patrick.net

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.

And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.

When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

I agree with you on all these points under normal circumstances, where kids are raised by self-reliant parents. Children born into generational poverty enabled by government subsidies, to parents with brain rotted by years of substances abuse (including during pregnancy and nursing) are far more likely to be burdens to society (disability and criminality) instead of becoming productive members of society like you and I normally would assume for children born into healthy environment.

David Losh says

I'd rather have cash than debt.

I'd rather have appreciating assets than depreciating cash...

tatupu70 says

David Losh says

I'd rather have cash than debt.

I'd rather have appreciating assets than depreciating cash...

I'd rather have some of both :)

Dan8267 says

Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy. If you don't think that's a good deal, you don't buy the premise that other people's kids make your life better and you wealthier.

Dan! Don't forget the child support waiver! If you do even that six figure income won't be near enough!

David Losh says

robertoaribas says

Yeah, I really want to take advice from you

Bob, like I said, guys like you are a dime a dozen. You watch the news, and made purchases based on the 1% drop in interest rates.

We'll see.

These past five years was the time to settle debt, that's what we are doing, Bob.

I'd rather have cash than debt.

And I suspect others would rather have the debt Roberto incurred to purchase his very well priced properties and be making the kind of money he is getting a month.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing. You get opportunities from this situation. Other people buy your software, other people grow food, harvest it, bring it to the store. You do profit from countless other things done by "other people" and their children.

And you expect all this to continue to happen as you age.

When you're in a retirement home, you expect younger nurses to take care of you too.

All 100% sustainable with immigration, not domestic propagation.

When you think of it immigration is far superior! Immigration policy can be tuned to only legally admit independent and well educated adults. They can even be admitted on a temporary basis, exploited to their full potential and deported as soon as their used up. Heck the policy can even require immigrants to be temporarily sterilized unless 1) they emigrate from the country or 2) they are granted full citizenship. That should eliminate the anchor babies.

And don't worry, there's plenty more immigrants willing to submit to such draconain measures thanks to people in their home countries who use more emotion than logic in family planning.

Reality says

Easter Island was not an over-population story. The islanders did not cut down all the trees in order to make farm land. They cut down all the trees in order to erect giant stone statues.

Yes, but you missed the point of
A society can have plenty of resources, but still be doomed if that society consumes those resources much faster than replacing them. See the history of Easter Island and its forests for the textbook example.

The fundamental problem that Easter Island experienced was that it cut down its forest faster than it replenished them. When they were out of trees, they could not even make boats to leave the island and were stuck on an island whose ecosystem had been destroyed.

The moral of the story is that natural resources must be wisely managed and a society must avoid depleting resources faster than it can renew them whether through overpopulation or unrestrained consumerism.

Dan8267 says

Let's accept the premise that children overall produce more than they consume and thus it's imperative that we crank out as many kids as possible. OK, I'll do my part. Pay me a mere six figure salary with benefits for impregnating women like crazy.

Of course I'd still count you as childless unless you accept to support them and that limits how much you can have. Or there is a limit on how many women you can seduce and convince to have children for you without support. In any case you couldn't go very far.

But let's admit your opposite premise that children are a danger to the earth and let's all stop to have children...The population will contract, the economy crater, people will have to work literally until they drop for lack of retirement, and we would all have wonderful technologies we will take to our graves in case we fail to upload ourselves into computers maintained by robots first.

Heraclitusstudent says

I'm sorry this is plain disingenuous. Other people are not *just* a cost to you. You live in a growing economy because the population is growing.

This is nothing disingenuous or untrue about what I said.

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous. The Earth cannot support an unlimited and ever-expanding human population. Period.

2. An economy that grows in absolute terms but shrinks in per capita terms is a very bad thing. It is not absolute GDP that matters, but GDP per capita.

3. Economic growth per capita, by definition, does not come from population increase. Rather it comes from the average individual becoming more productive, which is caused by advancements in science and technology.

