Population Density

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Vegosiux:

aelreth:

Low interest rates tends to cause that. This makes money cheap. It also hobbles those trying to climb the economic ladder. I'm a minority since I think savings not consumption is the engine of growth. As it stands because consumption is so high and savings is abysmally low in the US, any move to save and thus reduce consumption will fatally wound the service economy.

Ehm, please elaborate on that, since either I'm not understanding what you're saying, or you're being contradictory. You claim both that saving is going to spur growth, and that it's going to hammer a nail in the coffin of a large sector of the economy.

But, you know, if people are saving money instead of spending it to buy stuff, the businesses that are not producing essential stuff aren't gonna be looking too strong.

And the entire bit about making money "cheap"...uh, money isn't even a commodity, it's a currency. Though yes, I do realize many people see it as a commodity. Not sure why though.

Low interest rates mean that credit is cheap. What would housing prices be if they required 20% on the down payment rather than the 3% they require now?

On a global scale if the economy is based on using credit to buy things that are not produced locally, what is the long term prognosis?

Unfortunately wealth will find a new place where it is welcome and grow.

Ultimately production should be weighed as more important to the economy rather than creative ways to make debt.

aelreth:

Low interest rates mean that credit is cheap. If the economy is based on using credit to buy things that are not produced locally, the economy is in terrible shape.

Ultimately production should be weighed as more important to the economy rather than creative ways to make debt.

Well, first of all, let me just say that I'd be in favor of 100% reserve banking if there was a way to implement that, because I'm really not too fond of the business practices of the banking sector.

Second, supply-side? You're not getting far if stuff you produced is sitting in warehouses because people are not buying it. I get the idea that not being as dependant on production from elsewhere is a good thing, but full self-sufficiency is kind of a pipe dream in the modern, globalized world.

Thirdly, I also agree that just going in debt to try and keep rolling isn't going to take you anywhere nice, but neither is trying to save gas by cutting the fuel supply. If you're in a deficit, you should also look into increasing revenues, and a short-term loan can work for that, sometimes.

Living in New Zealand I WANT higher population density here. Auckland is HUGE for the number of people living here. I want to see more high-rise apartment blocks but we have an obsession with the housing market and everyone wants to build US$400,000+ houses that increase in value of ~10%~ a year.

We also have this government subsidy issue when it comes to children but it's not overcrowding that causes the issue, rather it's the single mothers who are able to have more children after already being on a single mother benefit and get MORE money for having those extra children. I mean, if you need to be on a government benefit because you can barely support yourself and your child why would you have ANOTHER child? The answer is simple: to get more free money.

The UK, however, I can more than agree they've got some overcrowding issues in the major cities. Heck, they had those problems in the 1930s and it's only getting worse.

At the same time India is winning if this is a competition.

Vegosiux:

aelreth:

Low interest rates mean that credit is cheap. If the economy is based on using credit to buy things that are not produced locally, the economy is in terrible shape.

Ultimately production should be weighed as more important to the economy rather than creative ways to make debt.

Well, first of all, let me just say that I'd be in favor of 100% reserve banking if there was a way to implement that, because I'm really not too fond of the business practices of the banking sector.

Second, supply-side? You're not getting far if stuff you produced is sitting in warehouses because people are not buying it. I get the idea that not being as dependant on production from elsewhere is a good thing, but full self-sufficiency is kind of a pipe dream in the modern, globalized world.

Thirdly, I also agree that just going in debt to try and keep rolling isn't going to take you anywhere nice, but neither is trying to save gas by cutting the fuel supply. If you're in a deficit, you should also look into increasing revenues, and a short-term loan can work for that, sometimes.

As it stands most warehouses are selling off their inventories and cutting their workforces to save money & maximize return to the owner/bondholders Then they implement this;

Unless the powers that be move quickly to let the price of labor fall entire cross-sections of people will be removed from useful employment either through globalization or automation.

As for the former employees after their UE benefits run out they simply stop being tracked by the BLS numbers. The best indicator for this is the Labor Force participation rate.

In the end they always cut the dead weight, and they find ways to make people expendable. That goes the same with governments too.

aelreth:

Low interest rates tends to cause that. This makes money cheap. It also hobbles those trying to climb the economic ladder. I'm a minority since I think savings not consumption is the engine of growth. As it stands because consumption is so high and savings is abysmally low in the US, any move to save and thus reduce consumption will fatally wound the service economy.

