How Does Population Affect the Value of Land and Currency?

[WhoWee]

If you do not understand the subject and are not willing to learn stop posting on this thread. I am not missing the point, I am well aware of varying population densities. Do you think I am saying that everyone is going to pay the same amount for land in a fixed money supply economy?
NO, I am not. Obviously land and homes and rent will be of more value in certain areas!
The population has an effect on the demand of any land, anywhere. It also has an effect on the demand for certain more desirable locations.You seem to have some kind of strange personal vendetta against me if you are trying to point out things that I haven't even said.Do you actually think you have proved anything or that you are in any way providing any constructive criticism?
You asked me to prove that demand for land is rising in the US? Is that a joke? How do you measure demand if not price? Price in this system cannot accurately measure the demand of land because of speculation. Which I already explained.




HAha ha! Where am I wrong here? "If I haven't attempted to establish increase demand for land in the U.S. that is because it is not necessary. The demand for land always goes up with population, so does rent and home values along with it. Why would you try to deny such an elementary principle?"

Do you realize that it is not important whether the population rises at all? The whole point is that the demand for currency follows the demand for land by population change. If one is fixed(land) the money supply must be, or you will end up in the situation we are in now! Housing bubblemassive foreclosures, massive defaults. All those defaulted loans are actually the money people expect to be able to withdraw from there bank accounts on demand. 90% of the money in your bank is actually just a promise from someone else. As I pointed out earlier in this post the value or price of rent is dependant on the availability of undeveloped land. Prices can only rise to a point that people are willing to pay. If I can make more money in a certain area I must also pay higher rent. If the rent is too high that I cannot afford the rent even with higher pay I will choose not to rent there. If I can find a better income to rent ratio I will find it wherever I can. Even if it happens to be in a more rural area than my original plan. So population always dictates the value of land which dictates the value of a home or an apartment even if there are more or less desirable areas.
That is why cities are formed and is why suburbs exist on the outskirts. That is also why suburbs will eventually become more developed and undeveloped land will become suburbs.
Elementary principles. Your link on elasticity does not prove my statements wrong at all. Did you read your own link? Especially the part I pointed out? There are no massive spikes in population that will give such elasticity to the supply and demand curve of land. Land is also a necessity, not just undeveloped land but homes and apartments. So there is not going to be much elasticity in the supply demand curve at all. So far you have proved nothing I have said wrong, even though you still for some reason seem so desperate to do so. But if you want to nuts let's get nuts. Bring specific discrepencies to me if you'd like so I can drown you in credible references. I am not claiming to be all knowing, and I am very careful what I claim to be truth or fact. I would prefer that you didn't and that this thread could be more than just people ignoring factual information in some kind of lame attempt to take credibility away from my arguments. This can be the end all of fractional reserve banking threads.

I really don't know what any of this land develpoment discussion - as posted here - has to do with fractional reserve banking?

 

[BilPrestonEsq]

What's strange about all these lease-financed transactions is that they all inflate the cost of industrial goods and services by making relatively large amounts of money available for them. The idea is that because equipment is going to be used to produce large amounts of product for sale, they should not be sold for as little as possible. In other words, it is not the labor and materials of production that determine the price but rather the amount that the final product contributes to someone else's revenues. Another way to look at it is that people want to get as large a piece of other people's revenues as they can, so they price their inputs as high as the buyer will bear. If lease-financing was not available, the buyer could bear a lot less, so industrial equipment would have to be sold for less or not at all. Then the question would be how much businesses would be willing to "save up" for new equipment and whether equipment providers would hold out for higher prices or whether they would go ahead and sell at a discount to keep those businesses in business.

How can you post this and then post this?

If you understand the micro-mechanics of economics, why do you keep going back to referencing the money supply and fractional reserve banking instead of identifying other factors? It's like you can't stand that economics is constituted through multiple factors influencing each other because you want one think, i.e. banking, to be determinant so that you can push to change this one thing and have everything else behave the way you want it to. You refuse to look at other factors and other responses to the changes you promote than the ones you hope for.

In in effort to get on the same page, could you please list some of these factors?
I have considered many factors based on historical data. The entire economy would be entirely different without inflation and credit, without the fractional reserve system. This credit dictates all other factors. This is the major communication breakdown here. It is not that it will behave the way I want it to. It will behave in a way that is dictated my monetary and fiscal policies. I am looking at the major factors that dictate the economic 'weather'. I am not overlooking anything or at least doing my best, so if there is some kind of economic phenomena that you would like to specifically address then please do so that we can clear the air here. Above you make a great observation on what credit actually does to the market. This credit and therefore the whole design of the banking system is responsible for this kind of economic phenomena. Those circumstances create the possibility for a certain outcome. I am not overlooking free will in my conclusions. It is the determining factor. And it is based on how people react to certain economic circumstances. These circumstances are created my monetary and fiscal policy. That is what you are overlooking.

Laying off employees is not the only way to cut costs. You can also reduce the amount paid to employees without laying them off. They may threaten to leave, but will they really? If they do, will the company that pays them what they want stay competitive if others are working for less?

