We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Liquidity, liquidity, liquidity
Comments
-
Thrugelmir wrote: »Buy UK products. Support the UK agricultural industry. Buy less meat and eat vegetables instead.
What makes you think that I don't do those things already?
The minced-beef price is not important because one wants to eat minced beef. It's important because it's a potential indicator of supply problems across a range of resources; food and non-food.
One more thing: when you quote someone's post, and you cut a part out of it, it's polite to use ellipsis to indicate that to a casual reader. Otherwise, it might look like an attempt to misrepresent another's argument.Thus the old Gentleman ended his Harangue. The People heard it, and approved the Doctrine, and immediately practised the Contrary, just as if it had been a common Sermon; for the Vendue opened ...THE WAY TO WEALTH, Benjamin Franklin, 1758 AD0 -
FatherAbraham wrote: »Liquidity insurance.
Apparently few people here think much of it.
That's not true we are always reminding people to have a suitable cash buffer for their situation.
Alex0 -
You only think the article is "excellent" because it agrees with your own preconceptions.
Since before the referendum the FT has been filled with scare stories about Brexit, and since the referendum is has turned into the Daily Remainer.
All the scare story predictions have turned out to be wrong, and the FT is no longer worth reading.
Gosh, you're really going to enjoy Tim Harford's article on bursting one's own filter-bubble: http://timharford.com/2018/10/how-to-burst-your-political-filter-bubble/Thus the old Gentleman ended his Harangue. The People heard it, and approved the Doctrine, and immediately practised the Contrary, just as if it had been a common Sermon; for the Vendue opened ...THE WAY TO WEALTH, Benjamin Franklin, 1758 AD0 -
Why would the price of mince rise even 1% if we become free to import beef from anywhere in the world without tariffs? Or are we going to be governed by the sort of dolts who put an import duty on food?Free the dunston one next time too.0
-
We'll have all that Welsh lamb that used to go to the EU and from New Zealand.
Just eat Shepherd's pie instead of Cottage.0 -
Why would the price of mince rise even 1% if we become free to import beef from anywhere in the world without tariffs? Or are we going to be governed by the sort of dolts who put an import duty on food?
I think it's because world trade is governed by World Trade Organization tariffs, unless a country has formally agreed lower tariffs with a trade partner.
"No-deal" implies that there's no trade agreement with the EU, so UK has to apply WTO standard tariffs when it import foods from there. But there's also no trade deals with anyone else yet, so all imports have that tariff applied.
But tariffs are not the only issue.
Beyond the consideration of tariffs, the price might rise because of extra expense of inspection and documentation to guarantee conformity to UK food-production regulations.
Finally, the price might increase because of simple physical difficulties in importing food to the UK (if the extra checks take longer, the capacity of ports may be exceeded, transport costs rise, and there's more spoilage).Thus the old Gentleman ended his Harangue. The People heard it, and approved the Doctrine, and immediately practised the Contrary, just as if it had been a common Sermon; for the Vendue opened ...THE WAY TO WEALTH, Benjamin Franklin, 1758 AD0 -
FatherAbraham wrote: »I think it's because world trade is governed by World Trade Organization tariffs, unless a country has formally agreed lower tariffs with a trade partner
I suspect that's wrong. Are you sure? Sounds like more Project Fear to me. Doesn't the WTP specific maximum tariffs, not minimum?
Even if it's right surely lower or zero tariffs could be sorted out fairly swiftly? (If only Cameron and May had been even slightly competent, they'd be almost sorted out already by the old diplomatic trick of "talks about talks".)Free the dunston one next time too.0 -
I suspect that's wrong. Are you sure? Sounds like more Project Fear to me. Doesn't the WTP specific maximum tariffs, not minimum?
Even if it's right surely lower or zero tariffs could be sorted out fairly swiftly? (If only Cameron and May had been even slightly competent, they'd be almost sorted out already by the old diplomatic trick of "talks about talks".)
If you set zero tariffs for everyone then what incentive is there to have a free trade deal? No country operates solely under WTO. If there is zero tariff then it will hit the farmers of the UK that can't compete. Other countries have already objected to us joining WTO.
Look at the details and project fear is project reality. Certain things can be extrapolated but the upshot is that no deal will create a very different situation than we're used to. You might call it project fear but if the shelves empty at the slightest hint of snow then longer supply interruptions will have a much bigger impact. I doubt the wartime blitz spirit of all mucking in together exists now, if it even existed then.Remember the saying: if it looks too good to be true it almost certainly is.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards