|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TL
Joined: 30 Mar 2008
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 7:38 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| visitorq wrote: |
| eIn07912 wrote: |
As soon as their immigration laws weaken (as they've started to) they'll start importing more foreign labor and within 20 years, that population problem will be no more. Of course, to rebuild you have to destroy something. In this case, it will be the homogeneous population Japan has known for centuries. The current working generation in Japan will probably the last that is a majority ethnically "pure" (for lack of a better word.)
I think Japan my literally turn out to be the melting pot of Asia. |
It'll be interesting to see what happens. You may be correct, but I'm not so sure they're going to allow immigration to make up the gap... There would be a lot of opposition to it (there already is actually). There are plenty of migrant workers (Brazilians for example) who work in factories, but they don't really get assimilated, nor can they get citizenship afaik. The population may just end up shrinking. I honestly have no idea how that whole question will play out. |
I also think that the majority of the population will be against immigration. They'll do whatever it takes to preserve their culture. I personally don't want to see Japan become a melting pot and lose certain aspects of its culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jvalmer
Joined: 06 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This talk of Japan and Korea being overpopulated is hogwash. Only one city has an insane amount of people, and that is the Seoul area. But still it's not bad when compared to other super-large cities.
As long as the population isn't starving and scraping by, it isn't overpopulated. And the south is doing pretty well, I'd say South Korea could easily support a population well into the 100 millions. This would result in cites like Busan, Daegu and Gwangju being triple the size and there still will be little rural towns of under 100,000 all over the country. A unified Korea could support much much more, as long it's the south calling the shots. The North, on the other hand... but that's due to mismanagement from the guys running the show up there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donducky
Joined: 02 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jvalmer wrote: |
This talk of Japan and Korea being overpopulated is hogwash. Only one city has an insane amount of people, and that is the Seoul area. But still it's not bad when compared to other super-large cities.
As long as the population isn't starving and scraping by, it isn't overpopulated. And the south is doing pretty well, I'd say South Korea could easily support a population well into the 100 millions. This would result in cites like Busan, Daegu and Gwangju being triple the size and there still will be little rural towns of under 100,000 all over the country. A unified Korea could support much much more, as long it's the south calling the shots. The North, on the other hand... but that's due to mismanagement from the guys running the show up there. |
I support you on this 100%.
We live a badly under-populated world, precisely the opposite of what media, government, academia, and common opinion would have you believe.
My view on this issue is underwritten by two things: 1) direct experience, through travel, and 2) knowledge of new, cutting-edge technology.
1) My travels around China show up a sadly under-populated country. I flew into Qingdao airport a couple of years ago, and traveled for about an hour, by cab, through complete nothingness, nobody in sight, before finally arriving in the city. In Hong Kong, early last year, a similar experience: Lantau Island is covered by virgin forest. I sat 45 minutes in the back of a cab, from Hong Kong airport to my hotel on Silvermine Bay, looking at nothing but trees, not a human being in sight all that time. The Pearl River Delta is supposed to be teeming with human population, but there too it's a long, long busride from the Guangzhou airport into Dongguan, with very little to see out the window but hills, and rice paddies.
2) Vertical farming will make food so abundant as to feed a thousand times the earth's present population, and do so almost cost-free. Repeat, with apologies for the caps: VERTICAL FARMING! This means growing crops (perhaps also animal foods) in high-rise buildings, which are weather-proof, artificially lit, and so on. Imagine aliens from another planet visiting earth on a recon mission (no, I don't believe--just imagine). They'd be shocked to see us still growing food outdoors, our lives, which depend upon food, in thrall to the happenstance of sunlight, rain, snow, and so on. A truly high-tech world would grow more or less ALL its food scientifically--indoors, in high-rise, purpose-built farm buildings. We'd feed a hundred billion people in this way, or a trillion, at minimal cost, without concern for the weather, and we'd do so on a trivially small amount of land. Indeed, we could put all these farm buildings in Tibet, or on Antarctica. We could build them indefinitely.
More people, meanwhile, mean(s) more thought. More imagination, more creativity, more science--more of everything.
Hurrah for the human race, glory to life, and let as all live long, prosper, and breed! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caniff
Joined: 03 Feb 2004
Location: All over the map
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 9:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| What about the dookie? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Israel will attack Iran. Not in the next year or two at least. That would bring solidarity within both the Iranian gov't and Iranians. All those riots and protests would be for naught. Plus I don't think Israel has the capability to knock out all the Iranian nuke facilities.
