UK Prices Are A Joke

[Guest ilovepumps!]

I have just located two pairs of identical shoes. One pair is sold in the UK for £60 and the other pair sold in the US for $54.99, which converted to UK pounds (todays currency), works out to be £29 (rounded up). It just goes to show how much of a rip off the UK is when buying anything. I really do wonder if there is anything in the UK which is actually cheaper than the rest of the world??

[hetero sissy]

You should try living in Scandinavia , esp Norway...nuff said

[Guy N. Heels]

I have just located two pairs of identical shoes. One pair is sold in the UK for £60 and the other pair sold in the US for $54.99, which converted to UK pounds (todays currency), works out to be £29 (rounded up). It just goes to show how much of a rip off the UK is when buying anything. I really do wonder if there is anything in the UK which is actually cheaper than the rest of the world??

There was a man who lived in England named Fredrick Hayek who wrote a book during WWII titled Road To Serfdom. In his book Hayek explains exactly why the economies of the US & Canada and virtually all of Europe are in the sorry state we find today. While the book really could use an update, it is still well worth reading. You might also consider reading Milton Friedman. His books explain exactly why we see chaotic prices in the world today.

[Dr. Shoe]

2 things spring to mind. Firstly VAT is included in the quoted price whereas it's added on afterwards in the US and secondly, if the shoes have been imported from the US then duty and transportation costs will have been added too. If you buy from the US be mindful that you will have to pay postage, VAT (applied by HM Customs and Excise) and a handling fee that can add as much as £40 on in total.

[Guy N. Heels]

2 things spring to mind. Firstly VAT is included in the quoted price whereas it's added on afterwards in the US and secondly, if the shoes have been imported from the US then duty and transportation costs will have been added too.

If you buy from the US be mindful that you will have to pay postage, VAT (applied by HM Customs and Excise) and a handling fee that can add as much as £40 on in total.

EXACTLY! Regarless of how the tax is added, you can bet yer boots that it's gonna be there somewhere, some way. That gets me back to Hayek and The Road to Serfdom. It's a must read if you really want to understand what's going on.

[geo_t]

Currency exchanges get everyone... I want to get another pair of Leatherworks knee boots, but at todays exchange rate the 130 pound cost is $260, plus shipping, import duty and taxes. Even I can't justify spending that much on a pair of boots, no matter how comfortable they are or how well they are made.

[chris100575]

One of my friends bought a target air pistol from the US, as it looked much cheaper. There was quite a bit of paperwork involved, and by the time he'd paid the carriage, import duty etc. it cost virtually the same as buying in the UK. Plus it took weeks to arrive owing largely to customs being antsy about it. I prefer to buy stuff from the UK unless it's something I can't easily get here. It's just easier and faster. (I have no patience when I'm expecting a delivery!) Chris

[dr1819]

Currency exchanges get everyone... I want to get another pair of Leatherworks knee boots, but at todays exchange rate the 130 pound cost is $260, plus shipping, import duty and taxes. Even I can't justify spending that much on a pair of boots, no matter how comfortable they are or how well they are made.

It's not just currency exchanges - things really do cost more in the UK than in the US - about 30% more.

To add insult to injury, the gross domestic product per capita in the US is $41,600, while it's $31,100 in the UK. Thus, the average per capita income in the US goes 33.76% further.

Combine that with the costlier prices in the UK, and those in the US have approximately 44% more buying power.

While some countries' economies went downhill when the EU adopted the Euro, most improved, and the overall financial situation improved for all EU members, on a weighted average basis, improved as well.

If the UK were to join the EU, financially, both would be better off over the long term.

Eventually (and we're not far from it today with nearly instantaneous exchange rates and our global economies) the world will adopt a single monetary unit, with the rare exception being very remote areas which do not interact with the global ecomony to any significant extent. This will serve to anchor values in any given area, curb runaway inflation and deflation, and provide for a more stable, healthier world finacial situation.

As an added bonus, it will also provide significant economic incentive for countries at odds with another to continue cooperating economically, rather than duking it out ideologically.

