UK statisticians add VR headsets to inflation basket, cut newspaper ads
March 18 (Reuters) - Virtual reality headsets will enter Britain's inflation data next month while classified newspaper print adverts will disappear in an annual shake-up of the basket of goods and services used to calculate price rises.
The renewal of the inflation basket offers a snapshot of technological shifts and Britons' changing tastes.
"The addition of virtual reality headsets for the first time shows our appetite for emerging technology, while the loss of printed newspaper adverts demonstrates a continuing shift towards the online world," Stephen Burgess, Office for National Statistics' deputy director for prices, said.
"Consumers are choosing easier options in the kitchen, so oven-ready gammon joints make way for the quicker choice of pulled pork," Burgess added.
The ONS also added a new category for household energy bill prices: fixed-rate tariffs, which are popular among consumers who want to avoid fluctuating electricity and gas bills.
Britain's first modern inflation basket appeared in 1947 including unskinned wild rabbits, condensed milk and lamp oil.
In the 1970s - a decade many would prefer to forget in fashion terms - statisticians put home perm kits and hair dryers into the index.
This year the ONS added smoked salmon, mangos and men's pool sandals - "a rapidly growing and previously unrepresented area of the footwear market" - to the consumer price index basket.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
OnlyFans is giving HMRC what it wants
Fenix International occupies the ninth floor of an innocuous office block on London's Cheapside. The street's name comes from the Old English for marketplace, and once upon a time Cheapside was just that: London's biggest meat market with butcher shops lining either side of the road. Today, the street houses financial institutions and corporate HQs. But Fenix still runs a marketplace. Some may even call it a meat market, albeit one that operates on the phones of hundreds of millions of users worldwide. Its name: OnlyFans. OnlyFans is best understood not just as a porn site, but as a social media platform with a paywall. Creators – mostly women – post photos, videos and voice notes behind monthly subscriptions. Users pay extra to tip the women, customise content and have one-to-one chats with their favourite models. Not everything on OnlyFans is X-rated, but that's the content that makes the money. An entire ecosystem has grown around OnlyFans since it was founded nine years ago by two British brothers, Tim and Thomas Stokely. One 'e-pimp' explained that successful models outsource much of their work to offshore call centres to give the illusion of intimacy with customers. Low-paid workers in Venezuela or the Philippines are hired to impersonate creators over text chats, maintaining dozens, even hundreds, of relationships with lonely men. OnlyFans' profits are enormous. In 2023, it generated nearly £5 billion in sales – up more than 2,000 per cent in four years. The company paid £127 million in tax last year, £110 million of that in corporation tax. Because Fenix is based in London, the bulk of that cash is flowing straight into the Treasury. For comparison: Britain's fishing industry – supposedly a red-line issue in Brexit – brings in just £876 million and pays next to nothing in corporation tax, while also receiving £180 million a year in tax concessions. We don't think of OnlyFans as a media company (if we think of it at all) and so we ignore what it is in business terms: a staggering success. With more than four million 'content creators' and 305 million subscribers, it would easily rank in the top three British publishing companies. It is perhaps the most successful creator-based subscription service ever. Traditional platforms can't compete – OnlyFans' revenues are twice that of North America's Aylo, which operates the world's biggest porn websites. Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting Britain's sex industry brings in far more to the economy than politicians are comfortable admitting. The Office for National Statistics estimates Britons spend in excess of £6 billion annually on it. It is one of the few British industries which remains a net (digital) exporter. Indeed, OnlyFans is perhaps the strongest unicorn (a privately held start-up worth more than $1 billion) in the country. It's more profitable than any other British tech start-up. And it's doing something our other digital start-ups can't: exporting to America while keeping tax revenues onshore. Two-thirds of its revenue now comes from the US, proving that even in a global tech economy dominated by Silicon Valley, British firms can still compete. OnlyFans' success makes it all the more striking that, according to Reuters, Fenix is in talks to sell. Los Angeles-based Forest Road Company is leading a group of investors in negotiations to buy the business for £6 billion. It's rumoured that other suitors are vying for attention and that shares may be sold on the stock market. Either way, one of Britain's few successful exports could soon be gone. It's awkward to defend pornography, and so politicians don't try. Parliament hosts thousands of lobbying events every year – payday lenders, bookies, vape companies, even arms dealers turn up for drinks and canapés. There is no 'sex tech reception'. Ministers fall over themselves to visit impressive-looking factories that are in fact barely relevant. For example, Glass Futures, a research and production plant for the glass industry based in St Helens, was recently picked by Keir Starmer as the perfect location for his speech decrying 'Farage's fantasy economics'. The plant is a not-for-profit that makes £7 million in annual sales. OnlyFans pays more in tax in a month than Glass Futures earns in a year. But no MP would be caught dead at OnlyFans' Cheapside HQ, despite, I'm told, many invitations to visit. Neither has any politician ever defended the porn industry in a debate on innovation, exports or growth. The most recent House of Lords research note on 'the impact of pornography on society' contains no mention of the words 'economy', 'tax' or 'finance'. Of course, money isn't everything. The harms of porn – to women, to relationships, to the minds of teenage boys – are real and considerable. We might well be better off banning the whole thing. But if we are going to wage a moral war on porn, we should at least be honest about what we're sacrificing. The money is real – and it's already in the bank of HMRC.
