly Tomalin 14

THE GLOBAL HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY Michael Brown 15

THE EFFECT OF THE CORONAVIRUS ON UK FIRMS Isaac Burley 16

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON FINANCE IN FOOTBALL Harvey Gration 17

IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY Olly McBeath 19

CHILD POVERTY Ellie Thistlewaite 20

HOW CONTAINERISATION TRANSFORMED GLOBAL TRADE Antonia Ryan-Briscoe 21

BOEING'S POTENTIAL DOWNFALL James Hamilton 22

THE DEATH OF THE UK HIGH STREET Harry Lister 23

WHO WILL WIN THE STREAMING WAR? Hugo Hughes 24

THE ANTARCTIC TREATY Jodie Leon 25

THE STRUGGLES OF THE FARMING INDUSTRY Charlie Bramley 26

THE UK PROPERTY MARKET Ben Webster 27

THE UK MACROECONOMY Jimmy Dawson 28

WILL SARACENS RECOVER FROM THE SALARY CAP SCANDAL? Joe Baker 29

HOW DOES THE FILM INDUSTRY IMPACT ECONOMIC GROWTH? Joe Lawrence 30

IS COMPANY CULTURE A MYTH? Tom Hollinrake 31

THE RISE OF THE GAMING INDUSTRY Tom Meere 32

FLYING INTO TURBULENCE Angel Norza 33

CORONAVIRUS AND INEQUALITY IN THE US Issy Greenwood 34

ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING Jimmy Dawson 35

FREIGHT CAPABILITY IN CHINA Christine Zhang 36

THE SMARTPHONE INDUSTRY Tommy Hudson 37

THE USE OF MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS Alex Xiong 38

THE FASHION INDUSTRY IN CRISIS Sophie Clarke 39

CORONAVIRUS AND ITS IMPACT ON ONLINE BUSINESS Banky Claudius-Cole 40

COVID 19 AND GLOBALISATION Jazz Nizon 41

IS GDP THE BEST WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL PROSPERITY? Joshy Bennison 42

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH Matt Ng 43

STOCK MARKET INVESTMENT Bella Hollinrake 44

WHAT IS A TAX HAVEN? Joe Padgett 45

THE EFFECT OF COVID-19 ON RUGBY Archie Pope 46

AUTONOMOUS CARS AND THE LAW

The autonomous car industry is growing in attention rapidly across the world and is an area of huge technological change. Whilst to the average person it sounds like a great idea- cars that you don’t have to drive, the industry has several difficult legal questions that need answering first. The biggest one being the issue of liability - who is responsible for an autonomous car that causes an accident?. As there are more potential parties to a claim, including the person sitting the car, the owner of the car, the manufacturer, the software supplier or the person who wrote the software code and so on (and insurance companies), the question of who is responsible for accidents in these cars becomes a much more complex one that businesses need to find an answer to.

When it comes to injury claims from a regular car crash, determining which party is at fault is already difficult, but the majority of the time can be solved with CCTV cameras, witnesses etc. However when it comes to autonomous cars there is no clear- cut definition of who the driver is, which makes it more difficult to decide who is responsible for the accident.

In most self-driving cars without steering wheels in use the software will be the key decision maker, therefore it would make sense for the liability to be held with the manufacturer or software provider. However, what do you decide when some automated cars have steering wheels in them so that at any time the driver can step in to control the car?

The whole point of the autonomous car is that passengers don’t have to be fully concentrated on the roads, therefore in a situation where they are needed to step in it is likely that they could be distracted and act too late to prevent the accident. Will the driver or manufacturer be responsible in such situations?

Without precise laws and regulations concerning safety and liability, self-driving cars are less likely to find acceptance among the general population. There are still so many questions that the industry needs to answer such as who will pay for insurance, what product liability regulations are involved and whose fault the accident is.

A second difficult area in relation to product liability and autonomous vehicles is the issue of consumer expectation. A defective product is described by the Consumer Protection Act as one where the safety of the product is not what the consumer expected. This is difficult when applied to the autonomous vehicle because some customers may have unrealistic expectations in terms of what the technology is capable of and could therefore attempt to claim that the purpose for which the product was marketed was not met.

The automated car industry has a long way to go before becoming commonplace on the street. They will have to cross numerous hurdles to gain trust and acceptance of the public. For people in the business of designing or making these cars and the parts for them, it is a huge issue which will determine the success of the technology and how quickly it can be adopted and developed further.

TAX AVOIDANCE VS TAX EVASION

Tax avoidance is the bending of the rules of a tax system in order to gain a tax advantage that Parliament did not intend when making those rules. These methods often involve contrived transactions solely with the purpose of producing this advantage. These methods involve operating within the details of the law but not within the intended purpose of the law. Moving to another country with a lower income tax such as Guernsey which has a flat rate tax of 20% in order to pay less tax which would apply to all those earning £50,001 or more since in the UK you would be subject to paying 40% of your income or more after that is tax avoidance and is perfectly legal.

Tax avoidance could be considered a bad thing because the government would be able to increase its income with the money that has avoided taxation. Also most people who would be interested in avoiding taxes are those with higher incomes seeing as they have more money to lose and also have more money to spend saving it so since many people aim to tax the wealthy at a greater amount in order to reduce inequality tax avoidance is a bad thing. This begs the question: why is tax avoidance legal at all?

Primarily this is because since tax avoidance involves bending the rules and not breaking them and since technically this is within the law the fault lies with the legislation approved by government and not with those exploiting it as if the law was watertight tax avoidance would be impossible. Secondly tightening tax avoidance laws further could scare firms and wealthy individuals in the UK away so keeping tax avoidance legal helps keep businesses in the UK where they might not be paying as much tax as they could but that is still better than no revenue at all which they would get if these firms and individuals moved overseas.

Tax evasion is illegal underpayment or evasion of payment of taxes. This means that firms or individuals are not paying the amount of tax that is owed. An example of tax evasion is not reporting all of your income which means that you are paying less tax than you should be. Tax evasion is a criminal offence that can lead to prison sentences and fines. Companies who have evaded taxes will also be labelled which would damage their reputation and could lead to a fall in share prices.

Differentiating between the two is very important seeing as one of the is a criminal offense and in some cases finding the distinction of the two can be difficult. This is because some cases of tax avoidance have been labelled as aggressive when they are very large and at that point can be questioned in court. When this happens the result is often just the paying back of the taxes that would have been owed devoid of the tax avoidance because it is very difficult for persecutors to provide further penalties for something initially defined as avoidance and not evasion due to the broad interpretation of “bending” the rules. However, sometimes in extreme cases with a wide base of support the courts have been able to shift a case of aggressive tax avoidance into the grounds of tax evasion at which point they are able to enact further penalties than just the repayment of taxes.

PARKS IN CITIES

There is no doubt that parks are an integral part of the UK culture. The idea of creating of public green spaces firstly arose in the Victorian era and immediately became popular among the Britons. But why to have such large territories, often in profitable locations, dedicated to parks?

To begin with, parks boost local economies and exert positive effect to the property prices by attracting new residents. Higher property prices create economic value and raise government tax revenues. Among the importance of closeness of schools and office, public spaces are a significant factor when people are choosing a new neighborhood. Firstly, it is because of the growing concern about the health of the nation. Lack of outdoor activity is directly connected with many deceases, including obesity. Obesity already costs more in public health terms and will overtake smoking as Britain’s biggest killer in 10-15 years if current trends persist according to the analysis by the University of Essex. Londoners avoid £950 million per year in health costs due to public parks, claims the Vivid Economics in its report for the Greater London Authority. Secondly, public spaces build leisure pursuits. Families go out on a picnic, children play and do sports in the natural spaces, developing their creativity and becoming healthier. Parks also help people with mental health problems, as well as boost general productivity.

Another market sector that enjoys close access to green public spaces are various businesses. Today businesses are not tied to a specific raw material production area, but rather to territory with costumers. Restaurants, shops and hotels benefit from the visitors of the parks and rank such location as a number-one priority. Blossoming local business attracts more tourists and brings money into the area. This has a positive impact on the quality of life of the residents.

Trees process a huge variety of the pollutants from the air and water such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone etc., reducing the healthcare costs and improving the functional capacity of the medical centers. What is more, an increase in the number of green spaces can prevent higher temperatures in towns and cities. In the study of four urban areas of Merseyside, the temperature was 7˚C cooler where vegetation cover was 50 per cent compared to areas where the vegetation cover was only 15 per cent. Lastly, parks provide a safe space for many animals and preserve natural ecosystems. Most people highly value an opportunity to contact with nature and wildlife.

To sum up, public green areas are crucial to the modern community. Their significance should be appreciated by both citizens and the government. It is necessary to include parks as a major component of the city planning.

THE 2020 AUSTRALIAN BUSHFIRES

In June 2019, bushfires rapidly spread across Australia and became increasingly fiercer every time, which heavily affected the Australian economy.

Australia has a public healthcare, which is paid through taxes, as well as private healthcare which are owned and managed privately. Both of these systems were put under immense pressure as the fires heavily damaged human health, due to the intense smoke and air pollution as well as the fire itself. The effects of smoke exposure and inhalation range from eye and respiratory tract irritation to more serious disorders, including reduced lung function, bronchitis, exacerbated asthma and premature death. Many people also encountered mental trauma from experiencing emergency evacuations, losing homes, pets and belongings, and some of these people will have looked to counselling within the healthcare system for guidance. The fires lasted for a total of 8 months, and healthcare was in high demand throughout this period, which resulted in the Australian Government spending hundreds of millions of dollars to support and strengthen the healthcare system.

Businesses within Australia will have also taken a massive hit, due to the lack of tourism in this time. A large percentage of the economy relies on tourism to produce demand and profit, including travel agencies, local restaurants and many more. The bushfires meant that tourism was severely reduced for 8 months as tourists and residents were forced to leave many areas of the country, which will have put many businesses in difficult financial situations and possibly bankrupt. Moreover, business that didn’t focus on tourism were also affected, such as farming. A lot of livestock were injured or killed by the fire, as well as many crops which were also destroyed. This created shortages in certain food and materials which led to the price of some products heavily increasing and some farmers going out of business. This increased unemployment led to a lot of pressure for the Government as more and more resident were seeking financial help every day, such as benefits. Between June 2019 and December 2019, the unemployment rate increased from 5.2% to 7.6%, which shows how businesses were dramatically affected during this time.

PRICE FLUCTUATIONS IN AGRICULTURAL MARKETS

Price fluctuation is a rise and fall of commodity of prices as a result of changes in market situations. Fluctuation Is a problem caused by various factors and if prices fall it can be extremely dangerous as farmers risk losing investment. Price fluctuation are upward or downward swings in the prices of products in an economy. Fluctuations in prices are a common phenomenon in the economic world, particularly among producers of agricultural products.

Climate Change Agricultural market and prices are unpredictable as they are dependent on the weather compared to other businesses that aren’t. Climate change has a major impact as agricultural supply are mostly reliant on the weather. Weather conditions are one factor that can affect the fluctuation of agricultural markets. Crops depend on the weather to be able to get a good growth when planted. For example if it is a wet time when sowing the crops like last Autumn when many farmers across the country struggled to get their winter crops in in time so therefore the production for the 2020 harvest will be lower therefore decreasing a supply in grain causing prices to rise in our domestic market.

Seasonality Agricultural products are dependant on seasonality. During peak harvest time the market supply is high therefore prices are lower. However, during planting season there isn’t the supply of grain as there is in harvest so therefore prices increase due to the lack of supply. It’s not just the UK seasons that affect our prices it can be many other countries as the main market is driven from the trading house in Chicago who are always keeping an eye on the weather patterns throughout the world. For example, if Russia have a bad winter and don’t receive the snow cover to protect their crops this will cause their crops to burn off due to the severe frost that they receive. This will then have a positive effect on the UK domestic market as Russia won’t be exporting any of their good s. The traders will have been watching this weather pattern and it will then be factored into the world market as a positive for the UK price.

