U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-09-2019, 02:49 AM
 
Location: Thailand
5,443 posts, read 2,590,628 times
Reputation: 10093

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
The link was anecdotal in terms of the reporting on this subject, which is very wide spread.
Well you sure changed your tune quickly, your link to "most influential cities" was gospel when you were desperately trying to discount Houston as a major city. Apparently now links that don't work out for your argument as just anecdotal.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
As for Houston, I’ve been clear this entire time that as a sunbelt city, Houston was BECOMING too expensive, not that it was too expensive.
You said about normal people can't afford to live in major cities, present tense.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
they are not living in the natural sense, or how the word is used. When rent and prices are so high that one must struggle to just get by, that is not living.
Winterfall-Shuffle (tm). The natural sense? Can you please find for me which dictionary defines the word "living" to mean only where people don't struggle to get by? I've had coworkers who were always bring peanut sandwiches the couple days right before payday because they always ran out of money, I'd have loved to see you walk up to them and state that they aren't living in the city. They'd look at you like you were crazy, just like folks in this forum have already concluded.

This may surprise you but many people who struggle to get by financially are living a pretty satisfying life, happiness is about many more things than easily making ends meet. It's absurd to declare they aren't living, but we've learned not to put anything past you in your feeble attempts to spin being wrong into being right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
If big cities offer high rent instead of the opportunity of old, the landscape of the economy has changed so that only the well off can benefit from city employment.
More easily disproven drivel, but we both know if I start finding instances of middle class city employees doing just fine in big cities with high rent you'll suddenly start desperately generating new limited definitions for words like big, benefit, rent, and well off.

Last edited by lieqiang; 02-09-2019 at 02:57 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-09-2019, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,586 posts, read 2,263,994 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
So, youíre still not going to address the fact that you lied about my position. Pure Winterfall.
What did I say that was a lie?

Because I believe I addressed in that post.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2019, 12:18 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,586 posts, read 2,263,994 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCUBS1 View Post
Nailed it.. He’s also pushing this “Epicurus” philosophy which places the highest value on personal pleasure, happiness, hedonism... A philosophy which fails to acknowledge that some value things above personal pleasure, such things as hard work, fairness, freedom, responsibility, character, intellect, creativity, independence, power, wealth, reward...

Emulating his pro-ataraxia hero Epicurus, he seeks a social state of “no mental disturbance,” though history has shown a little mental disturbance can affect a great amount of positive social change. A little mental disturbance contributes to culture, art, music, song, literature, poetry, oration, science, social justice, environmentalism, world exploration, new inventions to solve vexing problems, exciting adventures of the body, heart, and mind.....

So he is advocating for a boring, soulless society of lazy, hedonistic, rural living hunter/gathers and farmers, where personal pleasure matters most, and any mental disturbances must be avoided... And in order to fund his nirvana, he advocates taking a 90% tax from what others have earned, all while devaluing the power of labor and industry, which are concentrated in the flourishing, capitalistic cities that he detests.
You’re incredibly wrong here.

Epicurus pointed out that gluttony does not lead to happiness or pleasure, and that it in fact leads to more pain.

And he didn’t consider high levels of sudden pleasure as sustainable and as such warned against eating rich food, partying in excess, or descending into violent behavior.

Instead he promoted a mostly ascetic life style. Furthermore helping others is the greatest way of reducing pain, but it should be done to save yourself, not others.

What is the significance of this? Instead of a society valuing great acts that help the most people, it will give people the urge to help others besides the fact of any statistical gain, but instead for the mear attempt of trying.

And I don’t want to go back to a hunter-gather society. Rather I want cooperative ownership and local economics to drive global trade and commerce.

More so the affects would mean that the commoditization of tourism and profit would no longer be pushed for (which will save many of the global wonders), there would be less APPLIED technology (but modern technology would continue to advance).

More importantly, people would live more sustainable and happy lives.

As for the listed personal feelings of independence, work, etc. these are all things that would be given higher meaning in a true society because they do give you a true sense of contentment and place rather than misery. And in a society not held down by greatness, these principles would prosper.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2019, 04:59 PM
 
5,704 posts, read 2,584,411 times
Reputation: 5503
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
What did I say that was a lie?

Because I believe I addressed in that post.
Seriously? You said the following:

Quote:
Quote:
People working on their own land, and building their own wealth is good and not something you support in any capacity.
Iíve never said nor suggested any such thing. Your claim is a lie. Pure Winterfall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2019, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Ohio
18,697 posts, read 13,697,131 times
Reputation: 14734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
This discussions werenít happening in the 50s or 70s. As for Houston, Iíve been clear this entire time that as a sunbelt city, Houston was BECOMING too expensive, not that it was too expensive.
Miami is a sunbelt city, and it's more expensive than Houston. Same for Honolulu and Los Angeles.

Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver are Canadian cities, and are more expensive than Houston, and they are not in the sunbelt, and neither are Philadelphia and New York City, which are both more expensive than Houston.

What does being the sunbelt have to do with anything?

It's Supply & Demand, not a Conspiracy Theory.

This is nothing new. It's been happening for 7,000 years before corporations existed.

Look at the Levant. Take Jericho, for example.

A metropolis was maybe 12,000 people. Most cities had 1,200 to 2,000 people. Towns a few hundred and villages about 60 people or so.

Cities and towns along a trade route were very prosperous, precisely because they were located on a trade route, where people were engaging in all manner of commerce.

Problem was, the power that controlled the Levant dictated the trade route used.

When Egypt began exercising suzerainty over the Levant, it preferred a different trade route (a coastal route).

What happened to Jericho and all the other towns and cities on the former trade route?

They were abandoned.

And I mean totally abandoned. Dozens of perfectly good cities and towns, some of the with walled fortifications, and with perfectly good buildings totally abandoned; not a single soul living there.

They would stay abandoned for decades, and in the case of Jericho, for almost two centuries.

While the prosperity of those cities and towns declined, the prosperity of the cities and towns along Egypt's preferred trade route increased.

And that's where everybody went.

That still happens today.

You had prosperous cities and towns, then suddenly the interstate highway system sprang up. What happened? Their prosperity declined. Did they abandon those cities and towns? No. Why not?

Access. That's what it's all about.

So long as people have access to government services, other services like medical care and food they're fine. It's not pleasant, but it's tolerable. If they need other food varieties, or clothing or furniture and appliances or entertainment like the cinema show, they just get in their car and drive to the Big City.

In Jericho, when the jewelry merchants pack it in and leave, that's sad, but tolerable. When the pottery merchants and clothing merchants leave, that's a problem. And, when the food merchants leave, you're totally screwed, because you have no access to any food at all.

You can't exactly get in your car and drive to the next town over and go to the Wal-Mart there.

Even if you had horses or camels, it wouldn't matter, because every city and town on that trade route is in the same position.

Yes, the interstates did cause some cities and towns to decline in prosperity, but it also increased the prosperity of other cities and towns.

You have equilibrium, and that's what Economics is all about.

Interstates are the trade routes of yesterday, and those cities and towns that don't have interstate access are less prosperous than those that do.

And, why, yes, we do have abandoned towns. We call them ghost-towns. I can take you to about a half-dozen in Kentucky and a couple in Virginia and West Virginia, and there's more in Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas and the Dakotas, and even more the farther west you go.

Towns were abandoned right up through the 1940s.

Most of those were mining towns and the majority were non-metallic minerals like coal, salts, phosphates, asbestos and such. Once it was gone, the mine closed, so you have a few dozen to a couple hundred unemployed workers who leave with their families to find jobs. That accelerates the decline, because there's no business for the merchants, who all close up shop and leave, and the rest of the people follow suit.

People flock to prosperous areas, and when they do, there's more people than there is housing available. Worse than that, you can't build housing fast enough to meet the demand, so housing prices rise.

Prices rise, because people are voluntarily willing to pay more for any number of reasons.

If my home is valued at $250,000 and one offers $260,000, another $250,000 and one $180,000, why shouldn't I accept $260,000?

It's neither immoral, unethical nor a crime.

Why should I injure myself by accepting $180,000?

Same for an apartment. If someone voluntarily offers $2,200/month and another $850/month, why shouldn't I accept $2,200?

If someone cannot afford to live in a particular place, then they need to relocate. It's just that simple.

1 Million years ago, when Homo Erectus couldn't afford to live in an area where there were no nuts or berries to eat, they would relocate to a place where there was nuts and berries to eat.

That makes Homo Erectus a helluva lot smarter than the morons you're trying to defend.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
If big cities offer high rent instead of the opportunity of old, the landscape of the economy has changed so that only the well off can benefit from city employment.
No one has an unalienable right to live in a particular place, unless they own that land.

If they cannot afford to buy land, then they need to go to a place where they can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Lol, Epicurus was by far the greatest philosopher of all time.
Epicurus doesn't even make the Top 25.

The only list where Epicurus is even ranked is yours.

Marcus Aurelius was a greater philosopher and is quoted more often than Epicurus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
Nope. You can come up with as many names for it as you like, but when there is an exception, the law doesn't work.
The Law does work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324 View Post
And before you say normal good, that is a cop-out. It's as if a physicist said the law of gravity affects only 'normal' matter.
That's exactly what physicists say.