4. Ultimately, there is a maximum beneficial population for a given planet and technological level. Once that population is reached, whatever it is, additional population is counter-productive. So even if the ideal population of the Earth is greater than the current population, there would be a point were good social policy entails discouraging population growth.

To argue otherwise is to argue that it is better to have an infinite number of human beings on Earth than a finite number. Such a ridiculous argument is proof enough that there is a maximum beneficial population and that population controls are necessary.

At best, you might try to argue that we haven't reached that maximum beneficial population. But with a third of the world lacking safe drinking water, it's pretty hard to make that case.

5. I never argued that "other people are just a cost to me". What I argue is that additional population growth is a net cost. I have shown numerous economic and ecological reasons why this is true for our particular planet and our particular technological level. You have yet to show me why it isn't so.

Of course, if we had terraformed other planets, were living on a super-Earth planet, or had much more advanced technology, it could be the case that 10.1 billion humans are below the optimal population level. But we don't.

6. Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children and as such the childless should not be fiscally punished or turned into second-class citizens for not having children. If anything, society should be grateful that some people work and pay taxes all their lives without sucking up all the government services. If anything, the childless should be taxed less, not more.

Dan8267 says

The fundamental problem that Easter Island experienced was that it cut down its forest faster than it replenished them. When they were out of trees, they could not even make boats to leave the island and were stuck on an island whose ecosystem had been destroyed.

Easter Islanders could leave the island (as anyone living on an island surrounded by an ocean) . . . they just couldn't return! The reason had little to do with trees but their boat building technology: the Polynesians used catamarans, not keel-weighted sailboats like in the North Atlantic. While cats are much faster boats than "traditional" sailboats of the North Atlantic and well suited to the mid-Pacific near the equator, they could not tach directly/closely into the wind. The Polynesians followed wind east-ward all the way from today's Indonesia near the equator, and had reached the end of their several hundred year old genetic journey at Easter Island, which was far south enough to reach the West Wind zone. There simply wasn't any island nearby that Polynesian catamaran could make round trip to and from. Any trip to Easter Island was a one-way trip, and any trip off the island was a one-way trip, never to be heard from again, until the European explorers arrived with heavily-keeled sail ships.

The moral of the story is that natural resources must be wisely managed and a society must avoid depleting resources faster than it can renew them whether through overpopulation or unrestrained consumerism.

They thought they were wisely managing their natural resources by cutting down the trees to help erect bigger and bigger Moai's (statues) so that sailors going off the island could return . . . like Polynesian sailors had always done on previous islands. The priests putting forth the Moai Protection Theory all came with credentials and proper peer-reviews of the day! So it was only logical they cut down all their trees in order to build bigger and bigger statues! The process was very well funded with tax money, and properly supervised by the high priest class.

Heraclitusstudent says

there is a limit on how many women you can seduce

http://www.youtube.com/embed/c7k2y08dSV4

This obviously is not an organic recovery.

Reality says

Easter Islanders could leave the island (as anyone living on an island surrounded by an ocean) . . . they just couldn't return! The reason had little to do with trees but their boat building technology

I have read otherwise as well as heard differently on a History Channel special.

The number of people became too large to be supported by the island’s limited resources, and by the 17th century the land had been deforested, the soil eroded, and many native plants and animals driven to extinction. The islanders no longer had sufficiently large trees with which to build sturdy boats, giving them no way to leave the island and limiting their fishing abilities.

And yes, stupid superstition and status seeking caused the islanders to chop down so many trees. But regardless of the cause or the intent of the the deforestation, the most important lesson and most relevant to this thread is that any finite renewable resource must be managed so that it is not depleted faster than it can be renewed or it will be lost. Easter Island was a microcosm of what is happening right now to the entire planet due to over-exploitation of resources by every nation.

HydroCabron says

A sure sign of the imminent skyrocketing of real estate prices.

A better class of buyers is entering the market, well-heeled and with the resources to outbid those without the cash reserves. Soon they will drive the prices far higher than anyone can afford, and everyone will be priced out forever.