Pakistan might destabilize, but it won't lead to a war with India. Maybe more terrorist attacks but nothing beyond that.
I think Mexico's oil situation is a HUGE issue, especially for us Americans, but as Mises said, the MSM is not covering it (minus the Economist). While it won't impact 2010, it certainly will sooner rather than later.
Soooo I'd say the issues on Argentina-Brazil, GB, and Greece are the most likely to happen in 2010. Oh, and Ukraine-Russia. Not sure how big a deal that will be though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 20, 2009 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I don't think Israel will attack Iran. Not in the next year or two at least. That would bring solidarity within both the Iranian gov't and Iranians. All those riots and protests would be for naught. Plus I don't think Israel has the capability to knock out all the Iranian nuke facilities.
Pakistan might destabilize, but it won't lead to a war with India. Maybe more terrorist attacks but nothing beyond that.
|
If Israel doesn't do it soon, then Iran installs the S300's and Isreal's options become instantly and dramatically limited. Expect a defining moment-of-no-return within the next 6-8 months.
If Pakistan destabilizes (more), "terrorist attacks" as we know them may well be a thing of the past. Pakistan is fighting a losing battle against a growing insurgency that has, through the course of the conflict, taken over a number of important military facilities. Combine this with the fact that Pakistan has been unable to account for all of it's nuclear arsenal and you have a recipe for disaster.
The most likely geopolitical disaster, at a nearly 1:1 certainty, will be the water wars.
As far as fresh water goes,
India is running out of water.
Mexico is running out of water.
Much of the U.S. West Coast is running out of water.
We simply don't have time to construct a network of vast desalination facilities to head off the crisis, even if we started now.
Something is going to give. Keep an eye out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thecount wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
I don't think Israel will attack Iran. Not in the next year or two at least. That would bring solidarity within both the Iranian gov't and Iranians. All those riots and protests would be for naught. Plus I don't think Israel has the capability to knock out all the Iranian nuke facilities.
Pakistan might destabilize, but it won't lead to a war with India. Maybe more terrorist attacks but nothing beyond that.
|
If Israel doesn't do it soon, then Iran installs the S300's and Isreal's options become instantly and dramatically limited. Expect a defining moment-of-no-return within the next 6-8 months.
If Pakistan destabilizes (more), "terrorist attacks" as we know them may well be a thing of the past. Pakistan is fighting a losing battle against a growing insurgency that has, through the course of the conflict, taken over a number of important military facilities. Combine this with the fact that Pakistan has been unable to account for all of it's nuclear arsenal and you have a recipe for disaster.
The most likely geopolitical disaster, at a nearly 1:1 certainty, will be the water wars.
As far as fresh water goes,
India is running out of water.
Mexico is running out of water.
Much of the U.S. West Coast is running out of water.
We simply don't have time to construct a network of vast desalination facilities to head off the crisis, even if we started now.
Something is going to give. Keep an eye out. |
There is no shortage of water in the world and no shortage of fresh water in the world. What is missing is the market.
We only have to allow a free market price in water. The price will rise slightly, people will stop wasting the more expensive fresh water and we will discover that we have an abundant supply. It isn't the water needed for daily human consumption, drinking, washing and bathing that is wasteful. It's overuse and waste by farmers and industry. These users will adjust quickly and reduce consumption if we let water sell at its real, free market price. Most fresh water is wasted these days because it's underpriced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
There is no shortage of water in the world and no shortage of fresh water in the world. What is missing is the market.
We only have to allow a free market price in water. The price will rise slightly, people will stop wasting the more expensive fresh water and we will discover that we have an abundant supply. It isn't the water needed for daily human consumption, drinking, washing and bathing that is wasteful. It's overuse and waste by farmers and industry. These users will adjust quickly and reduce consumption if we let water sell at its real, free market price. Most fresh water is wasted these days because it's underpriced. |
No one is talking about a shortage in water. Most of the Earth's surface is water. We are talking about massive shortages in DELIVERY, PURIFICATION and RATION systems for freshwater worldwide.
An abundant resource is worthless if you cannot access it; such is the case in Areas like Mexico and India.
We also have to deal with dangerously antiquated piping that would take the better part of a decade to fix - and would require entire cities to be replaced, peicemeal. In the time it takes to set up a more efficient infrastructure, the water tables will likely be depleted.
And, as water tables and aquifers deplete, the resulting subsidence destroys sewage and water piping further. The entire process is a positive-feedback loop that ends with drained aquifers, sunken cities and mass exodus from cities sucked dry.