Exchange rates Exchange rates are a rise and fall of a currency which causes the price of agricultural products to fluctuate. They are determined by the flow of a currency between two countries. This can affect the costs of machinery as many machines are imported from other countries, for example John Deere and Claas are from Germany who trade in Euros so if the pound is weak against the euro then the price will increase as imported machinery will be more expensive. Australia and the UK exports Faba beans to Egypt each year on a large scale. The currency can alter the domestic price of the Faba beans in the UK as Egypt trade in US dollars although their currency is Egyptian pounds, so if the UK pound is weak against the US dollar then the UK have a much greater chance of exporting beans to Egypt over Australia at a better price especially if the Australian dollar is strong than the US dollar.

The Impacts of Coronavirus America are huge producers of corn and 40% of their corn production goes into the bioethanol plants. However due to coronavirus the public have not been flying, driving or using any kind of transport on the scale they used to. Not only has the lockdown had an effect on the crude oil market but it has also had an effect on our wheat price as the US have huge tonnages of corn to export. Therefore, because our domestic wheat market has risen to a level which is competitive to the import of corn from America the UKs domestic wheat market is struggling to rise above its current level. The UKs mills and compound users are substituting US corn instead of using our own grown wheat.

IS GLOBALISATION REVERSIBLE?

During this global pandemic, leaders of the world regardless of their political ideology have witnessed a break of the global supply chain. The consequence of this break was devastating, countries such as Italy and Spain lacked essential medical resources during the peak of their health crises; as a result of this, leaders are now considering a reverse of globalisation in key industries such as health and technology.

Globalisation is the process of interaction and integration among people, companies, and governments worldwide. I.e. free trades; freedom of movement; better allocation of resources. Ideally, the process of globalisation would have benefitted all states and corporations but this is not always the case. For instance, the US economy suffered from a massive trading deficit with Germany and China mainly because the goods they need are not produced in America. In terms of the migration, local populations in Britain and the US also grew resentment towards immigrant workers as they were unable to match the skillset and the low wage of these migrant workers.

Despite stricter immigration policies and verbal threats to their trade partners, a reverse of globalisation seemed to be unsustainable and has insignificant effect on resolving the issues they are facing. For example, the US unemployment rate was at a decade low 3.6% last year as Donald Trump claimed that he brought jobs back to America. However, in order to ‘bring back’ all of the production jobs there is a lot more to do than just creating more zero hour contract jobs. To begin with, industrialisation and infrastructures are essential for any country on the global supply chain. Thus, it would be impossible to internalise the whole supply chain because the mechanism that each country or region specialised on one or multiple stages of the production and this means that smaller countries will not have the privilege to do so. More significantly, an ‘reflux of industries’ may also lack international competitiveness. Unfortunately, these domestic industries would not be able to compete with others without tariffs or a depreciation of the currency. It is clear that neither of the two would be a viable option because the former may lead to retaliations from trade partners; the latter may lead to a decrease in purchasing power which directly impacts people's life. In addition to this, an increased interest rate is likely to be devastating to any economy that has a high level of debt.

On the other hand, multilateral organisations such as the WTO, WHO received pessimistic expectations in the post Covid -19 world as many assume that the US lacked the competency and willingness to take a leading role. As a result of this, the post cold war order created by the US is also challenged. Furthermore, although the new Chinese model may offer an alternative approach to and accelerate the process of globalisation, it still faced speculation from the west especially when China started to practice its economic power to influence or even threaten other countries . These doubts are reasonable, from a non-China perspective the one party state lacks legitimacy and accountability as a result of this, the ‘one belt one road initiative’ only received moderate support from developed countries. However, leading European powers such as Germany and the UK signalled their support on this new initiative by embracing Huawei’s 5G technology as well as investing in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. These constructive talks and partnerships show that regardless of political ideology, states would rather talk than start another cold war. More importantly, the ‘one belt one road’ initiative shared similar visions with some American left wing politicians such as Bernie Sanders: For the purpose of maintaining the society's support for globalisation, the aims and initiatives of globalisation must be more inclusive, sustainable development needs; multinational companies, tech giants, and the financial sector should not be the few groups that can benefit from globalisation.

To conclude, globalisation can be adjusted, controlled, changed but not reversed. Should this be the case, it is economically unsustainable; states can only restore stability by working together; the ‘Chinese model’ offers a new alternative. In my humble opinion, I assert that leaders have to confront one unprecedented fact: Globalisation will draftily change from a ‘comfortable’ process to a ‘challenging’ one. Thus, it is absurdly imperative to cooperate and promote multilateralism.

THE VALUE OF MODERN MONEY

Although it seems so natural, and taken for granted in today’s world, it is only very recently that humans have accepted the crucial idea that money is only worth something because we all agree it is.

Whether shiny metals, beautiful rocks or rare materials, for thousands of years money had always had value in itself. In today’s world we take it for granted that the thin slips of paper that we own have value and worth. In fact this acceptance of paper money and even digital money is, and has been essential to the growth of the globalised economy which we see today. Yet go back 500 years and it would be impossible, even comical to try to convince a merchant that your thin rectangle of pulped trees was at all capable of buying their valuable goods.

For hundreds of years, whether gold coins, rare shells or shiny rocks, money was only accepted as a means of exchange because of its inherent value; because surely people will only be willing to trade their labour for something which actually has value in itself? How could an economy be based around earning something without any inherent value? So, almost all world economies used valuables as currency, known as ‘Commodity money’. However, by far the greatest problem with commodity money was that there was a limit to how much money there actually can be in a country or on the world, such as the great scarcity of gold and silver on Earth, essentially putting a ceiling on the growth of our economies. How can an economy grow if it is limited by the amount of gold coins available? But how could an economy function if money wasn’t worth something itself? The early modern solution to these very conflicting problems was the idea of the Gold Standard. Paper notes allowed for much easier consumerism than using coins, while still retaining the value of money. It was the idea that your bank note was redeemable at any time in gold, which can still be seen on current Bank of England notes: ‘I promise to pay the bearer on demand the sum of Ten Pounds’. Although current bank notes are not redeemable in gold anymore, that statement on the notes was true for hundreds of years.

However, the gold standard was definitely not without its problems, for starters, when an economy went through a recession and people would go to banks demanding their gold in large numbers, there was almost never enough actual gold to meet the demands of the people. Furthermore, after the First and Second World Wars, when the dominating economy of America had amassed almost all the world’s gold reserves due to everybody buying vast amounts of supplies from the US, nations had to realise that they could no longer effectively obey the Gold Standard. And when the Bretton Woods solution, that meant all currencies were referenced to the gold-redeemable US dollar, didn't work out due to American expenses in the Cold War, people still would not believe that their economy could work without the Gold Standard, because without it, how was money worth…Anything? In 1971, when the US itself could no longer obey the Bretton Woods system due to the immense spending on wars and increasing drain on US gold reserves, did President Nixon officially bring about the very needed end to the use of the Gold Standard in America.

Yet, while the shockwaves were felt around the world, nations realised that the market carried on valuing the $ the same. Nations began to trust the idea that their currencies would just float in value depending on public opinion and market rates. So, almost by accident and after almost 6000 years of using money, we finally accepted money as an idea rather than a thing. Or in other words we accepted that; ‘money is the medium by which goods are exchanged and not the value for which they are exchanged’.

WHY IS THE HOUSING MARKET IMPORTANT TO THE ECONOMY?

When people buy or sell houses, either to live in or as an investment, this is called the housing market. A house is the most valuable thing many people will ever own. In Britain, two thirds of households own the house they live in; half of these are still paying off their mortgage. The remaining third of households are renters, split pretty equally between private and social renting.

The housing market is closely linked to consumer spending. When house prices go up, homeowners become better off and feel more confident. Some people will borrow more against the value of their home, either to spend on goods and services, renovate their house, supplement their pension, or pay off other debt.

When house prices go down, homeowners risk that their house will be worth less than their outstanding mortgage. People are therefore more likely to cut down on spending and hold off from making personal investments. Mortgages are the greatest source of debt for households in the UK. If many people take out large loans compared to their income or the value of their house, this can put the banking system at risk in an economic downturn.

Housing investment is a small but unpredictable part of how to measure the total output of the economy. If you buy a newly built home, it directly contributes to total output (GDP), for example through investment in land and building materials as well as creating jobs. The local area also profits when new houses are built as newcomers will start using local shops and services. Buying and selling existing homes does not affect GDP in the same way. The accompanying costs of a house transaction still benefit the economy, however. These can include anything from estate agent, legal or surveyor fees to buying a new sofa or paint.

THE UK CAR INDUSTRY – WHAT WENT WRONG?

In 2016 the UK car industry had reach record registrations at 2,692,786 registered in 2016, up 2.3% on previous year, in what was the fifth consecutive year of growth. However, since then the UK car industry has crashed catastrophically, after 3 consecutive years of falling car sales 2019s new driver registrations in the UK fell by 2.4% on the previous year to 2,311,140 which is a 380,000 below 2016 levels. But what led to such a sudden and damaging effect on the UK car industry? The first major setback for the UK car industry came in June 2016 when the UK voted to leave the EU. The Brexit referendum left the industry with concerns over how supply chains to the EU would work if there was a ‘no deal’ scenario as much of the car industry uses just in time assembly lines which require parts to be delivered exactly when they’re needed, however with potential restrictions on trade from the EU to the UK parts may not arrive when needed and productivity would then be lost which then causes a shortage of supply. This would also complicate imports of finished cars from the EU which makes up 82% of the UK’s motor vehicle import volume and worth €38 billion each year. These complications may also reduce the number of investors willing to back car manufacturers, due to the uncertainty of what will happen to the car industry post Brexit. As a result of this many UK car manufactures are thinking about moving their plants into mainland Europe where the flow of goods will be easier. This has been the case with Nissan Sunderland who say that a ‘No deal Brexit tariffs would make manufacturing in Britain unviable’ this would then lead to 6,700 people’s jobs being at risk. This would have a devastating effect on the economy surrounding the area of Sunderland and could lead to a rise in poverty rates in the area. As well as these supply issues mentioned above there has also been many factors affecting demand for cars over the last four years in the UK, these include Brexit uncertainty and the Coronavirus pandemic. Many people have been holding of purchasing a car until there was certainty about the outcome of Brexit, which had resulted in low consumer confidence even though in 2019 unemployment was low and wages were rising. Consumer confidence in 2019 was also low due to recent emissions scandals by Volkswagen plus planned restrictions on older diesel vehicles going into city centres, also hurt demand. However, by December 2019 demand started to pick up for cars as a consequence of a Tory victory in the general election who promised to get Brexit done straight away, this gave consumers clarity which increased consumer confidence. In a recent survey 15% of drivers said the decisive election result has given them confidence to purchase a car this year. This led to sales in December rising 4% from a year earlier. Although this rise in demand for cars was to be short lived as from March 2020 the UK went into lockdown following the coronavirus pandemic, this forced many businesses to temporarily close and place workers on a furlough scheme. As a result of this many people’s wages have been cut or jobs have been lost, this has reduced disposable incomes and so there are less people willing and able to buy cars this led to just 78,767 vehicles leaving factory gates in March, down 47,428 from March 2019. In total the coronavirus pandemic is expected to cost UK car makers £8.2bn due to temporarily shutting plants reduced car sales. The cost of the coronavirus lockdown and potential complications of Brexit has left the UK car industry fighting for survival in an industry which employs upwards of 823,000 people, if short term plans aren’t put in place to protect the sector it is expected that 1 in 6 automotive jobs will be lost, along with a huge reduction in trade with the EU, which would cost the UK economy billions per year.

