[late]

That's just groundless nay-saying.

Ignoring the 2 freaking CENTURIES that say otherwise...

Enjoy the delusions.

[Truth To Power]

Ignoring the 2 freaking CENTURIES that say otherwise...

How many centuries said slavery could never be abolished, hmmmmmm?

Enjoy the delusions.

That's just what slave owners said to the abolitionists. Enjoy being on the side of evil and against good.

[Pants-of-dog]

I.e., it had a non-zero vacancy rate, as almost every city in the world almost always has.

No, that's false. Japan's national zoning regulations -- like the Floor Area Ratio Law -- created the shortage by legally stopping builders from providing the kind of housing people wanted. That is why Japanese apartment buildings have their stairwells and hallways on the outside (not very pleasant in a typhoon), the apartments are microscopically small, people have to buy all new appliances when they move, etc. There is a reason why the Koreans have a proverb: "The best things in life: Chinese food, Japanese wife, American house; the worst things: American food, Japanese house, Chinese wife."

This is the exact opposite of what I read.

Because low housing costs largely come from declining population.

No one said otherwise.

There are many factors, but demographics is one of the most important ones, for the reason I already gave.

I never made a claim about the relative importance of the various factors, since that is subjective.

The increase in the workforce only increases land rents and reduces wages. It doesn't force governments to give the increased publicly created land rents to private landowners in return for nothing, or to deny people just compensation for the forcible removal of their individual rights to liberty and the conversion of those rights into the private property of landowners.

As long as we agree that immigration per se is not the problem.

Sure you did: "The reasons are complex but they can be summarized with one word: colonialism."

Remember?

A one word answer cannot provide a comprehensive answer.

If you incorrectly infer that I am making a comprehensive claim, that is incorrect.

I.e., not colonialism -- unless you consider it the colony.

Which used gangsters to get rid of communists.

Again, not colonialism.

That's just baldly false. Japan has been in the top ten of defense spending since the 70s.

You were taking about the post war boom, not the seventies. Please keep track of your arguments.

And you now seem to agree with my claim that colonialism is not the sole creator of national wealth,

Like anyone else. But their economies and workers prospered when others who also invested in colonial projects were stagnating.

Such a mystery...

To you, that is.

Such as?

[late]

How many centuries said slavery could never be abolished, hmmmmmm?

I realise you have your limits, but do try to control your impulse to write fiction.

[Truth To Power]

I realise you have your limits, but do try to control your impulse to write fiction.

<yawn> What do you claim was fiction: slavery or its abolition? Slavery was already so subject to criticism even in classical times that Aristotle felt a justification for it was required. So it took more than 2000 years for that institutionalized evil to be defeated by the advocates of liberty, justice and truth. By comparison, the first recorded identification of how to remedy the evil of landowner privilege -- the physiocrats' "impot unique" -- was less than 300 years ago.

Though most people are not intelligent enough to understand why location subsidy repayment (LSR) is necessary for basic justice in taxation and land tenure institutions, before much longer, superhuman artificial intelligence (SAI) will make it mandatory for any society that does not choose economic suicide.

[late]

What do you claim was fiction: slavery or its abolition?

Neither, and bringing up something else you don't understand isn't going to help.

[Unthinking Majority]

No, that makes no economic sense. Your claims make no sense because you refuse to know the fact that the problem is the exorbitant over-subsidization of idle landowning, not immigration, housing, or construction.

There's various factors happening. Idle land and homes is an issue. Speculation is an issue. Immigration has concentrated demand in the urban areas in larger cities though, which makes these homes good investments for these speculators. Migrants don't typically move to smaller towns and cities or rural. Population growth driven by births was more even because it happens everywhere, which means housing prices are more stable.

[Truth To Power]

Neither, and bringing up something else you don't understand isn't going to help.

Oh, so you were just pointlessly bloviating again, as usual. Check.

[late]

Oh, so you were just pointlessly bloviating again, as usual. Check.

Got tired of your crazy act..

[Truth To Power]

This is the exact opposite of what I read.

Because all you read is Marxist swill.

I never made a claim about the relative importance of the various factors, since that is subjective.

It's not subjective, but you appear to have realized your error.

As long as we agree that immigration per se is not the problem.

It's nice to have at least one agreed fact as a basis for debate.

A one word answer cannot provide a comprehensive answer.

You claimed it did.

If you incorrectly infer that I am making a comprehensive claim, that is incorrect.

What a gracious retraction.

You were taking about the post war boom, not the seventies.

Japan's post-war boom sans colonies continued until 1990.

Please keep track of your arguments.

Ahem:

And you now seem to agree with my claim that colonialism is not the sole creator of national wealth,

Speaking of keeping track of arguments, you claimed it was.

Such as?

The UK.

[Truth To Power]

Got tired of your crazy act..

<yawn> More pointless bloviation...

[late]

pointless bloviation...

That's what shrinks call projection...

[Pants-of-dog]

Because all you read is Marxist swill.

It's not subjective, but you appear to have realized your error.

It's nice to have at least one agreed fact as a basis for debate.

You claimed it did.

What a gracious retraction.

Japan's post-war boom sans colonies continued until 1990.

Ahem:

Speaking of keeping track of arguments, you claimed it was.

The UK.

Are you seriously claiming that the UK does not owe a significant amount of its current wealth to colonialism?

[Truth To Power]

Are you seriously claiming that the UK does not owe a significant amount of its current wealth to colonialism?

I'm pointing out that it's not much of a success story in terms of growth or prosperity. Compare South Korea.

[Truth To Power]

That's what shrinks call projection...

I guess you have to tell yourself $#!+ like that. Shrinks call it a defense mechanism.

[late]

I'm pointing out that it's not much of a success story in terms of growth or prosperity. Compare South Korea.

Ummm, no.

Britain was dominant, and the reserve currency, because of it's empire.

A little known part of it's history is that building it's military industry was part of the development of industrialisation...

It's a huge part of it's prosperity.

[Pants-of-dog]

I'm pointing out that it's not much of a success story in terms of growth or prosperity. Compare South Korea.

Why compare the UK to SK?

Why not Jamaica?

Or India?

Or Zimbabwe?

[Rancid]

Immigration has concentrated demand in the urban areas

I don't believe this part is true from your statements.

Cities are experiencing a kind of a reverse of white flight now. Those with money are moving into the cities, and those without are going to the suburbs. Here in Austin, there are more Latinos in the surrounding suburbs than the city itself. Same with black people. They have been kicked out of their traditional neighborhood inside the city core due to gentrification.

Austin's east side was the poor part of the city. Now it's one of the wealthiest.

[Truth To Power]

Why compare the UK to SK?

Lots of colonies vs no colonies?

Why not Jamaica?

Or India?

Or Zimbabwe?

Because they do not test the hypothesis. If you want to find out if men or women make better parents, you don't look at people with no kids, and if you want to find out what makes countries rich, you don't look at poor countries. Not rocket science.

[Truth To Power]

Britain was dominant, and the reserve currency, because of it's empire.

Being dominant is not prosperity, and the reserve currency was gold, not sterling.

A little known part of it's history is that building it's military industry was part of the development of industrialisation...

It's a huge part of it's prosperity.

As with every other empire. But Britain wasn't prosperous in the inter-war years, despite having the most colonies of any empire ever.