A "free market" price on water is not going to check anything. Water is an inelastic good. It is reasonable to infer that such high levels of demand will remain high, period. You transfer higher cost to the farmer, they transfer it right back to the consumer, who still needs food to survive. Instead of decreasing demand by a significant value, you increase the stress on the economy as continuously larger %'s of spending budgets are sucked into anything food-related.
Purification...Desalinization...Efficient Transportation -
None of these things will happen to water before the first crisis. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 21, 2009 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, but that's completely wrong.
The market for water is very price elastic. This has been shown repeatedly in California and the western US states. If the price rises, farmers and industry quickly look for alernatives. In the long run they can make massive adjustments in fresh water use.
For individuals, the cost of water is low even at a higher price, but they, too, make some reductions in use in the short run and large adjustments in the long run. Separation into grey water, black water and greater use of localized composting systems that use little or no water for solid waste vs. large socialist waste treatment systems can yield long term reductions in fresh water consumption by individuals.
The market is the answer. In fact, nearly every economist in the world will would agree with this. This is similar to rent control, where every economist finally came out against it, even socialists.
It's only socialist governments that create any fresh water shortages in the world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thecount
Joined: 10 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 24, 2009 12:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Sorry, but that's completely wrong.
The market for water is very price elastic. This has been shown repeatedly in California and the western US states. If the price rises, farmers and industry quickly look for alernatives. In the long run they can make massive adjustments in fresh water use.
|
Sorry, but that's completely wrong.
"the price elasticity of demand has been shown in this study to be inelastic in the short-term for all forms of domestic water usage"
http://www.fwr.org/wrcsa/790100.htm
"That's just domestic!" you say. You'd be right.
Wikipedia throws their hat into the ring:
| Quote: |
| Drinking water is a good example of a good that has inelastic characteristics - in that people will pay anything for it." |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_elasticity_of_demand
"That's just drinking water!" you say. You'd be right.
As for Metro groups?
| Quote: |
| From Table E.1, it can be seen that in all the three metropoles and for all income groups the price elasticity of demand for water is less than -1; this means that the elasticities are inelastic. |
http://www.fwr.org/wrcsa/1296104.htm
"That's just metro population consumption!" - right again...
Here's where it all breaks down:
The California study you mentioned? Well, this is in the summary:
| Quote: |
| For industries which derive water from municipal supplies, they are already paying relatively high prices for water and therefore have already initiated water saving devices. For them the price elasticity is probably quite low, around -.2 or highly inelastic. |
So what we have is the proven inelasticity of metro water, drinking water in general, and municipal water. This is important because the AGRICULTURAL figures...don't exist.
That's right, they make up a figure for agriculture
| Quote: |
| In agriculture, with substantial opportunity for factor substitution, but less than expected possibilities of pricing crops out of production, an elasticity of-.5 seems appropriate, although this figure must be interpreted with caution as the data is just not available to confirm this estimate. |
So why come up with a figure if you have no available data to confirm it?
Oh, I remember, to increase total elasticity...so how does the fake figure influence total elasticity?
| Quote: |
| Combining the above, the fresh-water demand for water will be in the neighborhood of -.3, as municipal demands are the dominant factor determining demand in Southern California. An elasticity of -.3 which is actually rather close to previous studies, is still less elastic than most. |
Ah, that's right, Cali's agricultural water usage -which is suspected to be relatively elastic, though they couldn't produce any numbers for it- is a small player in comparison to inelastic muni consumption.
[article docked here http://www.springerlink.com/content/jx2j2156u1p21137/]
So even when including admittedly unsupported agricultural figures, they come up with a very weak elasticity.
| Quote: |
For individuals, the cost of water is low even at a higher price, but they, too, make some reductions in use in the short run and large adjustments in the long run. |
I repeat, "municipal demands are the dominant factor determining demand in Southern California." With that in mind and the knowledge that the the muni supply elasticity is under -.3 (because it became -.3 when averaged with -.5), you know that the elasticity of not only drinking water (which i've already shown studies that have examined it's inelasticity) but muni water are both inelastic or, at best, so minimally elastic that it would take dramatic upward price shifts to slow consumption.
| Quote: |
Separation into grey water, black water and greater use of localized composting systems that use little or no water for solid waste vs. large socialist waste treatment systems can yield long term reductions in fresh water consumption by individuals.
|
I love compost piles, I have one myself. But this doesn't change the crisis...one of water transportation, purification and rationing.
| Quote: |
The market is the answer. In fact, nearly every economist in the world will would agree with this. This is similar to rent control, where every economist finally came out against it, even socialists.
|
I believe strongly in the free market. I also believe in supply and demand.