Long-term economic growth is dependent on productivity improvements - often new technology - much of which will come from capital investment.

Workers at the bottom of the economic ladder get their money from wages. They need jobs, and jobs are fuelled by consumption. High interest tends to induce savings and reduce consumption, both by making saving more attractive but also by making debt repayments a greater chunk of people's disposable incomes. These lower income workers also tend to have little money saved or to save, so benefit little from higher interest on savings. Also, they are the people who, if they wanted to invest in themselves for betterment, are most likely to need to borrow to do so, and borrowing is facilitated by low interest rates.

Thus high interest rates are good for people with lots of savings - the top 20% and pensioners. I would suggest most people trying to climb the economic ladder want low interest rates. Once you're up there, then you want them high.

Agema:

aelreth:

Low interest rates tends to cause that. This makes money cheap. It also hobbles those trying to climb the economic ladder. I'm a minority since I think savings not consumption is the engine of growth. As it stands because consumption is so high and savings is abysmally low in the US, any move to save and thus reduce consumption will fatally wound the service economy.

Long-term economic growth is dependent on productivity improvements - often new technology - much of which will come from capital investment.

Workers at the bottom of the economic ladder get their money from wages. They need jobs, and jobs are fuelled by consumption. High interest tends to induce savings and reduce consumption, both by making saving more attractive but also by making debt repayments a greater chunk of people's disposable incomes. These lower income workers also tend to have little money saved or to save, so benefit little from higher interest on savings. Also, they are the people who, if they wanted to invest in themselves for betterment, are most likely to need to borrow to do so, and borrowing is facilitated by low interest rates.

Thus high interest rates are good for people with lots of savings - the top 20% and pensioners. I would suggest most people trying to climb the economic ladder want low interest rates. Once you're up there, then you want them high.

The part of the poor being hurt by high interest rates is misplaced.

Why on earth would you loan a poor person money?

Wouldn't it be more logical to loan a businessman that money to buy capital investments instead? Then the capital could be used to unleash the poor man's productivity?

Where should interest rates be then?

aelreth:
Why on earth would you loan a poor person money?

I use "poor" in a very wide sense. I am paid more than about 75% of the population, but despite that if I wanted to start a business, I'd probably need to borrow a lot of money anyway. A poor person might also want to borrow money to, say, go to college or some other form of course or training. Or buy a house, which is how many low and middle income earners build up assets. Or blow it living it large, of course.

Wouldn't it be more logical to loan a businessman that money to buy capital investments instead? Then the capital could be used to unleash the poor man's productivity?

It's logical to lend money to whoever is likely to pay it back.

Where should interest rates be then?

Depends what you want to do, and what you want to do probably depends on the circumstances.

Agema:

aelreth:

Low interest rates tends to cause that. This makes money cheap. It also hobbles those trying to climb the economic ladder. I'm a minority since I think savings not consumption is the engine of growth. As it stands because consumption is so high and savings is abysmally low in the US, any move to save and thus reduce consumption will fatally wound the service economy.

Long-term economic growth is dependent on productivity improvements - often new technology - much of which will come from capital investment.

Workers at the bottom of the economic ladder get their money from wages. They need jobs, and jobs are fuelled by consumption. High interest tends to induce savings and reduce consumption, both by making saving more attractive but also by making debt repayments a greater chunk of people's disposable incomes. These lower income workers also tend to have little money saved or to save, so benefit little from higher interest on savings. Also, they are the people who, if they wanted to invest in themselves for betterment, are most likely to need to borrow to do so, and borrowing is facilitated by low interest rates.

Thus high interest rates are good for people with lots of savings - the top 20% and pensioners. I would suggest most people trying to climb the economic ladder want low interest rates. Once you're up there, then you want them high.

Indeed, people do not in fact climb their way up the economic ladder by accruing interest. That is just the dividend one gets-- for doing nothing other than "existing" and "having"-- once one is already up there. One needs to be owed a pretty tidy sum even for a relatively high interest rate to be that helpful. Aelreth's assessment would only make sense if bank interest was how people with little could possibly make a fortune. Unfortunately, that is simply not the trend in the outcomes of the repeated multiplication of small numbers by small numbers. Changing one of those numbers from 1.02 to 1.12 doesn't substantially help anyone except the guy who already has a princely principal owed to him, and which dwarfs his expenses. And it hurts the man who owes that principal. Raising the price of borrowing simply hurts those that need to borrow. It is immensely beneficial to those who want to and can make a lot of money by doing absolutely nothing, however.

