26 Aug
2002
26 Aug
'02
6:11 p.m.
Joe wrote:
At 12:32 PM 8/26/02 -0700, Ross wrote:
I didn't know that was the case. Given that's true,
I bet your answer is actually pretty complicated.
Could be like the
U.S. Change Bank, which makes no money on each transaction
but
makes up for this lack of profitability with large volumes.
:)
(Saturday Night Live reference.) :)
No, Seriously. Given how much farmland is set aside for
growing in the US (huge acreage), generally more sunshine
(AZ
and TX and CA and NM get a lot of sun!) and cheaper land in
the great open spaces, along with a lot of farming
technology used by big agribusiness, not to mention farmer
subsidies, might start
to explain why food at least is cheaper in the States. Not
sure about other goods.
Have no idea what percentage of goods are imports in UK
vs. US, and whether protective import tariffs are more
a factor on one side of the pond than the other.
Also don't know if the UK
subsidises farmers like the US does, or as much. I doubt
most people think about these subsidies when they price
corn or milk at the grocery store.
A lot of times energy costs end up being a big factor in
the cost of finished goods too. That might be tax-related,
or could reflect actual higher oil prices there than here.
Bottom line is it's probably a whole bunch of factors.
Joe wrote:
That's true but most products are still cheaper here than in the UK. Explain that
one!
At 09:27 AM 8/26/02 -0500, you wrote:
Hmm. Unless something radical has changed in recent years,
UK television and radio pretty much IS the BBC, which is
not supported or funded by commercials like US networks are.
It's funded by the license fees and you can see how they're
used
at http://www.bbc.co.uk.
Think of it as PBS on major steroids.
The "tax" model has its drawbacks and advantages. A lot
fewer
commercials, some top-notch progamming, but not nearly as
much variety. On the other hand, if you think TV in the
US is "Free", you're mistaken. The advertising that funds
ABC, CBS, NBC, etc. is simply factored into the cost of
nearly every product you buy at the store. On Mon, 26 Aug 2002, Dave Woodman -
dave(a)naffnet.org.uk wrote:
> Unfortunately, the licence now applies if you have equipment capable of
> receiving TV transmissions, regardless of the purpose for which it used, so
> you can try to convince the authorities all you like...
>
> A monitor, as you used, always avoids the license, so you would still have
> been safe, but even owning a VCR or TV and keeping it in the loft requires a
> license now.
Ok, now you've got me wondering... I've never heard of anything like that
on this side of the pond. Why exactly do you have to purchase a license
to own a TV? Is it similar for AM/FM radios? ...
Why do we have to pay a tax on telephone service? The answer is the same for both
questions. Joe