When the available supply of fresh water (transportation, purification, ration) is dramatically lower than the demand, what happens?
You seem to suspect a peaceful reduction of water demand of to meet supply. That's a possibility. Considering the demonstrated inelastic properties of water, I find conflict much more likely.
The free market will certainly be motivated to solve the problem, but it will also be motivated to maintain the status-quo. Enlightened self-interest dictates that if you could supply people with bottled water for an inelastic price, or provide them with a system of delivered water that would dramatically lower your profits, you would stand to profit by "giving the man a fish" every day, instead of teaching them. It's much the same theory over Unions - they must never achieve ALL their stated goals, because it is about perpetuating the Union. If they eliminate every issue, then they become unneeded.
Lastly, there is a time factor involved. Even if the demand is great, there are times when deadlines for supply cannot be reached. Such is the case with a growing demand and a resource that is becoming increasingly difficult to manage. I hate to borrow an argument from the warmers, but it's a "by the time the crisis is upon you, it is too late to react" situation.
What infrastructure plan could be achieved fast enough and comprehensively enough to mitigate this?
| Quote: |
It's only socialist governments that create any fresh water shortages in the world. |
Socialists need water to survive just as much as anyone.
We create water shortages all the time.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624.html
Now, if you wish to pontificate about how California is socialist, be my guest. But if you do so, please don't cite California water studies that I have to take time debunking when you yourself admit that California's government is quite capable of creating a fresh-water shortage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 27, 2009 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I checked your links, Count, and those studies all suffer from a major flaw. They are attempting to measure price elasticity of a free good.
If the price of something is zero and you double the price, the quantity demanded will not be reduced. Duh.
Of course, drinking water, pure water only used for drinking, which for most people is at most a few liters per day, will have an inelastic demand. According to the percentage breakdowns of consumption, drinking water, actually all water used in the kitchen, comprises a small percentage. Drinking water is less than 1% of total water consumption.
Water today is a subsidized, socialist good. It is relatively far from the market price. The studies you referenced, actually, two of them are the same study, merely take the current nearly free price of water and compare the estimated change in demand with a 10% increase in price.
The water systems studied, and most government water systems, provide water with a resource cost of zero. Generally they don't charge enough for the capital cost of the delivery system. Some don't even charge the total monthly operating costs for pumping and purification. Of course the demand for such free water is inelastic.
The studies you posted were not properly structured to measure elasticity. They were meaningless exercises.
Imagine that the price of bread was 10 cents per loaf today, provided by the City Government Bakery. Then, raise the price 10% to 11 cents. Hey, guess what, the price is inelastic. At that price people will use it to feed their pets, fertilize their plants and create art projects. A 10% increase will change nothing.
It's the same for the price of water today.
The one article that was telling was about the farmers in CA who were faced with a cutoff of the free, socialist water they become accustomed to, in fact, the very free, socialist water that caused their farms to be created and irrigated. When faced with a cutoff of free, socialist water, they did not go out into the marketplace and buy water and have it trucked to their farms to irrigate their crops. Instead they let their fields dry up. It isn't worth irrigating the desert in a free market.
The free market is what will give us rational solutions to the world's environmental and resource problems. The free market will not subsidize farmers to turn a desert into a water sucking farm when it makes no economic or environmental sense to do so.
We need to raise the price of water to the free market price. It will be a significant increase in relative terms and provide incentives for both conservation, and production.
At the same time, it will be a small increase for individuals to bear, so that while they will finally have an incentive to conserve and turn off the water while shaving or maybe even turn off the water while lathering in the shower, they will easily affort the added monthly cost.
The free market price of water is what we need to establish. At that point, the demand for water will be quite elastic and the public will respect its value and conserve it. Producers will have an incentive to enter the market and produce more fresh water and provide for its transportation and distribution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
donducky
Joined: 02 Dec 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:52 am Post subject: A free-market price for air? |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
The free market price of water is what we need to establish. |
Why?--pray tell!
The free market is failing.
The Chinese Communist market is soaring.
Water is everywhere--it covers over two-thirds, I believe, of this planet's surface. On a truly free-market basis, it should be purty-darn cheap. On a rationalized, C-Com-style basis, it will be served up at whatever price works to the people who need it.
Do we need to establish a free-market price for air? Take a deep breath and think about it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