Agema:

I use "poor" in a very wide sense. I am paid more than about 75% of the population, but despite that if I wanted to start a business, I'd probably need to borrow a lot of money anyway. A poor person might also want to borrow money to, say, go to college or some other form of course or training. Or buy a house, which is how many low and middle income earners build up assets. Or blow it living it large, of course.

Yet college was much cheaper when college loans were less prevalent. Thus abundance of credit pushed by the government using student loans drives college tuition prices faster than even the most overstated inflation calculators.

In regards to homes, It's not an asset unless you truly own it. If they have a mortgage you are renting it from a bank, once that is done you still must pay rent to the state through property taxes. If you actively live in said house is it really an asset? If you rent out a house I would put it in the asset column.

Just like with college the amount of credit that was being given out inflated prices of the real estate market.

Agema:

It's logical to lend money to whoever is likely to pay it back.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw with the ownership policy of the Bush administration, HUD, & FHA, they used sub-prime to lure the people that shouldn't be buying homes in. Then once sub-prime fell, the credit bubble imploded.

Seanchaidh:

Indeed, people do not in fact climb their way up the economic ladder by accruing interest. That is just the dividend one gets-- for doing nothing other than "existing" and "having"-- once one is already up there. One needs to be owed a pretty tidy sum even for a relatively high interest rate to be that helpful. Aelreth's assessment would only make sense if bank interest was how people with little could possibly make a fortune. Unfortunately, that is simply not the trend in the outcomes of the repeated multiplication of small numbers by small numbers. Changing one of those numbers from 1.02 to 1.12 doesn't substantially help anyone except the guy who already has a princely principal owed to him, and which dwarfs his expenses. And it hurts the man who owes that principal. Raising the price of borrowing simply hurts those that need to borrow. It is immensely beneficial to those who want to and can make a lot of money by doing absolutely nothing, however.

You need assets to be able to secure capital. Savings is the primary vehicle of such a thing. Punishing savers while rewarding debt only enriches the banks and the governments.

Low interest rates make a weak business sector, it leads to risky behavior.

I simply believe that interest rates should be allowed to return to it's natural rate of around 7% not the joke of the rate it is now of near 0%.

aelreth:
You need assets to be able to secure capital. Savings is the primary vehicle of such a thing.

Why don't you explain exactly how you think that works? Preferably in the small scale. What you said is very abstract. I think we're more liable to get somewhere if we make it concrete.

aelreth:
Low interest rates make a weak business sector, it leads to risky behavior.

It does lead to risky behavior-- otherwise known as "economic behavior" or "production of goods and services." There would indeed be less of that at higher interest rates. No doubt about it. How much less is a good question, and that seems to vary indirectly (also inversely) with the rate of inflation.

aelreth:
I simply believe that interest rates should be allowed to return to it's natural rate of around 7% not the joke of the rate it is now of near 0%.

What exactly is preferable about the 'natural' interest rate? And where do you think that would put the 'natural' rate of unemployment?

In regards to to original topic, I am not one who likes or enjoys cities at all, so I am in favor of lower populations. The air tastes and smells toxic in cities. The citiy smells make me ill, it actually makes me ill to remain in the city for long, and often I get ill while there. Even the majority of the food I have eaten while in the city doesn't taste as fresh. Where I live, whether I look out the front of my house or the back, as far as I can see there is only trees, plants, animals, water and sky. The air is sweet and fresh, coyotes come through every night, bunnies hop in my gardens during the day, and occasional mountain lions come roaming through. I have lived in the city for a long time before I moved here, and it was awful. The smell of cars, oil, gas, sewage, rotting food, rotting buildings, rats, roaches, musty disgusting smells everywhere, toxins everywhere. I have to work in the city as well, and would prefer never to have to go to a city again. It is just so unnatural and unhealthy. I can see how overpopulation can be devestating. It is unnatural for people to be crammed together like that in rotting buildings. I luckily have never had to live in an overcrowded area, even when living in Austin on campus, it was never as bad as most have it who live in cities. I was cramped living in a dorm, but luckily only had to do so for a short while. I felt cramped even when living in townhomes where it was like a mini house, but attached to other houses, no one above or below you. In the apartments I lived in, they were only two stories tall, so again not overcrowded as others are forced to live, yet still too crowded for me. I enjoy my garden,pool,lack of noise pollution and fresh air too much to be able to ever last long in a city. It is nice t o be able to lay at the pool without worry of creeps trying to jump on you, or check the mail in your undies without thought that anyone will notice. I know it is not possible for everyone to be able to live like that, but it does seem much more natural.