You are ignoring that by laying off half the employees you still have the same effect on the rest of the consumer economy as paying all the employees half as much. Let's isolate this to one town. Let's say that half of the town works for this company. The other half own various businesses in town. These businesses rely on the spending habits of that company's employees. So now the company lays off half of their employees. The spending in town then is cut in half. Ok, so let's say instead that all the employees get there pay checks cut in half and keep their jobs. The spending in town would again be cut in half. We are assuming here in order to keep it simple that there is no unemployment benefits. Also you could change the hypothetical scenario to one where there is unemployment and the taxes go up in the town in order to keep the budget balanced. People would obviously still be needing the necessaties of survival. Those businesses would remain relatively uneffected. Either way there is half as much money going to all of the businesses combined. You could argue that the prices will go down on the products that this company produces. That would only help to compensate for their own decreased incomes and increased tax burden. There is no need to get that complicated. So it doesn't matter, half the employees no pay, or all the employees half pay. It is still the same outcome, it still has the same effect on businesses that rely on consumer spending. Which is all of them as far as I know.

You don't get it. It's not about you considering things and then making a decision and stating it. It's about having a discussion that negotiates conflicting logics through explicit grounded reasoning. The discussion should be explicit and logical enough that anyone (logical) reading it should be able to understand why each or both come to the conclusions that they do.

And I feel that the logic is clearly there. It is based on a ton of data. If you would like to list some of the things that conflict with what I have stated then you should. But we should start using referenced material if necessary and keep it specific.

This is the logic of compulsory conformity. Once you start obeying this logic, you become a robotic servant of conformity. Ever see movies of people marching in lockstep?

Nonsense. These words are an ideology of people who are too lazy to try out alternatives but prefer to think of themselves as dutiful and driven rather than lazy and/or uncreative

.



This is not an option for most companies that want to survive in a free market. It is possible
but very difficult for a company to afford research into something that will give them an edge in the first place. Ok, another way to think about it. Why is it that the Olympics doesn't allow steroids or other performance enhancing drugs? Obviously because it gives some an unfair advantage over the competition. If one person used steriods then in order to compete all participants must take them as well. You could argue that harder and more advanced training could put you at the same level, but how much more time are you spending on training than the other participants? This is important. If I spend more time but train and prepare fairly, I will then have a higher time to results ratio if you get me here.
Also those same participants, on all steriods are still looking for a new edge, maybe follow the same advanced training and the same hard work you are using to gain an edge on steroid users. So relating that to businesses, you could say that credit is much like steroids or any performance enhancing drug to a business. How can you compete if your competitor can afford to pay for more advertising, better employees, more research into product development? If you spend more time trying to defeat your competition fairly you end up with a lower time to income ratio. No matter how you cut it more money equals more power for businesses, it is up to them how they use it. So if there are three companies with equal credit extended to two of them, those two will still be competing by way of efficiency and ingenuity because they both have this credit edge, and the third company with no credit, no investment capital will be left in the dust.

Obviously there is an interest in convincing businesses that they will fail if they don't have the backing of the best funding. That is in the interest of investors with money to fund relative market control. What do you think would happen if un(der)funded businesses could compete with well-funded ones, undercut their prices, drive their competitors out of business, and provide everyone with extremely affordable alternatives to high-priced goods and services? The poor would flourish and the rich would make less money. Is this what the rich want? No, that's why they support corporate financing and the belief that only well-financed businesses can succeed.

It is not that they want to hold onto a belief, it is that the rich made the rules in banking so that they could profit off of loaning money. The rich designed the system. That way they make money off other people's money too. Clever right? Also by creating new money you are able to obtain real goods and services in the world through paper money. Just as counterfeiters do. There is no difference except it is legal for them, because they helped to create the laws. I posted a link to a US history page on the panic of 1907. This is a very important piece of history. I can back up these statements of the rich designing the banking system with links to historical data. I won't even use wikipedia anymore ok Whowee?

And otherwise people get targeted for "social elimination," I suppose? Ok, I see where your head is now...When does the lockstepping start?

I can only answer that with another question: What came first the chicken or the egg?
This must be an inherent human quality, I would imagine, that has been around since the beginning of mankind. It has just evolved to what it is now. I don't think it is going anywhere either. Though I am sure it will continue to evolve. It is really all about finding a mate. The more money you have the more power you have. This power is gained in an attempt to find a better mate with good genes, we are attracted to good genes. So that our offspring has a better chance of survival. That would be my guess.

 

[brainstorm]

In in effort to get on the same page, could you please list some of these factors?
I have considered many factors based on historical data. The entire economy would be entirely different without inflation and credit, without the fractional reserve system. This credit dictates all other factors.

You cannot assume any factor(s) "dictate" or determine other factors until you do a micro-level analysis of how various parameters are specifically defined by human action. For example, at a general level you can say that lowering interest rates ALLOWS people to borrow more AND that the hope/belief of property-value appreciation STIMULATES them to spend more in the hope of profiting more. However, this does not mean that at the micro-level lower interest rates DETERMINED/DICTATED that people spent more money on property causing it to inflate. You could just as easily claim that it was the dollar-signs in people's eyes that caused them to spend more money, taking out larger loans if necessary to do so. What you're doing is like blaming car accidents on gasoline-availability. Yes, if people would burn less gas by driving less, there would be less accidents - but that doesn't make cheap gasoline the most determinant cause of car accidents. Each accident has its own specific causes, and each decision to drive does as well; even though there are influential factors involved with each choice - each of which has other influential factors that influence the choices that cause them. Assuming determination is reductive.