The Brexit effect? Imports of bikes to UK fell sharply in 2016

mrmo wrote:

https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/discussion_papers_e.pdf

 

page 32, 

 

Tarifs need to be agreed so in reality what they are is what they will be, and masively cutting could then kill the UK manufacturers such as Brompton and Pashley. 

You can unilaterally reduce tariffs.

Pashley and Brompton don't really compete on cost anyway so cheaper mass market bikes are unlikely to affect them much.

I'm really going to miss Ebay shopping across the single market.

Currently getting ready to build up a lovely 1970s Italian Columbus SLX frame, bought from a guy in Slovenia, newly repainted in metallic royal blue by a company in Skipton, with lovely Nuovo Record parts scavenged from all around Europe, including a seatpost from Austria and some lovely vintage lightweight wheels from a chap in Nice.

Not looking forward to being hit with VAT and Duty on my next bike project---as with imports from the US.

ashliejay wrote:

brompton might have growing markets outside the UK, but they can only grow so far, and they still need to import most of their raw materials, if unfavourable tarifs are enforced, could wipe out the increased revenue from exporting, and could even become reduced from what it is now.

Most of the bike industry in this country is going to be severily impacted if we don't get a "good deal" as almost nothing is 100% produced in the UK (i.e from mine to finished product).

So far with just sterling dropping prices have increased 10-20% so if things go tits up we could be looking at price increases of 30-50%, and that's if sterling doesn't fall any lower.

If you're manufacturing for export then the increased costs of raw materials won't make any difference.

Given the relative sizes of the UK & EU bike industries it's very unlikely the EU will want to impose significant tariffs.

There are also large EU tariffs on manufacturers in the Far East, outside of the EU these could be reduced or even removed leading to cheaper bikes and components.

ashliejay wrote:

brompton might have growing markets outside the UK, but they can only grow so far, and they still need to import most of their raw materials, if unfavourable tarifs are enforced, could wipe out the increased revenue from exporting, and could even become reduced from what it is now.

Most of the bike industry in this country is going to be severily impacted if we don't get a "good deal" as almost nothing is 100% produced in the UK (i.e from mine to finished product).

So far with just sterling dropping prices have increased 10-20% so if things go tits up we could be looking at price increases of 30-50%, and that's if sterling doesn't fall any lower.

2014, 80% of brompton's production was sold outside the UK, 43 export markets:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/brompton-bicycle-factor...

https://ecf.com/news-and-events/news/brompton-bicycles-unfolding-uk-succ...

External markets probably have far more growth potential than the UK markets, raw materials cost  is effectively no different and  - given the current exchange rate - the labour will be a little cheaper.

Brompton's are a bit of a niche product with little directly equivalent competition, obviously tariffs may have some effect but  I suspect they may just  sell pretty much as well.

Morat wrote:

tl:dr

Imports more expensive, exports more competitive.

so in fact, a good thing

muffies wrote:

Morat wrote:

tl:dr

Imports more expensive, exports more competitive.

 

so in fact, a good thing

Yes, if you are one of the minority of people who works for or owns a business which doesn't source inputs from abroad and/or is a net exporter. 

Britain is a net importer, paticulalry of essentials such as food, oil, gas, clothing and UK produced substitutes in these markets are often premium priced. While people can cut back on non-essental  goods, the vast majority of your essential purchases will cost more.

And then factor in the likelihood of tariffs being imposed along with this exchange rate pressure and let's watch inflation spiral upwards in the next few years. Then we can see how much of a good thing it is, but at least we've "taken back control"...

jasecd wrote:

Yes, if you are one of the minority of people who works for or owns a business which doesn't source inputs from abroad and/or is a net exporter. 

Britain is a net importer, paticulalry of essentials such as food, oil, gas, clothing and UK produced substitutes in these markets are often premium priced. While people can cut back on non-essental  goods, the vast majority of your essential purchases will cost more.

And then factor in the likelihood of tariffs being imposed along with this exchange rate pressure and let's watch inflation spiral upwards in the next few years. Then we can see how much of a good thing it is, but at least we've "taken back control"...

Being a net importer is not a sustainable position.

You have to sell assets continually in order to finance the trade deficit.

That's why so many of our train companies, utilities etc are foreign owned.