The Law doesn't work when there are low energies involved or as you approach the speed of light.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2019, 07:46 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,586 posts, read 2,263,994 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post



[shortened]

It's neither immoral, unethical nor a crime.

Why should I injure myself by accepting $180,000?

Same for an apartment. If someone voluntarily offers $2,200/month and another $850/month, why shouldn't I accept $2,200?

If someone cannot afford to live in a particular place, then they need to relocate. It's just that simple.

1 Million years ago, when Homo Erectus couldn't afford to live in an area where there were no nuts or berries to eat, they would relocate to a place where there was nuts and berries to eat.

That makes Homo Erectus a helluva lot smarter than the morons you're trying to defend.



No one has an unalienable right to live in a particular place, unless they own that land.

If they cannot afford to buy land, then they need to go to a place where they can.



Epicurus doesn't even make the Top 25.

The only list where Epicurus is even ranked is yours.

Marcus Aurelius was a greater philosopher and is quoted more often than Epicurus.



The Law does work.



That's exactly what physicists say.

The Law doesn't work when there are low energies involved or as you approach the speed of light.
1. Why indeed, why should be people refuse greater prosperity when it is on offer. Simply because prosperity is a trap. There are motives to move like a famine, disease, or as is nowadays, no income source.

But we can not take these things for granted. Why is it that the capital that provides income in one area be deprived from another?

Well then we come into the question of populations. Places with more people are deemed worthier of investment by concentrations of wealth (the private industry, and then by affect the government) as they have a higher capacity to be more profitable.

This in affect creates a magnet to a few centers of opportunity to the surrounding areas, depriving the rest of capital access. But a small community may still have enough capital to provide for its smaller population, but due to property laws, control of investments, and taxes it is incredible difficult for people to pool money together and make their own investments into local production.

But then the largest problem arises. When power is so well concentrated, and there is no motive to share resources among communities, the ones from the less prosperous towns leave rather than attempt what is mentioned in the previous paragraph, because it seems like an offer to good to put down. And therefore the temptations gives those with the most capital to invest the most power.

Today, the private industry decides which communities fail and which prosper, they obviously have criteria that helps, but why is that good?

Supply and Demand is real, but when so much happens preceding the demand, it is foolish to only look at the statistical demand, but important to ask why that demand exists, and whether it is a good thing.

2. No one has unalienable rights to live in a place, this I agree. I was only saying that as prices are increased for reasons due to a few high end investments and speculations from the wealthy, this leaves those working for them in an uncomfortable position of poverty (abstractly speaking) in the cities.

3. I agree Marcus Aurelius was also incredible wise. Such as this quote I found: "Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking."

4. Nope, resting matter is just like a good. It either exists or it doesn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2019, 07:52 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,586 posts, read 2,263,994 times
Reputation: 2352
Quote:
Originally Posted by TaxPhd View Post
Seriously? You said the following:



Iíve never said nor suggested any such thing. Your claim is a lie. Pure Winterfall.
"People working on their own land, and building their own wealth is good and not something you support in any capacity."

You cannot believe this. Why?

Because it means what it says literally. It doesn't mean investing money in capital as speculation, nor does it mean getting a wage job, making money, and then using the money to buy a house. Nor does it mean any other type of abstract buying/selling of goods.

It only means you can live on land, and build something with your own labor that you profit from in some way. In your vision of corporate capitalism with property rights, corporate rent/ownership of land, property taxes, control of markets, and control of needed capital (like wood), this is impossible.

So even if you want to support it, you can't just in consequence of you supporting corporate capitalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2019, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Thailand
5,443 posts, read 2,590,628 times
Reputation: 10093
Winterfall Shuffle (tm).

Instead of addressing why you lied about what he said you're instead attempting to redirect towards a new discussion about that which you falsely attributed to him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2019, 10:40 PM
 
Location: Manchester NH
8,586 posts, read 2,263,994 times
Reputation: 2352
As before, I more or less debunked the idea of supply and demand on the consumer end.

Know, On the end of the actual seller:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RRa0lkhy4E
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2019, 03:22 AM
 
Location: Honolulu, HI
5,525 posts, read 1,505,708 times
Reputation: 7868
It’s funny when people think taxes solve the problem of poor life choices or mediocre IQ.

First thing congress does when taxes are raised is vote themselves another pay raise. Next thing they do is think of endless ways to spend the money that will only support their re-election.

If you can’t make it in America, taxes and government welfare aren’t going to save you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top