I don't think dictating population control is right either, It appears to be an issue with borders rather than population control. Borders are unnatural, as is assuming that any one person has the right to tell another whether or not they can have children. Yes, I do understand the problem and the desperate situation for many, but I would hope it would be better solved with education rather than dictating whether or not someone can have a child.

EDIT: As for more green space I would prefer this solution rather than piling people ontop of another:
image
Either build our houses as jungle flower pots or build under the jungle! :)

Seanchaidh:
And where do you think that would put the 'natural' rate of unemployment?

the ideal rate of unemployment is supposedly around 6%.

think of it as "fluidity in the labour market"...

"full employment" would actually be an economic disaster within the current system (although no politician will ever say this on the hustings).

to understand why think on this: if everyone is already in work how do you open (or expand) a business (which is always a risk) without negatively affecting an existing (and thus in all probability a stably functioning) one ?

jus' passing through...

ps. he's sayin some interesting stuff but i don't agree on aelreths automation/globalization means lower wages point. working in a warehouse may very well become a non economically viable job in an advanced economy but i'm old enough to have seen crys like this go up many times before about automation, i know it's largely hollow, that we shouldn't even seek to bring back the "jawbs" we lose and that "globalization" does not mean the entire world has to simplistically exist on the same pay scales.

warehouses are actually quite a bad example in relation to "globalization" because a warehouse must exist in a specific geographical location in order to serve it's basic function and as for "selling off their inventories", a warehouse with no inventory ? i kinda fail to see how that "maximize returns"...surely that's just an empty shed ? unless you mean inventory optimization which has been done for a very, very long time...probably as long as there have been warehouses...

aelreth:

Yet college was much cheaper when college loans were less prevalent. Thus abundance of credit pushed by the government using student loans drives college tuition prices faster than even the most overstated inflation calculators.

It is not clear to me that college is more expensive due to government loans. There are confounding factors, for instance the fact that colleges are in competition for good students (and staff), thus drive standards up against each other, requiring greater income to afford.

The reality of scrapping government-backed student loans is that it becomes much harder for lower income individuals to afford college, and in a society where educational qualifications make huge differences to income, this means people born poor are more likely to stay that way.

In regards to homes, It's not an asset unless you truly own it. If they have a mortgage you are renting it from a bank, once that is done you still must pay rent to the state through property taxes. If you actively live in said house is it really an asset? If you rent out a house I would put it in the asset column.

No you are not renting it: it really is your house. The bank owns your debt, and the house is security. You could, however, put other assets up as collateral instead - for instance, shares, a work of art, gold, and so on; it's just this is not an option for most people, as they don't have sufficient assets aside from the house.

An asset is just something worth something; it doesn't have to make any more money for you.

Therein lies the fundamental flaw with the ownership policy of the Bush administration, HUD, & FHA, they used sub-prime to lure the people that shouldn't be buying homes in. Then once sub-prime fell, the credit bubble imploded.

Statistics clearly demonstrate that the vast explosion in subprime loans in the 2000s was through private mortgage companies (who competed with each other for the lucrative loans market by dropping their lending standards through the floor). The government agencies maintained decent standards. This can observed by examining the proportion of subprime loans - fairly constant from government-backed lenders - and the fact that the government lenders' market share plummetted, as they would if they were being heavily outcompeted by others.

Seanchaidh:

Why don't you explain exactly how you think that works? Preferably in the small scale. What you said is very abstract. I think we're more liable to get somewhere if we make it concrete.