One thing never considered in economics 101 is the case where the supply and demand curves no longer intersect. Demand vanishes, yet price becomes effectively infinite.

Those holding real property will soon own the universe: the money supply will be inadequate to purchase a single home in Stockton, and all real estate transactions will be in kind. Literally everyone will be priced out forever.

Recently I noticed Wall Street investors buying property in the area where I have my rentals. They not only pushing property prices higher but also they asking rent are much higher as well. Soon we going to be just servants of the aristocracy.

Homeboy says

This obviously is not an organic recovery.

Dont worry the organic recovery is still to come.

Heraclitusstudent says

The population will contract, the economy crater, people will have to work literally until they drop for lack of retirement, and we would all have wonderful technologies we will take to our graves in case we fail to upload ourselves into computers maintained by robots first.

Well that's what you get for having a Ponzi based economy.

Still you dismiss immigration. Adult immigrants don't take 18+ years to mature and don't take as many resources. The USA could do quite well with a zero birthrate and immigration.

Dan8267 says

And yes, stupid superstition and status seeking caused the islanders to chop down so many trees. But regardless of the cause or the intent of the the deforestation, the most important lesson and most relevant to this thread is that any finite renewable resource must be managed so that it is not depleted faster than it can be renewed or it will be lost. Easter Island was a microcosm of what is happening right now to the entire planet due to over-exploitation of resources by every nation.

Do you not realize that Easter Island exemplifies what happens in a finite society/environment managed by a government? We are talking about a relatively small island here closed off due to limitations of navigation technology. Polynesians had always filled up one island, then moved "excess" population off to the horizon on a different island, then various islands traded with each other and developed specialization thereby enabling even higher population on the original islands. A process that's not very dissimilar to London being proclaimed as "over-populated" in the 17th century with a population measured in the 100k's . . . whereas today, after three centuries of trade with the rest of the world, London has a population measured in the millions!

The problem with Easter Island was that it could not trade with anyone off the island due to the catamaran boat building technology running smack up against one-directional wind all year-round and geographical isolation. It fell upon the government to manage the finite resources, and the government promptly proceeded to exacerbate the problem by chopping down all the trees in accordance with their peer-reviewed religion, just like almost all government management/solutions do!

Without war or epdemic, such a tiny island was bound to be filled up beyond carry capacity in the absence of trade and rapid technological improvement resulting from trade. Government management of the finite resources only made the situation worse by creating a ecological disaster even more rapidly before any technological solution could give them a way out.

don't get married. can't lose if you don't play. the game is rigged just like the housing market.

I'd rather have the opportunity.

There are a lot of other price appreciation vehicles.

David Losh says

I'd rather have the opportunity.

There are a lot of other price appreciation vehicles.

Not many with the upside that the person you always argue with got.

bgamall4 says

REpro says

Recently I noticed Wall Street investors buying property in the area where I have my rentals. They not only pushing property prices higher but also they asking rent are much higher as well. Soon we going to be just servants of the aristocracy.

They may be underestimating multigenerational living, the one thing the banksters cannot control.

By bombarding homeowners with ads; “We buy your house 10% above market price, all cash” may convince many to sell.

What happened did he walk away from his house?

bgamall4 says

Totally manufactured. Question is, where does it go from here?

Good question. Affordability is down, but is still pretty good compared to overall average. I think that's mainly due to interest rates that are still near historic lows. I don't think housing will go down now, but it does seem overheated in some markets, like California.

Reality says

Do you not realize that Easter Island exemplifies what happens in a finite society/environment managed by a government?

I'm not arguing with anything you are saying, but it's completely irrelevant to the discussion that I was having. Even if everything you said is 100% true, it does not contradict any of my points and is a complete tangent to the conversation.

Dan8267 says

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous.

