More QE on the way?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

The argument works fine if you have a pure market economy, doesn't work so well if you have laws restricting the growth of housing and infrastructure from matching the growth in the economy as a whole.

The solution to a lack of infrastructure and housing is to build more houses and infrastructure.

Not to try and cripple economic growth.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

Growth of less than half a percent a year isn't like infinity really unless you believe that the population of the world is likely to reach infinity.

Germany has just announced it will accept 800,000 Non-EU asylum seekers this year alone, on top of all the other EU migrants and non-EU immigrants it will be accepting.

Looks like Merkel knows full well the importance of averting their impending ageing crisis by rebalancing the population. If she fails however, the economic prospects for Germany are grim, as the working age population will be falling at twice the rate of the total population and the dependency ratio will reach crisis levels within the next couple of decades.

Actually the more I think about it the more I realise that the entry of Turkey to the EU is just a matter of time.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

It's the key point missed by people who claim an economic reason for not allowing immigration: more people pay more tax and consume more stuff. It was rather like the people in my university town who hated students because they packed out the pubs etc. There is no way a town of that size could have supported so many pubs, banks and supermarkets without the student population.

If you don't want immigration because you don't like foreigners then I guess that's fair enough. Calling an economic crisis because your population has gone up by less than 0.5% in a year is simply innumerate.

I'd guess theres a 3rd section who simply don't want London (or the UK) to become something like Mumbai. Nothing to do with Skin colour, simply the mass density of it all.

Mumbai is where it is today due to the sheer amount of people moving there. It was adding something like 10,000 people a day at one point.

Fascinating place....but I wouldn't want to live there.

The infrastructure simply cannot cope. You end up clinging to the outside of trains on your way to work. Spend 4 hours crossing 8 miles of city. The rivers turn into sewers.

Sure, they are growing. They are the economic power house of India. But what value is that if you can never be further than a metre from someone else? When you can't even use a toilet without company? The only value is to those living OUTSIDE of it taking the money.

People criticise people living there for walking on the train tracks. It's only when you see the sheer inability to walk on the pavements in the city due to the sheer number of people you realise why they are walking on the tracks.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd guess theres a 3rd section who simply don't want London (or the UK) to become something like Mumbai. Nothing to do with Skin colour, simply the mass density of it all.

Mumbai is where it is today due to the sheer amount of people moving there. It was adding something like 10,000 people a day at one point.

Fascinating place....but I wouldn't want to live there.

The infrastructure simply cannot cope. You end up clinging to the outside of trains on your way to work. Spend 4 hours crossing 8 miles of city. The rivers turn into sewers.

Sure, they are growing. They are the economic power house of India. But what value is that if you can never be further than a metre from someone else? When you can't even use a toilet without company? The only value is to those living OUTSIDE of it taking the money.

You really think that there's any equivalence between the economies of Mumbai and London?

People cling to the outside of trains in Mumbai because they can't afford to pay for a seat on the inside. People wait for the next train in London rather than clinging to the outside because their life has a higher price (not value NB).

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

You really think that there's any equivalence between the economies of Mumbai and London?

I was using it as an example of a place with a large increase in population. I was using it to show how "just build more to cope" doesn't always work - Mumbai has built like crazy but no amount of building can support the sheer amount of people there. You simply run out of places to build. You simply run out of sewerage. Sure, you could expand the borders. But that doesn't help as it then takes so long to get into mumbai that no one wants to live "that far out". Of course, building more on the outskirts simply exaccerbates the problem - more people travelling in.

I wasn't comparing London to Mumbai.

People cling to the outside of trains in Mumbai because they can't afford to pay for a seat on the inside. People wait for the next train in London rather than clinging to the outside because their life has a higher price (not value NB).

Errr - they have to pay exactly the same amount whether they cling to the outside or "sit" on the inside.

It's a sheer numbers game. Nothing to do with the price. You are telling you me truly believe you get a cheaper ticket if you travel like this?!



Spot the free seat that no ones willing to pay to sit on....


As for clinging to trains in London - well it wouldn't work very well would it. Nothing to do with what you imply - a simple fact that you'd be killed, likely under a train as soon as the train enters a tunnel and you hit the wall.

Mumbai suburban trains are very different. You can cling to the outside without getting smashed against a tunnel or other trains.

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was using it as an example of a place with a large increase in population. I was using it to show how "just build more to cope" doesn't always work

And that's great.

You've used an economy that has pretty much nothing in common with London in order to make a point about London.

Graham_Devon

Generali wrote: »

And that's great.

You've used an economy that has pretty much nothing in common with London in order to make a point about London.

No, I made a point about this...

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The solution to a lack of infrastructure and housing is to build more houses and infrastructure.

Not to try and cripple economic growth.

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd guess theres a 3rd section who simply don't want London (or the UK) to become something like Mumbai. Nothing to do with Skin colour, simply the mass density of it all.

Mumbai is where it is today due to the sheer amount of people moving there. It was adding something like 10,000 people a day at one point.

Fascinating place....but I wouldn't want to live there.

The infrastructure simply cannot cope. You end up clinging to the outside of trains on your way to work. Spend 4 hours crossing 8 miles of city. The rivers turn into sewers.

Sure, they are growing. They are the economic power house of India. But what value is that if you can never be further than a metre from someone else? When you can't even use a toilet without company? The only value is to those living OUTSIDE of it taking the money.

People criticise people living there for walking on the train tracks. It's only when you see the sheer inability to walk on the pavements in the city due to the sheer number of people you realise why they are walking on the tracks.

at 21,000 people per sqkm its the same density as paris which doesnt seem that absurd

the difference of course is that india is still v.poor vs paris

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I was using it as an example of a place with a large increase in population. I was using it to show how "just build more to cope" doesn't always work - Mumbai has built like crazy but no amount of building can support the sheer amount of people there. You simply run out of places to build. You simply run out of sewerage. Sure, you could expand the borders. But that doesn't help as it then takes so long to get into mumbai that no one wants to live "that far out". Of course, building more on the outskirts simply exaccerbates the problem - more people travelling in.

I wasn't comparing London to Mumbai.

Errr - they have to pay exactly the same amount whether they cling to the outside or "sit" on the inside.

It's a sheer numbers game. Nothing to do with the price. You are telling you me truly believe you get a cheaper ticket if you travel like this?!



Spot the free seat that no ones willing to pay to sit on....


As for clinging to trains in London - well it wouldn't work very well would it. Nothing to do with what you imply - a simple fact that you'd be killed, likely under a train as soon as the train enters a tunnel and you hit the wall.

Mumbai suburban trains are very different. You can cling to the outside without getting smashed against a tunnel or other trains.

both those pictures look very old

Transport shouldn't be a big problem for dense cities as you can build metros.

mumbai metro only started building in 2007 and will be complete by 2021....they currently only have 12 stations open on one line opened just 12 months ago but are ging to build about 10 more lines and 100 more stations.

so the, just build it, look it doesnt work....is a stupid argument as they only really started building a metro


edit: it seems they have no metro at all, the first line 1 metro is actually an elevated "metro". the next much bigger one is going to be underline and they are planning to put into place a proper metro as most big cities will have.

and here is a photo of the inside of one

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

at 21,000 people per sqkm its the same density as paris which doesnt seem that absurd

the difference of course is that india is still v.poor vs paris

Using the measure is OK, but it averages the population out. This therefore ignores the density in specific places.

Clearly Paris doesn't look anything like Mumbai at it's centre. I don't mean physically, I mean the sheer amount of people.

Visual examples are probably the best way to get this across.

So paris central station:


Mumbai central station:


We can do whatever we like with statistics. But sometimes it takes a simple dose of reality to see a clearer picture.

Mumbai itself, as a city, is far from poor. It's simply a city which has gone through major economic expansion at the same time as mass population growth.

We can see the effects as clear as day.