WHY THE MONEY INVOLVED IN FOOTBALL HAS CHANGED THE GAME

In the last few decades there has been a major turning point within the most popular sports game in the world. The wages, revenue overturned and overall investment being injected into the game has gone to another extreme in recent times with many times ‘buying their way to success’. This is shown through in previous times people being paid up to £100 a week for example Kevin Keegan signing for Liverpool in 1971 being on £50 a week as a promising young talent whereas nowadays, Callum Hudson-Odoi a 19 year old winger is now paid £120,000 a week for showing promising performances for half a season and demanded this salary.

The inflation in prices has seen a massive impact on transfer fees also ; In 1997 Ronaldo signed for Inter Milan from Barcelona in £26,000,000 deal for one of the greatest players to ever play the game whereas in 2017 PSG payed Barcelona a mind blowing £188,000,000 transfer fee with numerous add ons potentially exceeding £200,000,000. Although both Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are arguably the best two players of all time they are payed £112,000,000 and £98,000,000 per year to play for their clubs. This does not take into account brand deals and endorsements so therefore is yet another massive indicator of how much money is in football compared to previous times

This is of massive impact as not only does it massively affect the footballing word but also economy’s worldwide.

FINANCIAL CRISIS VS COVID 19

With current situations starting to return to some sort of post lockdown normality: people going back to work, children going back to school and sports matches resuming behind closed doors. The question is; was this this the worst the UK economy has ever had to deal with? Or was the 2008 financial crisis still the greatest battle the UK economy has had to overcome?

In the three months leading into and the beginning of lockdown, the UK economy shrunk a combined 10.4%. this is larger than the shrink of all 5 negative quarters in 2008/9 combined. Furthermore, in April the UK economy further shrank by 20.4%, the largest fall in real GDP on record. In contrast with this the financial crisis may not have had an instant drastic effect on the economy but it had a long lasting one. It took more than 5 years before the UK economy reached the level it was at before the 2008 financial crisis. In addition to this unemployment levels were the highest since 1995 reaching 8.4% and not returning to original levels until 2015, more than 7 years on. However current unemployment is only at 4%, this does not include those who are furloughed. However, those who are furloughed still have a job so you can argue that they are not unemployed they are just unable to work at this current moment due to government restrictions.

Productivity was also majorly hit during the 2008 financial crisis. If trends were to carry on as they were before 2008, then in 2017 productivity may have been 20% higher than it actually was in 2017 and even though productivity has fallen by greater numbers immediately (9.5%) I still believe that this drop which has lead to a 20% reduction 10 years on is more significant to the British economy.

However, should we even be comparing these two events? The financial crisis was first and foremost a financial shook which severely effected the real economy of the world./ whilst, the Covid 19 outbreak is firstly a public health crisis and then an economic crisis and so a governments first priority is public safety, before it starts to think about rebuilding an economy. The financial crisis hit the manufacturing sector hard making over 9.6 million people unemployed, whilst the coronavirus has led to fall in the service sector, the UKs largest sector. So, its safe to say both had a nasty effect on the UK economy.

THE GLOBAL HOSPITATLITY INDUSTRY

COVID-19 has posed many problems to the economy in most sectors, arguably the most heavily hit area is in hospitality. As corona grew to a pandemic, governments took action to try to reduce the spread and limit the long term effects on their nation, however this hasn't been without its issues; with social distancing and self-isolation becoming necessary, people haven't been leaving their house unless necessary, this means that trips to the pub and family holidays have been cancelled. This has obviously had an effect on the businesses that rely on tourism and/or social gatherings to make money, for example pubs or hotels. This huge reduction of people coming into the business has obviously reduced the demand for their good or service, so in this sector AD has reduced to close to zero; The effect on the GDP in the industry is shown on this graph below:

Although this graph is not to scale as the AD2 would be much further to the right, it shows how the dramatic decrease in AD would significantly affect the revenue for this entire sector. Reduced revenue means reduced profits, this can have a long run affect long after coronavirus is not a huge issue anymore, many staff will have to be cut, reducing the workforce and productive potential later on, and with reduced profits, investment will not take place, meaning that while usually as time went on, production costs would reduce due to investment, now they will be at a standstill, reducing future profits from what they would be.

Overall there has been a huge long and short term impact on the hospitality industry due to COVID- 19 and the steps that governments have taken to reduce the spread of it, including a significantly reduced profits and therefore investment.

THE EFFECT OF THE CORONAVIRUS ON UK FIRMS

On the 23rd of March, Boris Johnson announced the start of lockdown measures following on from the pandemic of Covid-19 and its increasing spread in the UK. Since then, not only have old people been separated from their families, children separated from their friends and some families losing loved ones. But also, many businesses have been run into the ground as a result of this virus, some have thrived, but almost all have had to adapt to the new way of running a business under the governmental measures surrounding the pandemic.

One company that has innovatively adapted to the struggles of running a business during this pandemic is a London-based fitness studio called Frame. Originally, Frame had been forced to close their doors due to the restrictions instilled by the pandemic, consequently Frame launched Frame Online, an online fitness hub with a £10.99 per month subscription fee. Frame is different to other stay-at-home fitness groups as they promote an attitude that people should work out when it suits their mood as opposed into high-intensity fitness sections. This is an interesting approach to adapting to the new environments provided by the lockdown regulations; however, this is also an extremely popular approach to adjusting to the new business environment, with many personal trainers turning to online lessons to stay afloat in the rising tide of the pandemic.

Although some businesses have had to adapt to the new regulations, some have seen a benefit in the new environment we find ourselves in. Streaming services have noticed a substantial rise in usage and new customers, as many people have resorted to binging in front of the tele as opposed to taking up online fitness classes. For example, Netflix saw almost 16 million people create new accounts in the first three months of the year. That is nearly double the number that they saw in the final months of 2019. As we can see the lazy habits caused by the corona virus has helped some businesses out significantly.

Aside from businesses that have either benefitted from or adapted to the new regulations enforced by the government, some businesses have failed to do either, causing them to go bust and fail miserably. One department store, Debenhams, has struggled especially with the closure of the high street. Debenhams fell into administration for the second time in 12 months on the 9th of April, following on from the lockdown announcements. Due to the virus forcing the store to closing all its stores down, the firm decided to go into administration to avoid legal action from its creditors, which could have forced them into liquidation, this leaves almost 22,000 workers at risk of losing their jobs. Although Debenhams continue to trade online, however its operations in Ireland are said to have been ‘doomed’, meaning that all 11 stores in the country will be shut down. As we can see some firms have been totally ruined by the virus and it is unknown whether they will ever recover from it.

So, the virus has caused lots of changes in the business world, some good, some innovative, some bad. As we go through these extraordinary times, many businesses have had extraordinary experiences. As the lockdown begins to ease and people go back to their normal lives, it raises the question whether businesses will go back to their original methods or keep these adapted methods. Will some businesses decline as people go back to their jobs and can go outside again? Will we see a revival in businesses that have been run into the ground or will they stay dead? The virus is certainly a once in a lifetime experience and it will be something that goes down in history, I think that the idea that this virus could change the business environment for the foreseeable future is not an idea that should be dismissed so easily.

THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON FINANCE IN FOOTBALL

Covid-19 has impacted areas across the world, with football being one of many sports significantly affected. Leagues were postponed, with many ‘null and voided’, with only a few of the most major leagues re-establishing themselves to conclude the 2019/20 season of football. Football authorities in France, the Netherlands and Scotland have cancelled their seasons altogether. The leagues that began again saw a lay off of around 3 months before resuming play; ‘the beautiful game’ as we knew it, has returned in a mixture of excitement, eeriness and ambiguity. Games are taking place behind closed doors, two tests for players and staff are carried out each week and social distancing measures take place everywhere bar the action on the training field and pitch. Maybe most importantly, away from the pitch, the finances of many clubs are set to take massive hits.

The only clubs likely to escape are the ‘Galactico’s’ of world football; the giants with a large fanbase, able to sustain their revenue through merchandise sales and money from sponsors (and a large owner bank account). Covid-19 is likely to hit many Premier League clubs, with probably all but the ‘Top 6’ not seeing huge plunges in revenue and sustainability. Thus, what are the reasons for this global hit to football, what are the impacts, and how are clubs attempting to nullify them?

Chiefly, teams lower down the football ladder don’t rely on TV revenue, and ticket sales make up the bulk of their revenue- and for a club that already has financial problems, it could lead to dire consequences. Even for Premier League clubs, insurance policies would come nowhere near covering such losses. While they may be able to just escape collapse, we’ve still seen devastating examples of clubs’ eviction from the football leagues, prior to the pandemic. League One Bury were expelled from the Football League in August and Bolton Wanderers suffered a points deduction after going into administration in May, while Macclesfield Town and Southend United have been charged for not be able to pay their players this season. The prospect of losing gate receipts for the remaining games this season might ‘tip others over the edge’. Additionally, with no supporters at games, the club faces the potential of compensating or crediting its season ticket holders, and smaller clubs’ much needed takings from bars and hospitality services have also been blasted.

There are many clubs in the Championship in trouble, and across leagues 1 and 2, with almost all suffering (possibly irreversible) long- term damage to finances. There are clubs struggling that are reliant on matchday income to pay wages at the end of the month, with Premier League teams such as Norwich and Newcastle furloughing, with larger clubs like Liverpool and Tottenham Hotspurs furloughing (before reversing this decision due to scrutiny). Many have taken pay cuts and this reflects the wide spread impact across all of the football tiers.

The transfer market’s mouth-watering fees of the past 10 years (especially the last 4), looked set to keep rising exponentially. However, Covid-19 could take up to £10 billion worth of transfer fees. This is because, less money will be disposable to spend on the top players, so in order to make money relative to the market, clubs will have to lower the offering prices, or keep the player. Some may say this could give smaller clubs a chance to close the ever-growing gap between themselves and the larger and more wealthy clubs. But in reality, this could have an adverse effect. If struggling teams are forced into a fire sale of their best players, bigger sides could benefit by scooping up the best talent from smaller rivals at a cut price. Players who are out of contract on June 30th, will find themselves in a predicament where they are in limbo. Clubs can either choose to give them a short-term deal, or if the player doesn’t want it, they will be cast off into the transfer market. If they are on loan, they can return to their parent club, but if they are tied down by their club (and are not out on loan), their future is in their hands, but with no idea where they may end up. Moreover, the solution of extending contracts will not be thought of as beneficial to smaller clubs, who will be forced to pay the remainder of that contract if they choose to extend.

Smaller clubs desperately need help from the Premier League (who will be returning huge TV deals from the millions watching at home), the FA, UEFA, and FIFA to help guide them through the period of time that they are affected. In recent times, there has been positive instances, with gestures such as the £50m short-term relief fund provided by the EFL to help their clubs with cash-flow issues, and a FIFA emergency fund to assist the industry. Some clubs will inevitably go bust, and other end up in deep water, but it’s the longevity before we see fans in stadiums, that may be the determining factor.

Ultimately, football will change in the coming seasons, no matter what. And clubs may have to be more conservative across the next 5 years or so (no matter their rank) to sustain profits and fit in with the financial situation of the market. We may see FFP rules adapted, with transfer fee and salary caps. Nonetheless, what is for sure, is that Covid-19 has had, and will have, a significant impact on football’s finances.

IMPACTS OF COVID-19 ON THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY

The outbreak of the global pandemic coronavirus has decimated the travel, tourism and hospitality industry. Countries are still trying to tackle and control the virus, while others are on the front foot, attempting to rebuild the economy and reemerge from the crisis. No other sector will suffer more than the travel industry, for which the recovery process will no doubt be a complicated and lengthy one. One example of a nation with a travel industry that is or was suffering is New Zealand. With no foreign tourists, who bring about half of the industry’s $10.34billion annual income, New Zealand’s operators have informed Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern that urging New Zealanders to travel within the country and considering more holidays to let people escape will not make up for the income brought in by foreigners.

Unemployment and redundancies are another inevitable impact of the global pandemic, especially affecting a country’s travel sector. Canadian airline WestJet announced that they are cutting 3,300 jobs due to the impacts of the pandemic.

Another example of this is Australian airline Qantas Airways, who will be cutting a huge 20% of its workforce and intends to raise up to $1.9billion of equity under a sweeping cost-saving plan. The airline also said it will ground 100 aircraft for up to 12 months and retire its remaining Boeing 747 fleet.

The impact of COVID-19 on the travel industry is simple and devastating; the biggest consequence being redundancies. Companies simply have no income from tourists, holiday-makers and people travelling with airlines, and therefore cannot afford to pay for or Furlough employees who do not have anything to do, leaving them no option but to lay off vast numbers of workers.

CHILD POVERTY: A NATIONAL CRISIS

Poverty is defined as having a household income of 60% or below the average income for a household of equal size. It is estimated that around 4.2 million children in the UK are currently living in poverty. That is around one third of the children in the UK. The number suggests that 9 children in a classroom of 30 live in poverty. It is also suggested that thousands of families are living one paycheck above the poverty line. More shockingly, the majority of families in poverty have at least one working parent in the family home (around two thirds of impoverished families have one working parent).

The figure is also set to rise. With the full impacts of Coronavirus yet to be seen, it is suggested that by the end of 2020, 5 million children across the UK will be living in poverty. The effects of Coronavirus added to increasing living costs, low wages/ lack of employment and cuts to benefits mean that poverty is destined to increase. Since 2010, £36 Billion has been taken from the benefit system and this can be reflected in the increase of 600,00 more children in relative poverty since 2010. Low wage households were also largely affected by the 2016 benefits freeze, that declared the rate of universal credit, job seekers allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, child tax credits, working tax credits and child benefit would not rise with the rate of inflation. This meant that year by year, since 2016, families have been receiving less and less support. As of April this year the freeze was ended, and the benefits were raised by 1.7% to match inflation. However, this increase will most likely not raise living standards as the increase only matches the rate of inflation, not passes it.

Children living in poverty are more likely to suffer from an array of problems, including health problems. In the most deprived areas of the UK, birth weights are on average 200g less than in the richest. Furthermore, children in impoverished households are more likely to be struck by infection, suffer from poor mental health and rates of infant deaths are drastically higher. Paediatricians surveyed by CPAG in 2017 suggested that those children living in poverty were more likely to suffer from ill health (mental and physical) due to inadequate housing/ homelessness, food instability and an unprecedented stigma surrounding poverty. These findings would suggest that those from low socioeconomic backgrounds are more at risk from the Coronavirus due to pre-existing poor health. This suggestion would be supported by the startling statistic that people in deprived areas are dying at two times the rate of people in more affluent areas.

Overall, the current events have emphasised the economic equality within today’s society. With life expectancy coming to a halt for the first time in decades for the lower classes and infant mortality rates rising, low socioeconomic societies are living in higher levels of fear due to the injustice they face at this already troubling time. Not only this but in the introductions back to normality began with the staggered times for people to go back to employment. Whilst higher paying office jobs could remain working from home, many low paid workers such as construction site workers, shop assistants and teachers were back in work which therefore increased their risk. This therefore puts their families at risk also. Not only these jobs but frontline workers, such as nurses, are not receiving adequate pay that coincides with the work they have endured throughout the course of the epidemic. This fact, along with the low wages of nurses in the UK (a 2017 study showed a large number of nurses admitted to having to use food banks. This overwhelming imbalance between effects on members of society shows that there is a socioeconomic injustice occurring in our country. Children in poverty are likely to also continue into poverty in their adult life if not supported, therefore repeating the cycle.

HOW CONTAINERISATION TRANSFORMED GLOBAL TRADE

Before containerisation, world trade and transport looked very different. Small vessels were used to transport goods from country to country, often taking weeks, even months, to travel from one port to another. For most of human history, the speed and efficiency of transport were low and costs of overcoming the frictional effect of distance were high. Movement over land was especially slow and difficult before the development of the railways. Ships and trains were the preferred form of transport for trade, and small crates were used to transport goods; this meant it was difficult to maintain a proper sense of order and track goods from their distribution to the consumer. However, the mid 20th century saw an acceleration of the space-time convergence, such as the introduction of commercial jet aircraft and the development of larger ocean-going vessels, which has shortened the time it takes to travel between places, bringing distant places closer together. Containerisation greatly simplifies shipment from one mode of transport to another. The world has shrunk in the time it takes to get from one part of the world to another.

Containerisation originated several centuries ago, but wasn’t well developed or widely applied until after World War II, when it dramatically reduced the costs of transport, supported the post-war boom in international trade, and was a major element of globalisation. It did away with manual sorting of shipments and the need for warehousing. Furthermore, it reduced congestion in ports, significantly shortened shipping time and reduced losses from damage and theft.

The first truly successful container shipping company dates to April 26 1956, when American trucking entrepreneur Malcolm Purcell McLean, put 58 trailer vans (later called containers) , aboard a refitted tanker ship, and sailed them from Newark, New Jersey to Houston, Texas. Since then, huge super- freighters have been developed, carrying containers with standardised dimensions, which are used globally to maintain a simple system of uniformity. The largest container ship ever built is the OOCL Hong Kong, which is 400m in length and 60m wide.

Despite its success, containerisation inevitably led to the decline of traditional ports around the world, notably the docks in Liverpool and London. Huge levels of structural unemployment occurred, displacing many thousands of dock workers who formerly handled break bulk cargo. Many docks fell into dereliction, however recent developers have transformed them into social and cultural hubs, with commercial and residential buildings deemed as trendy and desirable, such as Butler’s Wharf in London, where old warehouses have been repurposed for businesses and restaurants. The redevelopment of these areas integrates the history of the docks with modernity, allowing the old buildings to be returned to a sense of their former glory.

Without containerisation, there would no doubt be an alternative, similarly efficient mode of transport for trade. However, it has significantly transformed how goods are produced, distributed and consumed on a global scale, and demonstrates how interdependence and interconnectedness have revolutionised consumer patterns and global trade.

BOEING'S POTENTIAL DOWNFALL

China saw a whopping 500,000,000 passengers taking to the skies in 2018 and by 2035 that number is expected to be 1,500,000,000. This would make China the fastest growing aviation market in the world, and will soon overtake the US as the largest aviation market in the world. In 2018 there was a new aircraft delivered toChina every 21 hours, amounting to $35,000,000,000 in new aircraft over the course of the year. So why does this present a problem for Boeing? The answer is that in order to stay the largest airline manufacturer in the world Boeing had to dominate the Chinese market. Boeing saw this and placed a production line of the 737-max in China. This would make the aircraft more popular within China as the airlines are majority owned by the Chinese government, so they would order the aircraft that provide chinese jobs. That paired with the fact that the 737-max is perfect for China’s geography, providing low demand domestic routes between smaller cities meant that the 737-max and Boeing were very successful within China with 47.2% of aircraft operated in China being Boeing.

Before the grounding of the 737 max China was the largest operator of the aircraft with its airlines having a total of 97 with almost 500 on order, while the US, the second largest, had 72. This meant that when the Max crashed twice and was grounded, the state-owned Chinese airlines expected compensation from Boeing. If Boeing refused compensation the Government could effectively cast Boeing out of the Chinese market by purchasing more Airbus aircraft. This is something Boeing could not let happen.

Boeing’s precarious position in China caused by the grounding of huge numbers of 737 max has damaged confidence in Boeing’s aircraft which could potentially damage future demand. To exacerbate this situation. They could also become a pawn in the US China trade war. In march of 2019 the Chinese government announced a $35,000,000,000 order from Boeing’s competitors Airbus. Although it is not clear, this could have been a political move to exclude Boeing aircraft from the fastest growing market in the world. This would have a huge impact on the US economy as Boeing are the largest exporters in the US and providing 143,000 US jobs. So it is not in fact anything to do with the company itself, but with the countries in a tussle that would harm Boeing for the future.

On top of that China is producing its own aircraft. The commercial aircraft corporation of China or COMAC are producing an aircraft called the C919 to compete with the Boeing 737 and the Airbus A320. This would mean that the success of this aircraft would not be affected by how good it was, but would be affected by if the Chinese government decide it will be successful. This is due to 7 out of the 8 largest airlines in China being state owned, meaning that the Chinese government have the key to 100’s if not 1000’s of orders. And why would they order aircraft from anyone but themselves? Short answer is, they wouldn't. It provides Chinese jobs, grows the economy and due to the Chinese expertise in low cost, high tech manufacturing these airlines would be able to get the C919 cheaper than the Boeing and airbus competitors, meaning it makes more sense in every way to purchase the C919. This is where the main problem lies for Boeing, as it could be completely pushed out of the market in which it needs to be competing to stay the largest airline manufacturer in the world.

Boeing is suffering from a loss of reputation due to the 737 max, is falling prey to the US / China trade war and is also now a victim of the fallout of Covid 19 which has decimated airlines and therefore obliterated demand for new aircraft.

THE DEATH OF THE UK HIGH STREET

Over the Last 10 years we have seen a decrease in sales made on the High Street, this is due to several factors and has caused many businesses to move location or even close down. One of the biggest causes to this happening is the increase in technology usage, which has resulted in 20% of all retail to be done on the internet. Online retail is an alternative to buying products on the High street but is a much more easy and efficient way of doing it. Being able to order anything you want over a device without having to search for it in a shop is appealing to a customer, especially if there is a one-day delivery system such as Amazon.

By taking sales away from the High Street reduces their profit margins and on top of that they already have massive costs. This is another problem faced by High Street retailers, costs such as business rates and rents have been increasing over the years and now are becoming a problem for the retailers. The cost of living in towns and cities have increased and so the cost of rent has also increased. Therefore, the small/start-up businesses looking to make a living on the High Street generally fail soon after entering the High Street and so all that is left is all the major retailers such as Primark. With the major retailers being the survivors means that in the future it would be near impossible for a small business to thrive, this is because when a shop is situated near or next to a big/popular shop their business rates increase.

We are seeing a failing High Street and one that would never return to what it was before, Online retail will continue to increase, costs will rise, and also Out-of-town shopping centres will succeed. Therefore, in the future, Central and local government need to take action and we need to prevent the High Streets from further damage. It is clear change needs to take place and for me, I believe that the High Street should be down- sized, create a more central and focused High Street as well as making the areas above High street shops residential areas. The down-sized shops would become online booths where the customer can come to look, try on and touch the products which would help them to know whether they should order a product online. With this method it allows for both the High Street and the internet to work together instead of working against each other.

If we want to see the High street have change or survive, the sheer costs faced by High street businesses need to decrease. This would help them to increase their profits and help new companies to thrive.

WHO WILL WIN THE STREAMING WAR?

As more and more people decide to cancel their pay-tv subscriptions and make the switch to a streaming platform the more the market grows, especially as there is an estimated $24.8 billion (£20 billion) for the taking. Around six million customers decided to opt out of pay-tv in 2019, these customers are not buying bundle packages anymore and are choosing to subscribe to one of the many streaming services there is. A few years ago, the go to option would be Netflix, but now there are so many choices such as Disney+, Prime video and Apple TV+. All these companies offer different valuable aspects and do all however have their limitations. The decision is becoming harder and harder for customers and knowing which one is to likely to come out on top is possibly even harder to predict.