Yep it's a dangerous idea, yet one that is widely relied upon, including in the US. There is a reason immigration is needed, and social sec calculations are directly based on population growth. Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Dan8267 says

Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children

Yeah they are not inflicting harm, just are just relying on other people having children, and dumping their costs on them.
($240K by child http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/child-born-in-2012-seen-by-u-s-costing-241-080-to-raise.html)

bgamall4 says

They may be underestimating multigenerational living, the one thing the banksters cannot control.

multigenerational living doesn't really matter as long as population is growing the excess inventory will be absorbed.

What they cannot control is people moving to cheaper area and building houses that they can afford. People complaining about high costs should do that.

Meg Ryan got her face refurbished!

http://thestir.cafemom.com/beauty_style/157363/meg_ryans_newest_face_isnt?utm_medium=sem2&utm_campaign=prismx&utm_source=outbrain-e&utm_content=0

note- just realized this URL has a query variable utm_campaign=prismx! wow scary times.

David Losh says

The bears have been absolutely correct. The market place is manipulated which is fine as long as you buy to sell, but Real Estate is a long term hold with high expenses.

The bears have been correct??? HOW?? Have prices come down or gone up?

This is what I mean...you don't see the facts buddy. It does not matter if prices are up because the market is manipulated etc etc ...like I said, it doesn't matter WHY - the fact is...prices are UP as of right now which means the bears have been wrong for 3 years in a row...and they may be wrong for the next 5 years in a row. As a family who is thinking about buying or renting thats all that matters. I have refied at the lowest rate in history and locked in my "rent". It's not going up. EVER. And my house has appreciated. I don't need to sell it to gain from that. Heard of HELOC's etc??

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

1. A growing economy does not require an ever-increasing population. Such an idea is highly dangerous.

Yep it's a dangerous idea, yet one that is widely relied upon, including in the US. There is a reason immigration is needed, and social sec calculations are directly based on population growth. Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

I have a better solution - DON'T set up a system which requires infinite expansion to function. Start there.

Heraclitusstudent says

Dan8267 says

Nothing you say negates the point that I made that the childless are not inflicting harm on society by selfishly refusing to produce children

Yeah they are not inflicting harm, just are just relying on other people having children, and dumping their costs on them.

($240K by child http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-14/child-born-in-2012-seen-by-u-s-costing-241-080-to-raise.html)

Yet you want parents to have their costs picked up by the childless?

Yes, exactly. The fact that women feel the need to carry pepper spray to defend themselves is a good example of the fear that is constant that a man will either rob or rape them. And it does happen.

rape is effectively come to mean any sexual experience where a woman feels dissatisfied, even if this dissatisfaction comes months, even years after the act.

Feminists destroyed the term rape in the same way their cohorts ruined the term 'racist'.

just one example of a severely confused girl who confuses her own personal problems with those of her entire gender. Unfortunately this has become the norm, as Feminists are nothing short of a mob of dissatisfied women who victimize men, typically those who are helpless economically.

another great example of too much information.

Heraclitusstudent says

Therefore you are directly benefiting from population growth and until a better solution is found, it is hypocritical to pretend otherwise.

Yes, so far economic growth has been tied to population growth. Consider how closely new construction and rising home values have been to a thriving economy.

A lot of investment is based on expectations of increasing GDP, not GDP
per person. And I believe that most current economic models and central bank policies are based on increasing populations.

Increasing population is what we know. But it is changing, or it will have to. The transition is already here.

Perfect setting for the next Dawn of the Dead movie.

The real issue is that people, even the sheeple, are processing what is going on. Maybe not on a high level, but nonetheless they are noticing troubling disconnects, and are getting ready to stampede.

No, it's all caused by higher taxes - a big misunderstanding. A Walmart spokesman said so.

HydroCabron says

No, it's all caused by higher taxes - a big misunderstanding. A Walmart spokesman said so.

have food stamp recipients experienced a tax hike?

toothfairy says

What happened did he walk away from his house?

No, we didn't, we are in the process of refurbishing the house.

It was a fixer we maxed out, and yes, we had the option of walking away, to capture the price appreciation.

We are now in an appreciating market place of a good location.

It's just funny how things work out.

Does the Walmart near you guys have fresh produce and other perishable foods on sale?