Eventually you run out of assets and you are forced to balance trade.

Brexit has simply brought forward the devaluation of the £. The reasons for the devaluation have been present for decades.

Rich_cb wrote:

Being a net importer is not a sustainable position.

You're talking about goods.

But it's more than workable to be an net importer of goods, and a net exporter of services. Which is what the UK has been aiming to do, and have actually to some extent managed to do so successfully. The government will never put it in those terms, as the working class do not want to hear anything about the UK becoming a financial service economy, but that has been successive government strategy for a long time. We're probably at around 10% contribution right now.

A good example would be Luxembourg - could be around 30% these days.

Anyway, if anyone is ever wondering why the government seems to have little control over the financial firms, it's precisely for this reason - they are the only thing keeping the country afloat. 

Few people in the UK want to work at a wage that would produce goods that other countries will pay. Even the financial services are going automated - the biggest asset holders aren't working on finding new dodgy instruments to trade right now - they working on software. Software to replace people. So the middle class and the working class done well are about to get their job cull next. 

This whole argument about import and export is myopic. The actual model surrounding it isn't sustainable either way once you account for all variables.

We need a new economic model, work sharing, 4 day work weeks, staff share in profits, wage ratios - all this shit. That's the only way we can actually have a working model with our current population size and level of automation.

The politicians we have currently are from a different age, stuck in the past, tribal and inward looking. We're not getting a new model any time soon and Brexit will divert massive resources from Whitehall. Resources that could have, but wouldn't have, been used to change our model. 

Just ride your bike and ignore all this economy nonsense. In or out, we will keep trucking on, but don't expect a better life either way. Things are definitely going to get a bit pricier though overall with the trade off being some less foreigners in the long term. To some people, that's the price of their 'happiness', apparently. 

Whether they admit it or not. 

unconstituted wrote:

You're talking about goods.

But it's more than workable to be an net importer of goods, and a net exporter of services. Which is what the UK has been aiming to do, and have actually to some extent managed to do so successfully.

I'm talking about overall trade, services and manufacturing.

It's true that we run a surplus in services but it does not compensate for our huge deficit in goods. So overall our trade deficit is enormous.

The EU has a well functioning single market in goods but not in services.

The result being that manufacturing focused economies thrive while service focused economies struggle.

unconstituted wrote:

We need a new economic model, work sharing, 4 day work weeks, staff share in profits, wage ratios - all this shit. That's the only way we can actually have a working model with our current population size and level of automation.

I was with you until you hit this bit.  There are a load of studies which attempt, and appear to succeed, in proving the opposite.  Perhaps the best known is a study by Delloitte who finished up titling their report "Technology & People: The great job creation machine".  It starts way back with the invention of the steam engine, use of water power in factories etc, and fears by the working classes of machines taking their jobs. Well they did, but better jobs were created. At every technological advancement since, the same fears have been expressed, and in every case those fears have been proved wrong: Every leap in technology has increased employment, as automation just brings about new ways for people to work, more things for them to do, and more things to design, build, and sell, which people never realised they needed. Dellotte concluded that the jobs which disappear tend to be the dull and boring ones. I'm sure there will be those who cry "ah but robots will be different, they really will take our jobs", but the same thing has been said about every technology leap since time began. Of course the big question for the future is whether what we are doing is environmentally sustainable, or whether people will finally realise that we can't continue throwing our old crap in the sea every 2 years to go out and buy the latest crap!

Griff500 wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

We need a new economic model, work sharing, 4 day work weeks, staff share in profits, wage ratios - all this shit. That's the only way we can actually have a working model with our current population size and level of automation.

I was with you until you hit this bit.  There are a load of studies which attempt, and appear to succeed, in proving the opposite.  Perhaps the best known is a study by Delloitte who finished up titling their report "Technology & People: The great job creation machine".  It starts way back with the invention of the steam engine, use of water power in factories etc, and fears by the working classes of machines taking their jobs. Well they did, but better jobs were created. At every technological advancement since, the same fears have been expressed, and in every case those fears have been proved wrong: Every leap in technology has increased employment, as automation just brings about new ways for people to work, more things for them to do, and more things to design, build, and sell, which people never realised they needed. Dellotte concluded that the jobs which disappear tend to be the dull and boring ones. I'm sure there will be those who cry "ah but robots will be different, they really will take our jobs", but the same thing has been said about every technology leap since time began. Of course the big question for the future is whether what we are doing is environmentally sustainable, or whether people will finally realise that we can't continue throwing our old crap in the sea every 2 years to go out and buy the latest crap!