The obvious choice to go for is Netflix as they have the largest US household penetration rate of 87% and is the market leader. With Amazon’s prime video being second with 53% and Hulu at third with 41.5%. Netflix has also shown that its market share is rather unshakeable, for example when Disney+ was released it was expected that Netflix would lose 25% of its subscribers but they actually lost nearly none. Moreover, the Netflix app is more downloaded than any other streaming app. However, Netflix are now becoming unable to provide content they used from other companies as they are making their own streaming platforms, such as Disney or NBC. Whilst losing some of their most viewed hit shows Netflix are still having to increase their subscription prices to make enough revenue. Netflix is managing to get around this though, as they produce original content that is nominated for top industry awards. Nevertheless, Netflix are having to spend nearly all of their revenue on this original content. In 2019 Netflix spent $15 billion (£12 billion) on producing this content, which is more than Hulu, prime video and Disney+ combined. To stay on top Netflix will have to carry on producing this new content as they cannot use other companies’ content anymore.

The newest streaming platform and arguably most threatening to Netflix is Disney+, not only do they have more money than Netflix because of Disney land and merchandising, they also have a large content library of well know and liked films and TV shows that they don’t have to pay any licensing fees for. Furthermore, they have 61 new shows in development and decades of research on audiences, data and large fan bases. On their first day of launch Disney gained 10 million subscribers which is 5% of the US household penetration rate. Disney also actually has four streaming services as they have already launched ESPN+, they have control of Hulu and owns the Indian streaming service Hotstar.

Netflix’s competitors such as Disney+, Apple TV+ and Prime video are all able to play the long game and get better over time as they are able to afford to do so. Apple TV+ does not have the highest number of subscribers but they certainly have more money to spend on improving their platform compared to Netflix. Amazon and Apple have to start from scratch in the entertainment business, but as they are such huge companies in their own right, they don’t have to solely focus on their streaming platforms. The platforms they have are just a small part of what else they do within their business so they don’t have to rely on it too much to make revenue so the business can survive, unlike Netflix.

These companies are starting off behind the everyone as they don’t have huge content libraries such as Disney and they don’t have a strong user base like Netflix, so they have a lot of catching up to do in the market. Content for these companies to provide is not cheap which will make it a lot harder to catch up to companies such as Disney. The Observer says: “some combination of Netflix, Disney+, Amazon Prime Video and Youtube TV with thrive; Apple TV+, Hulu and HBO will survive (though not without their trouble) and CBS all access and Peacock will struggle to keep pace”. This shows that the smaller companies with smaller fan bases and smaller content libraries will not be able to keep up. Hulu and Apple might be able to stay afloat because they are either backed by Disney or are a massive tech giant. Whilst the winners will be Netflix as they have the advantage of starting off first and Disney because they have such a large fan base and content library.

THE ANTARCTIC TREATY

The regulation of mineral activities was a very controversial issue that dominated Antarctic politics throughout the 1980s because of the rich mineral deposits and oil that had been found during scientific research. A lot of money could be made if Antarctica were to be mined for its resources however possible disagreements between countries on ownership of land could escalate very quickly. Mining in Antarctica would be extremely difficult and expensive due to the harsh climate and the thickness of the ice that would have to be drilled through to reach the deposits. The ice can be up to 5km deep at the thickest point, so it is very expensive to drill through that much ice. The nearest area to Antarctica that is industrialised is Ushuaia in Argentina, which is over 3,000km away. The Drake Passage is where the Atlantic, Pacific and Southern Seas converge creating strong currents and waves up to 8m high. Transportation of minerals and equipment across the Drake Passage from and to Antarctica would be slow and expensive not to mention possibly quite dangerous. All these factors mean that currently, mining in Antarctica is not economically viable.

However due to climate change mining in Antarctica may start to become economically viable as the costs of drilling decrease and other oil reserves become depleted, the reserves in Antarctica will turn a lot of heads. One reason why it would be economically viable is because oil prices per barrel would start to increase as demand for oil increases but there is a limited supply. There would be little spare capacity meaning the prices would be driven up high. Reliable authorities have estimated that it would cost over US$100 per barrel to get oil from Antarctica. If oil prices rise to anywhere around $80 per barrel and continue to rise, then mining in Antarctica starts to seem like an amazing investment. In addition to this the cost of drilling would be significantly lower as climate change is melting away the land ice so actually reaching the deposits will be much cheaper. The Antarctic Treaty ban on mining in Antarctica is up for review in 2048 so that will determine if by that time mining in Antarctica is economically viable. Although sustainable energy will have been improved there will still be a huge demand for oil and there may be a lot of pressure from big oil companies such as Shell or BP to allow mining. Conservationists oppose the move to allow mining, so the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties have called and emergency meeting to discuss the future of the ban on mining in Antarctica. Climate change and the depletion of current oil and mineral deposits are the main factors that will decide whether or not mining in Antarctica is economically viable.

THE STRUGGLES OF THE FARMING INDUSTRY

The past 10 months for Farmers have been extremely difficult with both Covid-19 and the climate not being on our side. Firstly, back in October in 2019 Potato farmers were struggling to harvest their potatoes for early November but some potato farmers have only just recently finished. The rain had caused severe flooding and damage to both the field and crop consequently the tractors couldn't even enter the field as they were getting stuck and it took time and effort to get the tractors out when they got stuck. This meant that Farmers had to wait until it was dry enough to harvest them and they started to harvest the majority of their potatoes between January to April which we all know was when Covid-19 started to take place. This meant that firms such as Mcdonalds started to shut down therefore meaning they were not going to need anymore food.Now, Mcdonalds mainly serve chips with the majority of their meals and they require potatoes and because Mcdonalds started to shut down they no longer needed potatoes therefore leaving certain Potato farmers; who had a contract with mccains who supply Mcdonalds, no where to sell there potatoes meaning that they have lost money because they have spent a lot of time and money into making sure that they harvest their potatoes and in the end they cant sell them and will have to store them in their yard.

Finally, between March and June across the United Kingdom there has been very little rain leaving the soil to become extremely dry and no moisture in the ground leaving it very difficult for crops to grow. However certain farmers could cope with it because they were able to irrigate their crops meaning that they would pump water out of a source of water and spray their crops with water however with the sheer dryness this wasn't enough and farmers were hoping for rain desperately. However Farmers with little money couldn't afford to do this and therefore their crops aren't growing meaning that their yield will be very low in the summer making profits low because they need water to help their crops grow. With the little amount of rain this therefore meant that yields are going to be low for all farmers in the UK and therefore Profits will be low because Variable costs such as Fertilizer and Nitrogen to help your crops grow and to kill off weeds will come to a expensive total and profits will potentially not make farmers make back the money that they have put into their fields.

Overall Farming has been an extremely challenging year for all types of farmers and could be a year to forget for some unfortunate people .

THE UK PROPERTY MARKET

Since the financial crash in 2008, where the price of housing in the UK fell by almost 16% the costs of buying a house in the UK has been rising significantly. In July of 2019 the average cost of a UK house was just under £220,000, a record high. Early in 2020 however the UK along with the rest of the world were hit with the COVID-19 virus, a global pandemic.

Due to the extended lockdown period, many people have been struggling financially as they are not been able to work during this time period. Many people have been furloughed or worse still lost their jobs completely. This has forced most households to try to save money and has made them unlikely to spend large amounts of money on new houses. This is shown by the UK property transactions graph below and as we can see there has been a huge decline in the number of houses bought in the recent months. However, as the housing price begins to decline, this may attract more financially stable people who do not have to worry as much, to invest in property now as they will get it for a lower price. Due to government subsidies for first time house buyers, this may also attract younger people to invest in real estate now as the prices are lower anyway and the government will help them to get more out of their money.

Research has shown the large-scale changes that the lockdown and the pandemic has had on the housing market. House sales are down 52% compared to the same time one year ago. It has also been predicted that housing prices will fall 4% this year alone and these affects will continue to be in place for a long time once the virus has been eradicated. There has also been evidence of a change in people preferences over the last few years. City centre properties have become increasingly more expensive and we have seen many people moving out of city areas and opting for larger housing further out in the countryside or in the suburbs. Transport links have improved, and people are generally happier to be out in quieter rural areas with larger gardens when they have children, especially when they have families.

During lockdown many people have been working from home and this has sped up the process of the change from working daily in an office to working virtually from your own home. Therefore, a house in the suburbs with large garden space and more space inside the house to use as a home office is looking very appealing, and if needs be then the improved options for transport are enough for people to get into offices fewer times per week. The alternative argument to this could be that post pandemic, many shops and offices in city centres may close. There is then a possibility that if buildings in city centres are no longer required for business real estate that these buildings, in terms of prices and availability, will become more attractive as residential property.

Having looked at the current trends, I personal believe the global pandemic will continue to lead to a decrease in sales whilst the pandemic is ongoing. Once the pandemic is over and people begin to become more financially stable, I would anticipate that we will start to see the housing market recover but slowly as many people maybe out of work for some time. Those who have the financial means however will use the low housing prices to their advantage and buy properties. I believe that many people with families will look to buy bigger properties outside the cities because they are able to work from home as this will be much more the norm in the working world. They don’t even need to be so close to the mainline stations as they won’t be travelling into the main cities as much so this will push demand even further out to smaller villages and countryside.

I do think it will be interesting to watch what happens in city centres though as the younger generation without families might be keen to move in and live centrally near the bars and restaurants if prices fall because of the surplus space and availability. Whatever happens though I think that the housing market will take quite some time to recover.

THE UK MACROECONOMY

Corona virus has had a massive effect on the economy as lockdown has cause the closure of many businesses, generating much less consumer spending and investment which are both components of aggregate demand, we have also seen a massive increase in government spending which is predicted to be around £337bn for this financial year with spending in may alone being expected to be over 9 times that of last May, this increase of government spending has been caused by furlough and spending on healthcare.

Also the MPC have cut interest rates to 0.1% in an attempt to use the transmission mechanism to increase spending as interest rates were dropped there is less incentive to save, however as consumer confidence dropped massively, it caused consumption to fall and the fall in interest rates had little effect on consumer spending, as shown on the graph, interest rates were expected to rise in 2020 as in 2018 there was the first increase since before the financial crisis in 2009, however this increase was prevented on the 18th of July 2020 when interest rates reached a record low for the UK, also the UK interest rates may go negative like Switzerland which is currently at -0.75 where consumers and businesses receive money for taking out loans the aim of negative interest rates is to encourage banks and other investors to invest their available capital in the economy rather than parking it with central banks.

As consumption and investment have fallen massively, AD has fallen causing a massive fall in GDP, with the decline in April alone being 3 times greater than the fall during 2008 to 2009 economic crisis with GDP in April 2020 falling to -20.4% and with much greater impacts to come in the long term.

WILL SARACENS RECOVER FROM THE SALARY CAP SCANDAL?

Rugby union is marred in controversy at the moment with the English club Saracens being at the epicentre of that. The English premiership, like other major leagues such as the NFL, has a salary cap system in place to ensure the financial viability of all clubs, to control inflationary pressures on costs that the clubs pay and to ensure a level playing field for clubs to make a competitive league that doesn’t turn into a monopoly, with one or two clubs dominating. For the 2019-20 season, the cap was at £7 million, plus two excluded players whose salaries lie outside the cap. Saracens were found to have breached that cap, currently being almost £2 million over that figure.

