Milliband promises rent controls

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

If we don't increase our working population it will be harder to pay our national debt. If we leave the EU we will damage our economy.

That's why both our major parties have allowed immigration to the point of political acceptability and both fought to stay in the EU.

If we increase our population then we increase our imports of essentials, oil, gas, food, electronics and many other things
these imports don't make us richer as we have to borrow to buy them as we have a large trade deficit.

Also your larger population requires lots more costs
-houses, roads, medical, trains etc. very large costs with no benefits

The major increase in immigration occurred over the period since 1997 : basically the period we went from reducing our debt to the period of ever increasing debt.

Increasing immigration helped cause the debt : no need to repeat the same mistake again.


There are truly risks in leaving the EU but the alternatives aren't all or nothing. They have a lot to lose if they stopped trading with us

Your faith in the credibility of the two major parties is however very touching.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

If we increase our population then we increase our imports of essentials, oil, gas, food, electronics and many other things
these imports don't make us richer as we have to borrow to buy them as we have a large trade deficit.

Also your larger population requires lots more costs
-houses, roads, medical, trains etc. very large costs with no benefits

The major increase in immigration occurred over the period since 1997 : basically the period we went from reducing our debt to the period of ever increasing debt.

Increasing immigration helped cause the debt : no need to repeat the same mistake again.


There are truly risks in leaving the EU but the alternatives aren't all or nothing. They have a lot to lose if they stopped trading with us

Your faith in the credibility of the two major parties is however very touching.

Infrastructure is a cost there is no arguing about that it certainty doesn't build itself

but infrastructure is an economic enabler which means the cost is returned many times over

this clearly has to be true else how would non developed (aka little infrastructure) nations develop (sufficient infrastructure)??

Of course in the UK we artificially inflate the cost of infrastructure (be it housing or HS2) so are a little blind to the great good infrastructure is



With regards to an increasing population being a net good or a net bad its hard to tell. There are certainly many goods and many bads involved I don't think it can be called conclusively one way or another. I think they probably largely cancel out and we may have a net negative or positive but it will be small.

also not all immigrants are poor.
you may find poor immigrants are a small net negative while well off ones are a small net positive

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

If we increase our population then we increase our imports of essentials, oil, gas, food, electronics and many other things
these imports don't make us richer as we have to borrow to buy them as we have a large trade deficit.

Also your larger population requires lots more costs
-houses, roads, medical, trains etc. very large costs with no benefits

The major increase in immigration occurred over the period since 1997 : basically the period we went from reducing our debt to the period of ever increasing debt.

Increasing immigration helped cause the debt : no need to repeat the same mistake again.


There are truly risks in leaving the EU but the alternatives aren't all or nothing. They have a lot to lose if they stopped trading with us

Your faith in the credibility of the two major parties is however very touching.

Your argument makes no sense. In your world all we would need to do is reduce our working population which would then reduce our costs and help is pay us back our national debt.

Taken to extremes it seems you would like the UK to have no working population at all.

It's a complete nonsense argument.

The problem isn't immigration, it's a lax benefits system which stupidly gives money away without expecting people to work for that pay and a failure to build, causing a monopoly for landlords to easily exploit the system.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

Infrastructure is a cost there is no arguing about that it certainty doesn't build itself

but infrastructure is an economic enabler which means the cost is returned many times over

this clearly has to be true else how would non developed (aka little infrastructure) nations develop (sufficient infrastructure)??

Of course in the UK we artificially inflate the cost of infrastructure (be it housing or HS2) so are a little blind to the great good infrastructure is



With regards to an increasing population being a net good or a net bad its hard to tell. There are certainly many goods and many bads involved I don't think it can be called conclusively one way or another. I think they probably largely cancel out and we may have a net negative or positive but it will be small.

also not all immigrants are poor.
you may find poor immigrants are a small net negative while well off ones are a small net positive

Lets say that the country has excellent infrastructure for a population of 50 million

If the population increases to 60 million we would have to build more infrastructure at considerable cost (probably more than the original as the 'easy to do' things have already been done.

At the end we have spent a lot on money, and are no better off infrastructure wise per person than previously (if fact probably worse off ).