I have never heard of a single study of our current planet's growth rate, incoming technological advances, current and next-gen push for automation, and monopolistic entities that in any way indicate that it would create enough jobs for a fair society in any reasonable definition of the term. I'd also need it to account for cultural shifts to more conscientious consumer models, likely enforced to do the limitations on rare earth raw material etc.

If you have a link, I would love to see that though. 

We have only lived through periods where materials and growth have been seemingly limitless. To suggest that a turning point or a pivotal era is not approaching is almost as bad as climate change denial. We just don't have the space, or materials to continue. On top of that, AI, even weak AI, will change entire parameters that historial studies cannot account for. A good example would be invention, an area that traditionally required people. You don't need to be a tech follower to know that we're about to enter the era of self-learning.

unconstituted wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

We need a new economic model, work sharing, 4 day work weeks, staff share in profits, wage ratios - all this shit. That's the only way we can actually have a working model with our current population size and level of automation.

I was with you until you hit this bit.  There are a load of studies which attempt, and appear to succeed, in proving the opposite.  Perhaps the best known is a study by Delloitte who finished up titling their report "Technology & People: The great job creation machine".  It starts way back with the invention of the steam engine, use of water power in factories etc, and fears by the working classes of machines taking their jobs. Well they did, but better jobs were created. At every technological advancement since, the same fears have been expressed, and in every case those fears have been proved wrong: Every leap in technology has increased employment, as automation just brings about new ways for people to work, more things for them to do, and more things to design, build, and sell, which people never realised they needed. Dellotte concluded that the jobs which disappear tend to be the dull and boring ones. I'm sure there will be those who cry "ah but robots will be different, they really will take our jobs", but the same thing has been said about every technology leap since time began. Of course the big question for the future is whether what we are doing is environmentally sustainable, or whether people will finally realise that we can't continue throwing our old crap in the sea every 2 years to go out and buy the latest crap!

 

I have never heard of a single study of our current planet's growth rate, incoming technological advances, current and next-gen push for automation, and monopolistic entities that in any way indicate that it would create enough jobs for a fair society in any reasonable definition of the term. I'd also need it to account for cultural shifts to more conscientious consumer models, likely enforced to do the limitations on rare earth raw material etc.

If you have a link, I would love to see that though. 

We have only lived through periods where materials and growth have been seemingly limitless. To suggest that a turning point or a pivotal era is not approaching is almost as bad as climate change denial. We just don't have the space, or materials to continue. On top of that, AI, even weak AI, will change entire parameters that historial studies cannot account for. A good example would be invention, an area that traditionally required people. You don't need to be a tech follower to know that we're about to enter the era of self-learning.

 

Oh I didn't say there would not be a turning point, indeed I alluded to the need for such from an environmental perspective alone if you reread my post. But at this point in time we are still accelerating in the opposite direction, far less slowing, and way too early to talk of 4 day weeks for those who are capable.

Griff500 wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

We need a new economic model, work sharing, 4 day work weeks, staff share in profits, wage ratios - all this shit. That's the only way we can actually have a working model with our current population size and level of automation.

I was with you until you hit this bit.  There are a load of studies which attempt, and appear to succeed, in proving the opposite.  Perhaps the best known is a study by Delloitte who finished up titling their report "Technology & People: The great job creation machine".  It starts way back with the invention of the steam engine, use of water power in factories etc, and fears by the working classes of machines taking their jobs. Well they did, but better jobs were created. At every technological advancement since, the same fears have been expressed, and in every case those fears have been proved wrong: Every leap in technology has increased employment, as automation just brings about new ways for people to work, more things for them to do, and more things to design, build, and sell, which people never realised they needed. Dellotte concluded that the jobs which disappear tend to be the dull and boring ones. I'm sure there will be those who cry "ah but robots will be different, they really will take our jobs", but the same thing has been said about every technology leap since time began. Of course the big question for the future is whether what we are doing is environmentally sustainable, or whether people will finally realise that we can't continue throwing our old crap in the sea every 2 years to go out and buy the latest crap!