Capital increases productivity. You need assets as collateral to be able to acquire capital. Simple example, tools at a construction site. Are you renting to own those tools? Or did you buy them yourself? In many jobs you have a significant pay cut your first few months to pay for your initial equipment being issued to you. However after a certain time your pay is increased to reflect that.

Seanchaidh:

It does lead to risky behavior-- otherwise known as "economic behavior" or "production of goods and services." There would indeed be less of that at higher interest rates. No doubt about it. How much less is a good question, and that seems to vary indirectly (also inversely) with the rate of inflation.

Interest rates force down inflation. That was made clear when Volcker let interest rates rise to quell the stagflation during the 80s. Why save money when credit is cheap right now? Interest rates are low so I can make decisions that I would otherwise not make. Why do you pay for vacations on credit? What happens when it becomes unaffordable to live paycheck to paycheck? When people have to adjust their luxuries to live within that paycheck?

Seanchaidh:

What exactly is preferable about the 'natural' interest rate? And where do you think that would put the 'natural' rate of unemployment?

Was wrong with the natural interest rate. It's around 5%. That's what happened in 2008 the interest rate rose to the average rate for our history, and it murdered the consumption base of our economy.

What's wrong is that the Federal Reserve in manipulating rates to make debt serfs of people that should be advancing on the economic ladder.

Ironically the natural unemployment rate was discovered by the coolidge administration. They had no wage floor and unemployment lasted 8 weeks. It was 3% U6. They changed the measure of unemployment from then to now to make us look better.

In nature if an animal doesn't find food it lives off it's fat until it either finds an alternate food source or it dies.

emeraldrafael:
My personal opinion is we need a new world war or plague to sweep through and cut down the population, because humans are DEFINITELY overcrowding the world and using more than it has to give. especially when its perpetually growing. I think where I personally live, we have a decent enough population density. Then again my second idea (which is worse than that one) isnt moral either and I stopped repeating it after I got tired of the disgusted looks and misinterpretations of its motivations.

But, I live in PA, so all he population is either in pittsburgh, in philadelphia, in erie, in the harrisburg/lancaster area, and small sparsings in places like Wilkes-berre scranton and altoona. Most of the rest of the state is still forests or farmlands and largely rural. so there's plenty of room to develop.

Don't worry, considering the dearth of new anti-biotic classes developed over the last couple of decades, and the reckless disregard with which we've used the ones we have, a plague is much more a matter of when than if.

aelreth:

Vegosiux:

aelreth:

Low interest rates mean that credit is cheap. If the economy is based on using credit to buy things that are not produced locally, the economy is in terrible shape.

Ultimately production should be weighed as more important to the economy rather than creative ways to make debt.

Well, first of all, let me just say that I'd be in favor of 100% reserve banking if there was a way to implement that, because I'm really not too fond of the business practices of the banking sector.

Second, supply-side? You're not getting far if stuff you produced is sitting in warehouses because people are not buying it. I get the idea that not being as dependant on production from elsewhere is a good thing, but full self-sufficiency is kind of a pipe dream in the modern, globalized world.

Thirdly, I also agree that just going in debt to try and keep rolling isn't going to take you anywhere nice, but neither is trying to save gas by cutting the fuel supply. If you're in a deficit, you should also look into increasing revenues, and a short-term loan can work for that, sometimes.

As it stands most warehouses are selling off their inventories and cutting their workforces to save money & maximize return to the owner/bondholders Then they implement this;

Unless the powers that be move quickly to let the price of labor fall entire cross-sections of people will be removed from useful employment either through globalization or automation.

As for the former employees after their UE benefits run out they simply stop being tracked by the BLS numbers. The best indicator for this is the Labor Force participation rate.

In the end they always cut the dead weight, and they find ways to make people expendable. That goes the same with governments too.

Alternatively, the politicians could scrap the "free" trade policies with mercantilist cultures that exploit their people and policies to produce a trade imbalance, and instead focus on rebuilding the manufacturing infrastructure that has been destroyed by said "free" trade policies and unrestricted immigration of a third-world underclass, but I think we all know that the people in charge are too busy raking it in hand over fist to actually produce policies beneficial to their constituents rather than their small circle of well-connected relatives and friends.

over 10% of the UK read the Sun or Daily Mail and seem to believe it. More than that would vote for UKIP. Jedward became famous.

By that evidence, the population density is far, far too dense...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked