Of course it's not the UK price but neither is yours you've added some miscellaneous crap to make up the shortfall. The point being either way mine or yours it's bullsh1t because the premise of your economical argument is incorrect but you then used the math incorrectly in support of a flawed premise.

My "shortfall" is less than $2. Are you going to add in the 20% to come up with your final number or are you going to leave it out to try and make it seem like your right? Don't back out now bub. You came hear boasting that my math is wrong and you've just shown sh!t

Although you get a number closer the way you get there is illogical you can't say that wages are 31% lower in the U.S. and then find out 31% of the lower U.S. Price and then add it back on to the U.S. Price You end up with a figure that is meaningless. That's my point. The fact that the figures my way don't give you the right answer proves your central theory wrong. The only way you can get to a number that is close is because you have applied the maths in a manner running wholly contrary to logic. My calculations disprove your initial theory because I have done the math logically and consistently and not simply tried to make it fit.