In an undeveloped country then new infrastructure is a positive

In an already developed (smallish) country then extra infrastructure to meet growing population is not a positive.


Costs of building more homes in London doesn't get cheaper for each extra unit : the exact opposite; similarly with extra transport links

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense. In your world all we would need to do is reduce our working population which would then reduce our costs and help is pay us back our national debt.

Taken to extremes it seems you would like the UK to have no working population at all.

It's a complete nonsense argument.

The problem isn't immigration, it's a lax benefits system which stupidly gives money away without expecting people to work for that pay and a failure to build, causing a monopoly for landlords to easily exploit the system.

Taking things to extremes obviously leads to absurd results ; your conclusions are absurd.

do you really thing that houses get cheaper as the population increases?

do you think building more transport links in the crowded SE get cheaper the more we need?

do you really think that suppling electictiy and gas and water etc is getting cheaper due to the large population

do you think food gets cheaper the more we import?

does oil/gas get cheaper?

clearly in the early days of development there are economies of scale (and lots of raw materials/resources) that mean with increasing population per capita production increases and we all get richer.

as the resources run out (as they have in the UK) and all the land is already being used, then increasing development becomes more expensive per unit of production and we get poorer.

we have use the best already.

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

Lets say that the country has excellent infrastructure for a population of 50 million

If the population increases to 60 million we would have to build more infrastructure at considerable cost (probably more than the original as the 'easy to do' things have already been done.

At the end we have spent a lot on money, and are no better off infrastructure wise per person than previously (if fact probably worse off ).

In an undeveloped country then new infrastructure is a positive

In an already developed (smallish) country then extra infrastructure to meet growing population is not a positive.


Costs of building more homes in London doesn't get cheaper for each extra unit : the exact opposite; similarly with extra transport links

Its a matter of productivity. The question surely must be - are we a country which has a system in place where we can profit collectively from the fruits of labour ? If not, things need to change like the benefits system. The fact we are attracting more able bodies networked all over the world is a great potential asset to our economy. We need to gear our systems so that as we grow to create a net profit to drive our nation forward.

The scale of city economics does dictate that bigger they are people wise, more efficient and better at everything on average they tend to become by 15% every time a city population doubles. The only question is, how are we failing that we can't benefit from this normal development seen in all normal human societies.

Oh hang, in London, where this is clearly evident, we are benefiting, hands down and creating more money than ever for the rest of the country. Let's keep going in that direction but address the issues which might hamper our ability to continue this trend working for us positively.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

Its a matter of productivity. The question surely must be - are we a country which has a system in place where we can profit collectively from the fruits of labour ? If not, things need to change like the benefits system. The fact we are attracting more able bodies and however is a great potential asset to our economy. We need to gear our systems so that as we grow that creates a net profit to drive our nation forward.

Nonsense

Why will we sell more jet engines abroad because our population is greater?

Why will trains, road, house become cheaper because we are more crowded.
Why will food become cheaper because we can't produce what we need and so need to import it?

Civlisations collapsed when they became too big and couldn't support themselves

As you already know our national debt has increased as the number of immigrants increased

and our productivity has collapsed with increase in imported cheap labour.

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

all the land is already being used

If I demolished New York and planted carrots on it i could say the same thing.

It's another nonsense arguement.

CLAPTON

padington wrote: »

If I demolished New York and planted carrots on it i could say the same thing.

It's another nonsense arguement.

ok , you;re right; lets hope for a population increase of a few million a year (maybe 150 million before I die)
and house prices will fall, trains and roads will become less crowded, housing standards (rooms, gardens), the rest of the world will provide us free fuel, food etc and we will all be happy ever after.

padington

CLAPTON wrote: »

ok , you;re right; lets hope for a population increase of a few million a year (maybe 150 million before I die)
and house prices will fall, trains and roads will become less crowded, housing standards (rooms, gardens), the rest of the world will provide us free fuel, food etc and we will all be happy ever after.

You need to grow a civilisation, it's an organic process. If people want to work for the jobs you can provide at a profit to the nation, let them. If you can't make a profit, question your business model.