There are obviously measures in place to stop clubs breaching this rule, yet Saracens managed to remain fairly undetected in the past three seasons in breaking it. They did this by paying players wages through co-investments in property between club owner Nigel Wray and many key players and big names such as Owen Farrell and Maro Itoje. This obviously begs the question: was it cheating or just clever business?

The authorities believed that it was cheating, and evidently other premiership clubs feel cheated as they have all complied with the salary cap and have been playing, and in most cases losing, to a team that broke the salary cap and were therefore cheating. There is a big argument that this gave Saracens the advantage they needed to win 4 out of the last 5 premiership titles. The club have denied that these co-investments were an attempt to cheat the salary cap yet have accepted the harsh punishments they have been dealt, including relegation and a £5.36 million fine.

Economically, Saracens will be hit hard by this as not only are they losing money to the fines they have to pay, they will also lose money generated from playing in the top league as they will lose sponsorships and matchday income playing in the championship. As they still have the financial support of the very successful businessman Nigel Wray, who is estimated to be worth around £315 million, they should survive financially. Moreover, many of the club’s big names have committed their long-term future to the club, such as England internationals Jamie George and the Vunipola brothers.

There is no question therefore that Saracens will be back among the big time soon and this is due to the environment they have created and the loyalty they have earned from their players. Rugby clubs are businesses and Saracens are more successful than most, partly due to the investments they have had, and partly due to the great work that coach Mark McCall has done in creating an environment where players want to play at, and despite being relegated and humbled, players want to stay at instead of moving to rival clubs. There aren’t many businesses that would see so many people remain at in the midst of controversy and that is why despite all this, Saracens will come out stronger and closer than ever and will be back winning trophies in no time. It is clear to see that despite all the controversy, Saracens have built something special and although their reputation and credibility has been tarnished, this can’t take away from the fact that they have done some great work, both on and off the pitch, and will survive this scandal both as a business, and a rugby club.

HOW DOES THE FILM INDUSTRY IMPACT ECONOMIC GROWTH?

It is well known that the film industry is a leading form of art that has had a great impact over society through the last and current decade. Society is reflected in movies and in turn movies influence society by changes in representations, challenging audience’s morals and transforming viewers’ opinions. However, it is easy to forget that filmmaking is a normal moneymaking business, if it doesn’t make money, it won't survive. So, like any other business, it drives economic growth. Films are a part of economic growth due to high engrossing things such as ticket sales, theater concessions and film merchandise. On an opening weekend of a big film, millions of dollars or pounds are made off just one movie alone. While most would think that movie theaters make most of their money off ticket sales, one of the biggest ways they make their money is through concession stands. By selling all the popcorn, soda, and candy, 85% of a movie theatre’s profit is based off concessions. Some movies come with a specific fan base, meaning you need to sell items for that fan base. Film studios make more money from film-related merchandising than they do from the films themselves. These being things such as posters, action figures, blanks, t-shirts, jewellery, etc. Films that have shown major success in merchandising revenue would be Star Wars, E.T., Batman and Toy Story.

Film and television production creates and supports jobs for millions in front of and behind the camera, while generating a valuable and sought-after global export. As stated by the Motion Picture Association of America, the television and film industry support 2.1 million jobs and pays over $139 billion in wages annually as a private sector employer. When a movie or television show shoots on location, it brings jobs, revenue, and related infrastructure development, providing an immediate boost to the local economy. For example, Marvel’s Black Panther involved more than 3,100 local workers in Georgia in America who took home more than $26.5 million in wages. In New York, Oscar-nominated films The Post and The Greatest Showman contributed more than $108 million to the state’s local economy. As Technology improves more jobs will be on offer and big-budget movies will make more money, this will increase the impact a film has on the economy.

IS COMPANY CULTURE A MYTH?

The modern work culture movement has convinced leaders that a single, unified company culture is the solution to driving employee engagement and organizational performance. This philosophy suggests that when you crack the culture formula, the impact is something close to mainlining adrenaline into your employees. This culture is at the forefront of companies like Zappos an online shoe company that hires there employees based on if they fit in with the culture of the business .The flip side, of course, is the implication that companies that don’t have world-class, fast-moving cultures are destined to become roadkill for what is zooming up behind them.

The problem with culture is that humans are complex and establishing a consistent ethos across a large organization is unrealistic and can be counterproductive. Company culture seeks emotional consistency at scale. If we’re not careful we can spend millions of dollars trying to instigate a collective mindset that is insincerely held by most employees. Although this is true some of the most successful businesses that base themselves off their culture offer their new employees’ money. If they want to quit because they don’t enjoy their new job showing that the employees that work at companies with strong cultures do it because they also believe in it.

Despite talk of company culture, the ADP Leadership Institute recently published a global survey of employee engagement showing that corporate values had very limited impact on employee experience. What mattered was the team that people were in - who they worked with, rather than the culture of the firm. I believe that both factors are equal in importance as if you disagree with the fundamental beliefs of the company that you are working for you are clearly going to be less motivated to do your job. As well as if you can’t work to the best of your ability in the group you are in you will be less productive and not motivated to work.

Ultimately I believe that culture is not a myth as even if you are split into small groups there still will have to be a common belief in the group as, if not then that group will be counterproductive, so even if you have separate sections of a business with a different culture it will increase production a lot more than not having it there.

THE RISE OF THE GAMING INDUSTRY

The gaming industry is expected to become one of the leading industries across the world as it reaches an all time high of generated sales at around $134.6 billion annually as of 2018, and is expected to have a significant increase and rise in sales.The industry has been successful as it has been minimally affected due to the global pandemic compared to other industries which have lost consumers. The gaming industry earns 49% of its sales through mobile gaming which generates $77.2 billions dollars each year of which its revenue rises 13.3 % year on year.Compared to the other parts industry the mobile industry makes the greatest amounts of revenue compared to other sources due to the low barrier of entry to be used as over two fifths of the the world owns a mobile device as well as a wide range of free to play games with in app purchases.

The gaming industry has been successful as a whole during the pandemic as research has shown that video games offer a way for people to fulfil psychological needs without having to leave their houses and break self isolation. Additionally console gaming has been on the rise as many companies have looked to sell most of their games digitally which has allowed them to cut off retail market competition and raise their revenue, for example the games company Nintendo sold almost half of its games digitally which has helped to raise the company's profits by over 41%. Finally the gaming industry has proven to rise and outcompete other industries as in 2020 e-sports had a greater viewership of more than 70 million people for a finals compared for the NBA, as this industry improves and develops it can only be expected that it will outperform and outcompete other once larger industries.

FLYING INTO TURBULENCE

The aviation industry needs to prepare to take into more consideration the enormous issue regarding global warming. The airline industry continues succeeding and increases in popularity annually. Research has shown that since 2009, global air passengers have grown by 80%. This is the fastest in any decade since World War 2. Most airports are beginning to look at expanding such as the largest airports such as the ones in Istanbul and Beijing that were opened, holding capacity of 90 million travellers per year. With the guilt that is due to the responsibility of causing irreversible environmental damage, firms and regulators are hopeful on the concept that the electronic revolution will not only take place on ground but as well in the skies. This would be highly beneficial for the aviation industry coping with the inevitable boom in travel and the hopefully effective reduction in greenhouse gas emission.

In 2020 we are looking at the growth in the industry slowly begin to slow down. The blame lays partially due to weak economies but are also accompanied by environmental rules. Initially the decline seems strange. With the aviation industry excluded from the Paris agreement on limiting global warming and it only holding 2.4% of blame regarding man-made greenhouse emission. This share is forecasted to increase substantially by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, by as much as a rise between three and sevenfold by 2050 if no drastic change was to occur. Effort to reduce this needs to take place if globally we wished to care for the environment and inevitably steer clear on dooming the planet in the future. Actions and decisions need to be introduced as soon as possible in order to keep the global warming issue in control and to not let it escalate dramatically.

The ICAO are introducing a scheme to beneficially limit aviation emission, Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA). The UN deal designed to help the aviation industry reach its “aspirational goal” to make all growth in international flights after 2020 “carbon neutral”. International aviation alone is responsible for around 1.3% of global CO2 emissions, according to ICAO. CORSIA means that from 2020 airlines will have to buy off-sets for any additional carbon produced by international flights above existing level. However it is criticised still by green groups, claiming that the scheme is limp and the unsuccess of the scheme is evident in the study produced by the European Commission in 2017 that have found that 85% of its off-set projects had failed to reduce the greenhouse commission. This proves problematic in the sense of tackling the issue by keeping the damage in control.

There is a rising support, particularly in Europe, to tax aviation more heavily. Few countries are proceeding to take it into practice such as Sweden introduced tax on air fares in 2018, with France following in 2020 and Netherlands in 2021. This would hopefully encourage more countries to take it on board as well, along with Sweden’s ‘flygskam’ (flight shame) movement, which encourages travellers to avoid getting around by plane.

In addition to tackling the global warming situation, manufacturers of airlines will thus have to massively consider trying to work out a way to make their aircrafts less polluting. An unlikely effective procedure would be to start using biofuels of plant matter and as well as going electric, but they come with its own limitations. The hopeful aspirations to reach net-zero in carbon emission by 2050 remains highly difficult.

CORONAVIRUS AND INEQUALITY IN THE US

Covid-19 has exacerbated insecurity and inequality across the globe. The US is a prime example of this, mainly due to the gaps in the country's social insurance systems and labour market regulations, including the lack of paid leave, unstable schedules, and limited access to childcare; hence leaving the United States particularly vulnerable to external shocks. Studies have shown that ethnic minorities will experience disproportionate health and economic impacts from the coronavirus pandemic, for example, despite accounting for 13% of the US population, black Americans account for 34% of confirmed cases, 36.4% of hospitalizations, and 21% of deaths.

Arguably the largest contributing factor is the United States health system, which has been subject to criticism for many years. Healthcare insurance rates reveal the extent of the issue with rates among nonelderly Blacks being 11%, Hispanics 19%, AIANs 22%, and NHOPI 9%, all are higher than for Whites (8%). Additionally, chronic medical conditions such as diabetes, asthma, kidney disease, and obesity, all of which have been linked with worse outcomes of Covid-19, are more common in African American than white populations. When considering these factors, it highlights the existing disparities and inequalities that ethnic minorities in America have to face. As Thomas LaVeist (Dean of the School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine at Tulane University) states “Each of these factors, many of them the result of policy decisions, play a role in producing disproportionate death rates”.

Employment is also a large aspect of the disproportionate death rates. Minorities are more likely to be employed in low-wage jobs which are now at high risk of being lost because of the economic downturn. Whilst the national unemployment rate in May 2020 fell from 14.7% in April 2020 to 13.3%, racial disparities remained virtually unchanged. In April, the black unemployment rate was 16.7%, in May it was 16.8%. Meanwhile white Americans saw the largest decrease in unemployment of any racial group, going from 14.2% in April to 12.4% in May. Moreover, because minorities are more likely to be employed in low-wage jobs, these groups are also more likely to live in dense urban areas, further adding to their risk of exposure to the virus.