[Guy N. Heels]

It's not just currency exchanges - things really do cost more in the UK than in the US - about 30% more.

To add insult to injury, the gross domestic product per capita in the US is $41,600, while it's $31,100 in the UK. Thus, the average per capita income in the US goes 33.76% further.

Combine that with the costlier prices in the UK, and those in the US have approximately 44% more buying power.

While some countries' economies went downhill when the EU adopted the Euro, most improved, and the overall financial situation improved for all EU members, on a weighted average basis, improved as well.

If the UK were to join the EU, financially, both would be better off over the long term.

Eventually (and we're not far from it today with nearly instantaneous exchange rates and our global economies) the world will adopt a single monetary unit, with the rare exception being very remote areas which do not interact with the global ecomony to any significant extent. This will serve to anchor values in any given area, curb runaway inflation and deflation, and provide for a more stable, healthier world finacial situation.

As an added bonus, it will also provide significant economic incentive for countries at odds with another to continue cooperating economically, rather than duking it out ideologically.

Your points are well taken. However, for many countries the issue of state sovereignty is still a major sticking point. Nevertheless, today many nations, including most of Europe, are willing to sell-out their sovereignty for a chance to get a piece of the ecconomic pie. Is it not interesting that today people are perfectly willing to do for silver and gold, what Adolf Hitler tried to do with the sword and the bayonette?

Nevertheless, those who choose to ignore the lessons of both Hayeck and Friedman are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. There are certain fundamental rules that simply cannot be ignored! In the final analysis, a scheme that is fundamentally flawed, regardless of how inviting it looks on paper, however clever or subtile the arguments for it - is doomed to failure.

[dr1819]

I dunno, Guy. The US has grown more successful compared to other countries as powers have migrated from the states to the federal government. I think a balance is in order, and I do believe that limit has been reached, if not exceeded. If that balance can be kept in check, with an officially recognized global economy, but powers strongly reserved to individual countries, I think things will be more economically stable in the long run.

[Fog]

The Euro is a seductive idea - which I support emotionally. And from a practical point of view - spending a lot of money in France buying a house and renovating it. (and thank goodness the exchange rate was ok when we did most of the money shifting) - but I'm really not sure that one size does fit all, from Poland - Greece - Portugal France Germany - all such different economic situations. One of the most sensible things Gordon Brown did at the start of the Labour administration was to put control of interest rates into the hands of the Bank of England. That's probably had a lot to do with the economic stability we've had in the past few years. Anyway, if you think UK prices are expensive try France - that is apart from supermarket alcohol and eating out.

[Guy N. Heels]

The Euro is a seductive idea - which I support emotionally. And from a practical point of view - spending a lot of money in France buying a house and renovating it. (and thank goodness the exchange rate was ok when we did most of the money shifting) - but I'm really not sure that one size does fit all, from Poland - Greece - Portugal France Germany - all such different economic situations.

One of the most sensible things Gordon Brown did at the start of the Labour administration was to put control of interest rates into the hands of the Bank of England. That's probably had a lot to do with the economic stability we've had in the past few years.

Anyway, if you think UK prices are expensive try France - that is apart from supermarket alcohol and eating out.

Put the interest rates in the hands of the BANKERS? Man that's like putting the fox in charge of the chicken-coop!

[Fog]

Put the interest rates in the hands of the BANKERS? Man that's like putting the fox in charge of the chicken-coop!

Would you rather it in the hands of politicians? The British economy suffered from political manipulation of interest rates for too long.

[Guy N. Heels]

Would you rather it in the hands of politicians? The British economy suffered from political manipulation of interest rates for too long.

Well, since I've never been over there I can't say for sure, but it seems to me that you lot always did better with the likes of Churchill or Thatcher in office. So I'd have to say that in the hands of the right politicians you might be okay. But it's always a dice shoot.