Spectator
6 hours ago
- Spectator
In defence of the Trump playbook
The standard explanation for why charges for plastic bags reduced waste is economic. People were reluctant to pay 10p for a bag and so brought their own instead. This is partly true. But it would still be highly effective if the charge for a bag were merely 1p. That's because charging any amount, however trifling, was sufficient to change the implicit assumptions about normal retail behaviour. Previously, if you went into Boots and bought, say, a toothbrush and a tube of Anusol, the default was for the cashier to put them in a new bag – it would have seemed rude not to do so. Suddenly, however, the imposition of a charge meant that shopkeepers had to ask whether you wanted a bag or not. Often the answer was 'no'; you had one already, or, if you were a chap, your clothing was miraculously equipped with things called 'pockets'. There are many ways in which you can achieve large changes in behaviour without imposing large economic penalties. For instance, I contend that you could significantly reduce intergenerational inequality simply by the imposition of a property tax of 0.1 per cent annually on all homes. The relatively small amount raised could be hypothecated to fund child benefit, or to reduce the income tax burden on the young. For the purposes of comparison, the typical property tax levied by those well-known leftists in the State of Texas is slightly over 1.8 per cent. Bear me out. I am borrowing here from the Donald Trump playbook. This is an under-rated approach to legislation where you impose taxes not for their direct effect, but for their symbolic value. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold about the future. You don't necessarily have to do anything massive – you simply raise the possibility you might. Most human behaviour runs on implicit deterrents of this kind. By sending a surprising signal, you can change behaviour by unseating the unthinking assumptions people hold Before The Donald, it had become an axiomatic assumption in all businesses that no democratic government of any political stripe would ever deviate from the smug Davos neo-liberal globalist consensus in any shape or form. This artificial certainty meant that for decades you could offshore employment with abandon and treat your native staff fairly shabbily, without fear of any adverse consequences. Today it's different: even if you later reduce many tariffs to near zero and stop randomly abusing Canada, the signal has been sent. I hate to say this, but this approach could work well to solve many other problems. For instance, Britons have been lulled into planning for their future on the assumption that three unwritten rules underpin the tax system. 1) If you actually get up in the morning and do some useful work for which you get paid, you'll be taxed to buggery; 2) If you acquire wealth and then ride the wave of asset-price inflation (i.e. you have more money than you need 'cos you're old), you will be treated very generously; 3) If the asset in question is your own home, you won't be taxed at all, and nor will your good-for-nothing kids when they inherit it all. A large part of the reason why young people cannot afford to buy homes is nothing to do with the use value of a home – it is driven by the as-yet-unshaken belief that residential property has been sanctified as an asset class. It is this belief which possibly accounts for 25 per cent of the price of a home and a similarly large part of oldsters' pathological reluctance to downsize. Residential property is seen as Britain's only tax haven. To unseat this assumption, you don't need to rewrite the whole tax code, or go full Henry George – much as I would personally support this. You just have to make the unthinkable suddenly thinkable.
Reuters
7 hours ago
- Reuters
What's up with the wacky CBOT corn spreads? -Braun
NAPERVILLE, Illinois, June 11 (Reuters) - U.S. corn supply estimates for the waning 2024-25 marketing year have been dwindling in recent months, though a notable rebound is expected for 2025-26. But the futures market might not be reflecting these trends, leading many to wonder if old-crop stockpiles are actually larger than the government has predicted. Normally, that supply trajectory might put Chicago futures in an inverse, where old-crop corn is pricier than new-crop. But so far this month, CBOT July corn has traded at an average of around 3 cents per bushel cheaper than December corn , reflecting a small carry in the market. Analysts think the U.S. Department of Agriculture on Thursday will trim its forecast for 2024-25 U.S. corn ending stocks to 1.392 billion bushels, rendering stocks down 21% on the year. In past Junes, such a decline in corn stocks has been associated with July-December inverses exceeding 50 cents. The closest comparison in terms of stock declines would be 2018, when July-December corn traded at a 21-cent carry during the first two weeks of June. At that time, U.S. 2017-18 ending stocks were pegged to ease 8% on the year, but the actual estimate was more than ample at 2.1 billion bushels. This demonstrates that contracting year-on-year supplies can be associated with market carry in June. Additionally, there are examples (2008, 2018) where this carry existed despite a reduction in stock estimates over the previous several months. Still, the current setup may suggest that either July futures are too cheap versus December, old-crop stocks are being understated, or some combination of both. Given the present market structure, what might this mean for old-crop corn stocks – and trade expectations – moving forward? If old-crop stocks are too low, it may not come to light on Thursday. There is no relationship between the old-new crop futures spread and the trend in USDA's old-crop ending stock estimates from May to June. Fast-forward to June 30, when USDA publishes its June 1 stock survey, and the chance for a bearish bomb increases. Since 2008, whenever July-December corn traded near flat or in a carry during early June, analysts underestimated June 1 corn stocks about 73% of the time. On the flip side, analysts underestimated June 1 corn stocks in just one out of six years when old-new crop corn featured a strong inverse relationship. Since 2008, there is also a 73% hit rate for final corn ending stocks to be the same or higher than was estimated in June whenever July-December corn traded near flat or in a carry during early June. This same early June spread, however, does not suggest that final ending stocks will be bearish as the trade has gone on to both underestimate and overestimate September 1 corn stocks. The outcome is still wide open for the end of September, when USDA will publish final 2024-25 corn ending stocks. But right now, CBOT corn for expiration in mid-September is the cheapest of the bunch. July-September corn is trading at an inverse averaging 12 cents per bushel so far this month, which is unusual given the slight carry in July-December. The historical relationship between these spreads suggests that one or both are a bit out of sync. With multiple anomalies in the futures market setup having been identified, this might simply mean that 2025 is an outlier year. And if that's the case, historical odds may be increasingly less reliable from here. Karen Braun is a market analyst for Reuters. Views expressed above are her own. Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), opens new tab, your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
