2 ms·

How does that make sense in any scenario? The profit available to a party that shipped food in at double the cost would be utterly insane. That's just one pos

How does that make sense in any scenario? The profit available to a party that shipped food in at double the cost would be utterly insane. That's just one possibility.

ben_w 8y ago
The poorest in the UK can’t pay double. They can already barely afford food reliably, as evidenced by the growth of food banks. Fresh food doesn’t survive long arbitrary delays, either in the field (there are already labour shortages in UK fruit farms) or in transit (if the customs process takes longer on average after extra staff have been accounted for, as that leads to ever-growing queues to cross the border — something which is very much an “it’s complicated” scenario because while the UK can in principle unilaterally decline to check things coming in, the consequence of doing so is being compelled to choose between doing so for all nations or face action in the WTO). The question of affordability is only made more extreme by the decline in the value of GBP. Note that this is not something I consider to be an inevitable consequence of Brexit itself, merely the spectacular arrogance of the people running the show, as the UK could’ve planned to hire enough extra customs inspectors and build inspections ports, but didn’t. They should’ve started with no-deal as the base scenario and worked up to the best possible improvement, but they’ve started with a self-contradicting mess of aspirations and had massive internal arguments every time they had to decide which part to give up on.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I think the more interesting scenario would be a revolt as people choose to pay for food over rent (food banks act more as an indirect subsidy on landlords). Maybe it'll happen. I won't be holding my breath.
  - ben_w 8y ago
    This is also a possibility. Again, the only thing I am sure of is my inability to assign probabilities any more accurately than the most naïve way possible. Unfortunately if the problem is with the supply, no amount of money will prevent caloric deficiency — rationing might be sufficient, don’t know, devil in the details as well as the broad type of outcome.

How does that make sense in any scenario? The profit available to a party that shipped food in at double the cost would be utterly insane. That's just one possibility.

ben_w 8y ago

The poorest in the UK can’t pay double. They can already barely afford food reliably, as evidenced by the growth of food banks. Fresh food doesn’t survive long arbitrary delays, either in the field (there are already labour shortages in UK fruit farms) or in transit (if the customs process takes longer on average after extra staff have been accounted for, as that leads to ever-growing queues to cross the border — something which is very much an “it’s complicated” scenario because while the UK can in principle unilaterally decline to check things coming in, the consequence of doing so is being compelled to choose between doing so for all nations or face action in the WTO). The question of affordability is only made more extreme by the decline in the value of GBP. Note that this is not something I consider to be an inevitable consequence of Brexit itself, merely the spectacular arrogance of the people running the show, as the UK could’ve planned to hire enough extra customs inspectors and build inspections ports, but didn’t. They should’ve started with no-deal as the base scenario and worked up to the best possible improvement, but they’ve started with a self-contradicting mess of aspirations and had massive internal arguments every time they had to decide which part to give up on.

esotericn 8y ago
I think the more interesting scenario would be a revolt as people choose to pay for food over rent (food banks act more as an indirect subsidy on landlords). Maybe it'll happen. I won't be holding my breath.
- ben_w 8y ago
  This is also a possibility. Again, the only thing I am sure of is my inability to assign probabilities any more accurately than the most naïve way possible. Unfortunately if the problem is with the supply, no amount of money will prevent caloric deficiency — rationing might be sufficient, don’t know, devil in the details as well as the broad type of outcome.