It has been just over a decade since the global financial crisis, however many families, especially families from ethnic groups, never bounced back from the crisis principally because policymakers responses were not targeted at the underlying roots of economic inequality within the US. America’s long history of segregation appears to be at the base of these inequalities in health, housing, education and political representation and so policymaker’s’ response to the coronavirus recession will be most effective if directed at these underlying problems of economic inequality. This is not history repeating, as Dr. David Ansell (the vice president for community health equality at Chicago’s Rush University Medical Center) states, “It’s history continuing, repeating means it’s stopped, but it hasn’t stopped. It’s the depths of inequality that put people at a higher risk.” The Coronavirus pandemic has shed a light on the huge inequalities within the United States, inequalities that have yet to be combatted. In order for these groups to recover from the effects of this epidemic, funding must be directed towards the deep rooted injustices within the country so that ethnic minority communities will not be as hard hit by another crisis as they have been by the coronavirus crisis as well as the financial crisis. The Presidential administration must take action and address the growing problems that are bubbling beneath the surface of the country. Demonstrations regarding police brutality and racial inequality taking place in America display the deep frustration towards the lack of progress that the country has made when tackling racial injustices and oppression. Coronavirus has emphasised these problems and failures to control the pandemic are now distorting the US economy and seriously undermining its economic stability, failures that are further fueled by the vulnerabilities detailed previously that are prevalent across US society and the US economy. Now is the time for the US to battle against the systemic racism so apparent in its society and to demolish and condemn these long standing inequalities that have been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic.

ARCHITECTURE AND URBAN PLANNING

The characteristics of a building eg. the design and location and price are key influences of the demand for these buildings, as often consumers/ producers will pay more for buildings which are of better quality and design, therefore making design an important aspect of architecture, especially in the housing market. An example of this is london, prices are high as there is little space for development, which creates scarcity and therefore the prices go up, so planning in urban areas like London must account for the lack of space and the specific target audiences. Also architectural projects can create increases in investment and tourism, which generates money into the economy having a knock on affect on other nearby businesses and the prices of housing near to these locations.

So when economies are strong and gdp is high they will spend more money into buildings and architectural structures to continue to attract high levels of tourism an example of this is after the construction of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao which went from an industrial port city with little tourism to generating around $1B yearly in tourist income. Therefore as urbanisation is becoming more important more architectural structures are being built due to increased demand and resources, and in most cases countries with thriving economies can be determined by their level of architectural development, so architecture can be used as an indicator of a countries economy or economy in the past.

FREIGHT CAPABILITY IN CHINA

Air cargo is playing an increasingly important role in the fight against COVID-19, as a substantial number of passenger aircraft have been grounded due to the pandemic.

Cargo flights have been growing in number and frequency between China and 84 international destinations in 51 nations and regions. In May, the number of outbound cargo flights from the Chinese mainland reached 4,910, surging 113.66 percent year-on-year. The number of inbound cargo flights to the Chinese mainland came in at 4,383, jumping 93.42 percent year-on-year.

Airlines can receive 80 percent compensation for costs involved in converting passenger aircraft into freighters. Although the cost compensation can hardly make up for the loss in passenger flights, the measures are sending signals that the government supports airlines.

At this stage, international cargo flights are more profitable. Even if there is no subsidy, carriers will actively carry out cargo flights and convert their commercial aircraft to freighters," he said.

Meanwhile, China's domestic air travel market is gradually picking up after being ravaged for months by the COVID-19 pandemic.

THE SMARTPHONE INDUSTRY

Smartphones are things that most of us take for granted; while they are expensive, the utility they provide to any kind of person often justifies the price. In fact, most people use theirs daily for multiple years, so even with the prices of today’s top phones, it is arguable that the consumer surplus in this market is still huge. The consumers of today, though, rarely give the background of their favourite products much consideration, especially with such a complex device as a smartphone, which fulfils the function of hundreds of the tools that came before it. Not only are people unaware of the technological miracle powering a simple-looking device, most people are unaware of the impact that these devices have on political and environmental conditions.

Many smartphones are not build with sustainability in mind. We have all heard of the pervasive planned obsolescence tactics, where phones stop receiving software updates or are deliberately made slower in order to push their owners into throwing them out and buying the latest, shiniest model. Removable batteries are a thing of the past, despite the great usability advantage that swapping out a dead battery with a spare full one can bring. With this, it has become common practice to buy an entirely new phone when the only thing wrong with the old one is the battery. All of this shows that the profit of a smartphone manufacturer is prioritised over and often comes at a great cost to the environment. In 2016 alone, the world generated 44.7 million metric tons of e-waste, roughly 10% of which was from smartphones. These materials mostly go to landfill, rather than being processed safely or recycled. It is estimated that the total value of all raw materials in e-waste landfill was €55bn, so you might think that it would be profitable for firms to try to recover these materials rather than dump them in South East Asia, but they don’t seem to have caught on to that yet. Until they do, the problem will only get worse.

It’s not just old smartphones that are problematic. The production of new ones is, too. The materials and labour have to come from somewhere, and the sources often attach dark stories to an otherwise innocent-looking device. Foxconn, the company that manufactures iPhones, ticks this box in just about every way possible. Its employees frequently commit suicide due to the low pay and awful working conditions, and one man committed suicide in 2010 after being beaten by security guards for losing a prototype of the iPhone 4. Foxconn “solved” the problem by installing nets outside its factories so employees couldn’t kill themselves. The company continues to violate labour laws and basic human decency. After the fallout of the 2010 suicides prompted many other Foxconn workers to leave, the government of Henan told 100,000 vocational students that they would work at Foxconn to fill the gaps or they would not be allowed to graduate.

Further back in the supply chain, nearly all smartphone manufacturers rely on tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold extracted in the DRC. Child labour and dangerous working conditions are commonplace here, and the profit from mining fuels the various wars, civil and otherwise, which have been raging for decades. No protection is given to the people who have to work with hazardous materials. The living conditions of people in the DRC are terrible because the wars have caused famine and disease. Roughly two-thirds of the population are affected by malnutrition.

All of this makes it painfully clear that electronics manufacturers will gladly destroy thousands of lives and cause long-lasting damage to the world if it means they can increase the numbers that matter most to them. Think about this next time you want an upgrade – how much longer can your current phone really last? Often a replacement battery will add at least two years to its lifespan. Recycle or sell your current phone instead of throwing it away and consider getting a model from one of the few companies that actually care about the world. They do exist, they just haven’t got quite the same publicity that the main manufacturers do.

THE USE OF MATHEMATICS IN ECONOMICS

Though economics is technically a social science, students pursuing this field receive a good foundation in math. Determining how resources are allocated requires a mathematical understanding of how to calculate those resources, the cost of distribution and assessing other quantitative measures. Thus, the field of economics is riddled with mathematical equations and applications. And the types of math used in economics are primarily algebra, calculus and statistics. Algebra is used to make computations such as total cost and total revenue. Calculus is used to find the derivatives of utility curves, profit maximization curves and growth models. Statistics allows economists to make forecasts and determine the probability of an occurrence.

Decision-Making

Economists are hired to determine the risk or probable outcome of an event. For example, hospitals want to know what the risks are of dying from an operation and if the benefits are worth it. The National Institutes of Health explains the relationship between litigation pressure and rates of C-sections and VBACs. Because of the increased risk of litigation, some states ban vaginal birth after C- section, or VBACs. This policy was likely made after an economist assessed what the statistical risk was to the mother and weighed it against the cost of a malpractice lawsuit based on this number. Thus, the decision is an economic one. Economists working for pharmaceutical companies make similar math computations to assess if the risk of taking a drug outweighs its potential benefits. The statistical model is the best and most appropriate to do the economic CBA(cost benefit analysis) for the whole economic agents.

Potential

Economists are revising the way calculations are performed to account for intangible effects like pollution. Economists currently do not calculate the effects of rain forest depletion or water pollution into things like profit maximization or business costs, for example. The Economics of the Environment and Natural Resources explain that economic standards such as GDP are inadequate when measuring the health of the economy. A new field is emerging called natural resource accounting which attempts to attribute a dollar value to these costs. And we hope that the mathematical skill can develop further to be a sophisticated tool to research economy. That means the economy will enter to a more quantitative stage.

THE FASHION INDUSTRY IN CRISIS

"No-one wants to buy clothes to sit at home in"-Simon Wolfson

Normally at this time of year as we get closer to the summer holiday season many of us would be updating our summer wardrobe, to incorporate the newest trends, so we can look our best as we soak up the summer sun. However the global lockdown due to the CoronaVirus pandemic has brought the world's summer plans to a halt, and fashion revenue to a standstill.

Instead of the usual summer boom in fashion sales there has been a 34% decrease in March alone, showing the true impact of a global lockdown on fashion sales. This decrease in sales has been caused by two factors:

1. Shops selling clothes have been deemed as non-essential services by the government and therefore have been closed, to protect public health. 2. Demand for clothes has decreased, as people’s disposable income has decreased, and a national realisation that you don’t need new clothes to sit at home.

Even in this modern world of online shopping and E-commerce, the fashion industry still relies on the physical high street for 80% of its profits, so although online sales may have risen as customers are bored at home browsing websites for inspiration, this is not enough for brands to retain their usual summer profits. So I am sure brands rejoiced when the government announced that they were allowed to open on the 15th of June. But will the highstreet ever look the same again? The shops may be open again, but they are not back to normal. Social distancing still applies meaning that less customers are allowed in store, and staff will have an increased workload due to stringent cleaning regimes which will be applied to protect both customers and workers. It is still too early to tell if opening shops will attract enough customers to the stores, and make up for the time lost in the abyss which is lockdown.

CORONAVIRUS AND ITS IMPACT ON ONLINE BUSINESS

The coronavirus pandemic has impacted every part of people’s lives, from the places we can go to the way we spend our time, to the priorities we have and the way we spend our money. Of course, this has wide-ranging impacts for marketing, advertising and ecommerce as well as a number of other sectors like travel and entertainment. Due to lockdown restrictions and social distancing measures, shopping for non-essential goods in places such as retail parks have become limited, therefore encouraging more people to shop online. Ecommerce sales were about 40% higher for the week of May 26-June 1, compared with its pre-pandemic benchmark week Feb. 24-March 1 which demonstrates the increase in ecommerce sales as a result of the pandemic. This has therefore encouraged many businesses who have previously gained a majority of their revenue from shop floor sales, to move to online services.

Moreover, due to the increase in demand for online services, businesses may be able to increase shipping and postage fees as they know the consumer has very little options to collect or buy the product in stores, therefore potentially increasing the businesses revenue as a result of the pandemic.

However, it’s not just businesses that sell goods that are affected by the pandemic, it’s also businesses that sell services. An example of this are training businesses. Normally, training businesses would deliver the training at the customer businesses’ workplace, but as a result of the pandemic, that may not be possible. This therefore has forced some training businesses to use sites like Zoom or Microsoft Teams to deliver online training. However, this may come with various challenges. For example, communication of instructions over a video call may be vague and complicated which may lead to an unsuccessful outcome, as well as there being the possibility of connection issues. On the other hand, there may be some positives of online training. For example, the business wouldn’t have to travel to the customer’s workplace to deliver the training which would therefore result in a decrease in transport costs for the business as well as it saving valuable time which could be used for training. To conclude, the coronavirus pandemic has forced many businesses to change and adapt to e- commerce sales increasing which has had both positive and negative effects on companies.

COVID 19 AND GLOBALISATION

Globalization is the process by which businesses or other organizations develop international influence or start operating on an international scale. Coronavirus has affected all people in one way or another along with the majority of companies throughout the world.

Energy The oil war between Saudi Arabia and the USA had already put pressure on the energy industry before the pandemic. Oil prices have reduced drastically due to the demand collapsing and as large offices and retail premises have been closed, this has reduced the amount of energy being consumed and less pollution has resulted in clearer air and water, letting the environment breathe.

Real estate With more people having to work from home, the demand for large office space is decreasing considerably as more and more large firms realise they can run effectively from home. An example of this is RBS who have 66,000 members of staff working from home effectively. Redundancy will have a major impact on house prices as people are being reluctant to buy or move property during this pandemic due to not only the uncertainty of their financial status as they may not be able to afford new mortgages or maintain payments but also as more jobs could be lost in the coming months. House prices will therefore fall due to reduced demand. Banks have already instigated mortgage payment holidays in order to enable people to reduce their outgoings. On the other hand the build to rent sector will benefit from the reduction in home ownership and will increase whilst the home ownership market is suppressed.