[Fog]

It's the boom and bust of the Thatcher years we've escaped from. I'm not sure of the thrust of your argument. Can you imagine a situation where GWBush was in control of interest rates? The last thing any country needs is a loosening of interest rate policy about 18 months before a general election to create a feel good factor, because sure as night follows day the brakes have to go on pretty soon afterwards. Therefore giving away the government's powers in this respect to the Bank of England was a sensible and courageous move. A future Tory adminsitration would find it difficult to take interest rates back into the party political realm. I've just realised we've strayed way off the topic. Sorry guys, gals, mods and admins - one and all. It's topical, we've just had our interest rates nudged up 25 pips today - never mind, might make the Euro cheaper.

[dr1819]

I'd have to agree with Fog on this one. Bankers understand finances and how playing around with interest rates is very dicey business. Many politicians don't. That's why those decisions are/were made by Greenspan for the US. After 911, his fiscal recommendations for the Fed rate averted rather significant financial catastrophe.

[Guy N. Heels]

I'd have to agree with Fog on this one. Bankers understand finances and how playing around with interest rates is very dicey business. Many politicians don't.

That's why those decisions are/were made by Greenspan for the US. After 911, his fiscal recommendations for the Fed rate averted rather significant financial catastrophe.

I think I'm going to graciously bow out. If you haven't read and understood Hayek and Friedman then you don't really grasp what Greenspan and his lot are all about. But one small clue, in Road to Serfdom Hayek very candidly reports that under proper fiscal policy the price of bread in central Europe remained the same for over 200 Years! . In my estimation that is price stability, and they didn't need the likes of Greenspan to do it! When you understand what's really going on, you finally come to realize that they can have bankers meetings every day of the week and fix the interest rates 3 times a day and still not solve the problem.

[dr1819]

I think I'm going to graciously bow out. If you haven't read and understood Hayek and Friedman then you don't really grasp what Greenspan and his lot are all about. But one small clue, in Road to Serfdom Hayek very candidly reports that under proper fiscal policy the price of bread in central Europe remained the same for over 200 Years! . In my estimation that is price stability, and they didn't need the likes of Greenspan to do it! When you understand what's really going on, you finally come to realize that they can have bankers meetings every day of the week and fix the interest rates 3 times a day and still not solve the problem.

Wow. pink!. (actually "magenta") typeface. Impressive!

Since fiscal policy borders on politics, I'll consider this thread as "politics" and treat it as such.

Regardless, 9/11 faced trillions of dollars of worse repurcussions had not the people been in place who were in place.

Personally, since so much of the US economy was centrally located in the WTC towers, I think that's what the perps were shooting for. Broadly speaking, they did cost us trillions of dollars in that move, for the buildings, the cost of the ongoing counteroffensive operations, etc.

One thing people tend to forget is that the cost of war is almost invariably born by the leading contender in any economic issue.

Thus, while 911 and it's resulting cost might have happened anyway, and the message of those who were against the US/West had come through with anywhere near the same force, the cost of the appropropriate response to counter the intended effect would have cost nearly the same, over time.

People like to play the "only if," game, and "if only" x had happened instead of "y" things would be vastly different.

Meanwhile, history itself, from 10,000 BC and beyond, reports that the cost of freedom remains among the highest of costs, but one of the most heavily financed costs around.

All factored considered, the overwhelming majority of people are opposed to oppressive regimes, whether they're inside that regime or not, and most of those support changes within that regime.

This axiom has held true since Alexander the Great and Ghengis Khan, both of which, although conquerers, did some pretty terrific things for the countries they counquered.

I'm not advocating conquering other countries. Please bear in mind, however, that human nature being what it is, weaker countries which are inept at appropriately managing their people to the standards of stronger countries are at risk of takeover.

This holds true in business, today, with several hundred "hostile takeovers" having taken place in the last year alone, and those most of those have seen increased, not decreased, benefits for most of the employees of the companies which have been taken over.

It takes more time when this process involves entire countries, but the benefits almost always outweigh the costs, usually because the overtaking country has higher standards than the country being overtaken, which is precisely the reason why the overtaking country almost always has more resources at their disposal than the country being overtaken!

Exceptions exist, but they're few and far between, or involve gross ineptitude to be able bring those resourses into play.