 

I have never heard of a single study of our current planet's growth rate, incoming technological advances, current and next-gen push for automation, and monopolistic entities that in any way indicate that it would create enough jobs for a fair society in any reasonable definition of the term. I'd also need it to account for cultural shifts to more conscientious consumer models, likely enforced to do the limitations on rare earth raw material etc.

If you have a link, I would love to see that though. 

We have only lived through periods where materials and growth have been seemingly limitless. To suggest that a turning point or a pivotal era is not approaching is almost as bad as climate change denial. We just don't have the space, or materials to continue. On top of that, AI, even weak AI, will change entire parameters that historial studies cannot account for. A good example would be invention, an area that traditionally required people. You don't need to be a tech follower to know that we're about to enter the era of self-learning.

 

Oh I didn't say there would not be a turning point, indeed I alluded to the need for such from an environmental perspective alone if you reread my post. But at this point in time we are still accelerating in the opposite direction, far less slowing, and way too early to talk of 4 day weeks for those who are capable.

Well yes, maybe too early. But no reason why it  shouldn't be trialed in entire areas to see how they get on. I prefer that idea to say, basic income, which I think may create more divisiveness/further cement our class issues in it's onset and seems like we may be heading there. Anyway that was just one of a bunch of things I reckon we should be moving towards, and not just because a solution, but because people should have more leisure time. It's a more humane vision.

unconstituted wrote:

Anyway that was just one of a bunch of things I reckon we should be moving towards, and not just because a solution, but because people should have more leisure time. 

Odd you should say that. The Delloitte report I mentioned listed a number of job areas which have increased, and one was bar staff due to increased leisure and disposable income   (I know, I know, soon we will have robots who can chat about the football and listen to our stories about what a bad day we've had!)

unconstituted wrote:

Griff500 wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

We need a new economic model, work sharing, 4 day work weeks, staff share in profits, wage ratios - all this shit. That's the only way we can actually have a working model with our current population size and level of automation.

I was with you until you hit this bit.  There are a load of studies which attempt, and appear to succeed, in proving the opposite.  Perhaps the best known is a study by Delloitte who finished up titling their report "Technology & People: The great job creation machine".  It starts way back with the invention of the steam engine, use of water power in factories etc, and fears by the working classes of machines taking their jobs. Well they did, but better jobs were created. At every technological advancement since, the same fears have been expressed, and in every case those fears have been proved wrong: Every leap in technology has increased employment, as automation just brings about new ways for people to work, more things for them to do, and more things to design, build, and sell, which people never realised they needed. Dellotte concluded that the jobs which disappear tend to be the dull and boring ones. I'm sure there will be those who cry "ah but robots will be different, they really will take our jobs", but the same thing has been said about every technology leap since time began. Of course the big question for the future is whether what we are doing is environmentally sustainable, or whether people will finally realise that we can't continue throwing our old crap in the sea every 2 years to go out and buy the latest crap!

 

I have never heard of a single study of our current planet's growth rate, incoming technological advances, current and next-gen push for automation, and monopolistic entities that in any way indicate that it would create enough jobs for a fair society in any reasonable definition of the term. I'd also need it to account for cultural shifts to more conscientious consumer models, likely enforced to do the limitations on rare earth raw material etc.

If you have a link, I would love to see that though. 

We have only lived through periods where materials and growth have been seemingly limitless. To suggest that a turning point or a pivotal era is not approaching is almost as bad as climate change denial. We just don't have the space, or materials to continue. On top of that, AI, even weak AI, will change entire parameters that historial studies cannot account for. A good example would be invention, an area that traditionally required people. You don't need to be a tech follower to know that we're about to enter the era of self-learning.

 

or, we could just keep targeting less developed countries, invade them under the guise of implementing democracy and strip them of all their assets, again.

the creation of these power vacuums that then become rogue states could provide many jobs, while the refugees from those places come and do the crap low paid work that no one here wants.

Morat wrote:

tl:dr

Imports more expensive, exports more competitive.

Shame Britain produces so little these days huh? What have we got Hope, Fibrax, Lusso, Fenwicks.....?

Morat wrote:

tl:dr

Imports more expensive, exports more competitive.

Right, exports of British groupsets are going to go gangbusters!

Oh.