Manufacturing goods Manufacturing has been affected by demand for luxury items decreasing, social distancing in factories and the overall reduction in demand through the decrease in spending on certain products. If demand falls for a certain product or the manufacturing process is limited by social distancing then a reduction in production is created. This may increase prices but reduce the size of the company resulting in redundancies.Through thousands of people being furloughed specifically in the UK and others globally being restricted to work, this has impacted on manufacturing goods and services. It has led to delayed deliveries along with less output produced therefore supply of demands and goods has changed significantly. In the future there is no doubt that companies will become more reliant on receiving their stock from their own country.

Travel The global travel industry has been hit the hardest by the pandemic and is not expected to be back to the 2019 levels until 2023 at the earliest. Restrictions on travel, safety concerns, social distancing and consumer confidence are all factors in restricting this sector to recover quickly. As only essential travel has been directed by the government, millions of people have become unemployed. With people becoming reluctant to fly, countries that rely on tourism for their income, will really suffer. One example of an airline that has recently become reliant on a government bailout is Tui. There is no doubt that more airlines will contract or collapse as a result of this terrible pandemic however this reduction in travel will have an extremely positive impact on our planet.

High street retail Corona virus has left high streets and retail premises in real struggle with consumer behaviour shifting towards reliance on online shopping. Due to the expansion in online shopping, warehousing and distribution centres will increase dramatically. With jobs being lost and more and more people becoming unemployed, they are being careful with their money. The demand for many luxury items such as clothing, jewellery and technology will decrease.

IS GDP THE BEST WAY TO MEASURE GLOBAL PROSPERITY?

Historically, GDP has been the main determinant as to whether a country is doing well or not but in recent years there has been opposition to this; people believe there is more to prosperity than economic output.

How well an economy is doing is based on GDP figures; GDP is gross domestic product and is defined as the total market value of all goods and services produced in an economy in a given year. It originates from the late 1920s and 1930s as USA and the UK started to try to measure the economy after the Great Depression. It was later used in the Second World War to ensure the economy could cope with the war effort. It was meant to be a measurement of economic welfare but ended up being a measurement of economic production, two different things. Nowadays, it is used as a tool to compare different countries in terms of economic output.

For most people, happiness and having a good life is not just based on material goods and money but on social and psychological factors to do with participation, identity and having a meaning to your life. This is shown in this statistic: in the UK, the percentage reporting themselves ‘very happy’ declined from 52% in 1957 to 36% in 2005, despite real income doubling in that period. This shows that to people in the UK at least, having more money doesn’t mean more happiness. Recently, how well the economy is doing dominates our ideas of success which has led to many policy makers making decisions which would help the economy but could lower the quality of life. Qatar had an HDI (Human development index) figure of 0.848 in 2018 and a GDP per capita figure of $68,793, whereas Finland has an HDI figure of 0.925 and a GDP per capita figure of $50,152. HDI is the measurement most widely used for measuring not only economic factors but also social ones. These statistics show that despite the people of Qatar having more money on average, they have a lower quality of life. This shows that prosperity depends on so many factors other than economic output and how much money a person in a country earns on average. These statistics do not show you the massive inequalities in Qatar due to the oil and gas industries. The wealth created by these has not been evenly spread as migrant workers who have come to help build stadiums for the World Cup in 2022 earn as little as $300 a month, compared to some of the richest businessman with a net worth of over a billion. This shows that a new way of measuring must be found that can accurately and fairly represent countries in terms of happiness and wellbeing.

There is an alternative measurement called the Social Prosperity Index which is based solely social indicators. It should be used as a complement to GDP statistics and used instead of HDI as it has more components and takes into account more factors. It consists of three basic categories: basic needs of survival, like food and shelter, building blocks for a better life, education and healthcare, and opportunities to pursue dreams, like free speech. This measurement has shown that some heavyweights like USA are underperforming in the Social Prosperity index whereas Costa Rica are the best at turning GDP into good social welfare as despite having a low GDP per capita figure, it’s Social Prosperity Index figures match those of many western well-developed countries.

The Social Prosperity Index may not be the final answer to an accurate representation of all countries in terms of happiness, but it is a good step in the right direction. There must be something done to stop the misunderstanding with GDP statistics and for global governments to make decisions that do not only help a country economically but also socially.

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH

Biomedical researches are extremely important especially for improving people’s quality of life and standards of living. How biomedical researches work is that scientists look for ways to prevent and treat diseases that cause illnesses and deaths in people, or even identifying carriers of the diseases like the Lynch syndrome, which it increases the risk of different types of cancer.

So what are the economic impacts of putting government spending into researches then? In Nebraska, USA, funding about $240 million into researches in 2001 has caused an expansion of $5.5 billion in the economy, meaning that every dollar invested, $23.38 has returned as a result to the economy since 2001. As money is given to the industries of biomedical researches, an increase in quantity of labour Is required where 14,000 sustainable jobs are created. This has an impact of increasing the total tax revenue for the government due to the increase in jobs and increase in income tax.

‘These funds are used to safe and improve the lives of Nebraska citizens through biomedical research’, according to Dr Kratochvil. The funding led to better medical therapies and better health for the people of Nebraska. The funding fuelled a 30% increase in National Institutes of Health Funding, and due to the increase in quantity and quality of labour, around 900 families in Nebraska have been identified as carriers of the Lynch syndrome who previously are not aware of it. There are also multiplier effect caused by the initial funding. It has fuelled additional extramural research funding. Boys Town National Research Hospital saw a 75% increase in funding over 10 years, with one centre alone, focused on improving communication and academic outcomes for children with hearing loss and communication disorders, bringing in more than $12 million.

In conclusion, funding in medical research have both short run and long run economics impact for the state. Not only people are able to live with a higher standard of living, but also money can be used for investments in new, more advanced technologies, and could potentially reduce negative externality like air pollution and triggering health problems like asthma to elderlies at home, and as a result, reducing stress put on hospitals. Small businesses could also be set up and increase the real overall output in the economy.

STOCK MARKET INVESTMENT

When discussing economic growth, economists typically focus on the importance of aggregate demand and supply as factors and assume the stock market is solely beneficial to market investors and listed businesses. However, the stock market is an underestimated factor of economic growth, hence benefitting the country as a whole.

Using the following example, it becomes clear how allowing entrepreneurs to gain finance can create jobs: a previously private company goes public by listing themselves on the stock market. This company can now use the money funded by consumer purchase of shares, to expand. This expansion creates jobs directly, thus stimulating economic growth. If the company is innovative, ie Tesla, the way that it’s success is public displayed on the market could encourage other startups in the same area, ie electric cars, leading to more research and investment in said field. In effect this expands LRAS as shown.

The second way in which the stock market benefits the colony is by reducing misallication by allowing more choice for investors. The stock market allows investment that differs from bonds or housing investment. By increasing the room for decisions, investors become more mindful, making well thought decisions about where their money goes. Therefore capital is properly allocated to the most productive industries, boosting economic growth in a balanced manner whilst reducing market failure. In other words, the bigger the stock market, the less the gamble, consequently the more efficient the distribution of capital becomes.

Ultimately, the extent to which the stock market affects the economy can be answered by the stock market crash of 1929, a key factor in precipitating the Great Depression of the 1930’s. This proved that a collapse in share prices has the potential to cause widespread economic disruption.

WHAT IS A TAX HAVEN?

A tax haven is an normally offshore country that offers benefits to residents (just citizens in some cases) and foreign individuals for most of the countries to acquire a unique tax situation unobtainable in most other countries. In most cases this is a little or no income taxation as well as other possible tax reductions such as corporation, inherence and capital gains tax. These unique results of living in a tax haven make it very attractive for businesses and wealthy individuals looking to withhold more of their wealth and income.

Some examples of tax havens: • Andorra- No gift, inheritance, capital transfer tax • The Bahamas- no personal income, capital gains, inheritance tax • Belize-no capital gains tax • Bermuda- no income, capital gains, capital transfer tax • The British Virgin Islands- no capital gains, capital transfer tax. (famous for offshore companies) • The Cayman Islands – (famous offshore banking centre) • The Channel Islands- non-residents are not taxed on foreign income • The Cook Islands- (famous for bank confidentiality) • Hong Kong- no capital tax (low other taxes) • The isle of man- no corporation, capital gains, inheritance, wealth tax • Mauritius – (low tax heaven) • Liechtenstein- (famous for low taxes) • Monaco- no personal income, capital gains tax) • Panama- no tax on foreign source income • Switzerland- (famous for offshore banking and lower taxes) • St. Kitts and Nevis- (famous for bank secrecy and 15-year tax holiday)

The way in which these countries’ economies don’t crash as they don’t receive the forms of tax that other countries receive from things like income and inheritance tax; is that they gain revenue from other ways. For example, Monaco is one of the most famous tax havens. It receives its revenue by charging extremely high prices for everything, and the government takes around 20% from everything that is spend in Monaco, that’s how it affords to keep its head above water. However, it does mean that a bottle of water can cost up to €5 where in other parts of Europe it would cost extremely less.

How do I become eligible? It is different for every country. In a lot of cases it can take time to be eligible, as you have to prove you have a connection/reason to be in the country. Otherwise everyone would just set up a free Monacans bank account and be eligible for lower tax. It doesn’t work like that. In most cases you must have to become a resident/citizen and live there for a certain amount of time per year. For example, in Switzerland you must live there for 90 consecutive days a year, or at least 180 days over 12 months to become a resident taxpayer. But in other cases, it may take more dedication, like you have to marry a resident/citizen and or live in the country from between 5-15 years. It varies from county to country, but if you are prepared to move to a foreign country it can bring major financial benefits.

THE EFFECT OF COVID-19 ON RUGBY

Covid-19 has and will have a hugely detrimental effect on the game of rugby. As a result of the pandemic and lockdown of countries all around the world, the professional rugby leagues such as the Gallagher Premiership, the Pro14 and Super rugby have all come to a standstill. This is because it is impossible to supply their matches with social distancing making it impossible for players to play the game due to it full contact nature. So as a result of all matches being cancelled, from grassroots through to the professional game, clubs have no income, as there are no tickets to sell for matches or people to come for a drink or meal at their local club. This has forced clubs into salary reductions cost assessments and furloughing measures as they try to keep their heads above water. Many local clubs rely on the season to keep up with rent bills and other costs however it is not only the small clubs that are at risk of bankruptcy. The professional clubs struggle to make do in the normal season with only one club, Exeter Chiefs, making a profit seen in the table below. This seems to be a common theme in the professional game unfortunately, with USA rugby having filed for bankruptcy and Rugby Australia’s financial position looking precarious and with the cost of Covid-19 to the English RFU (rugby football union) looking to be around £107 million this could require government intervention such as a subsidy, lower corporation tax rates or a bailout to help save the organisations otherwise they will disappear.

Another cost of Covid-19 is that of the health of the of spectators and local level players. This is because most professional players are in exceptional physical condition however many people who play community rugby rely on it for physical and mental health keeping. There are roughly 340,000 people who play rugby in England alone, so during lockdown that is a potential 340,000 people becoming more unhealthy mentally and physically, which could therefore lead to increased health problems. This could then lead to a huge strain on the NHS in the long term as these more unhealthy individuals become ill more easily.

Overall the future of the game is fairly uncertain at the moment but with leagues recommencing domestically in New Zealand and other sports recommencing the is hope that the sport will come out the other side of this pandemic intact if it is handled correctly, helping the rest of society return to normal life