Re: Housing starts a.k.a. land attrition

On Mar 29, 12:25=A0pm, Enough Already <enough_alre...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Does anyone think about how much land gets covered by blessed housing
> starts each year?

   Yes, of course, many people do often.
   Since as fate would have it, that's the limit of what the moron
   politiciians in the US even know about economics, buisness,
   science, engineering, or any subject really.
   So, that's obviously where the robots, digital, computers,
   fiber optics, laser disks, satellittes, artifical intelligence,
tasers,
   D.U.,  D,N.A., and cruise missiles came from for the "stsrt-me-up"
imbeciles.



 This includes interstitial land in urbanized areas,
> gross urban expansion i.e. sprawl, agricultural land like California's
> increasingly-paved Central Valley, and pristine land on the edges of
> designated wilderness.
>
> The standard definition of housing starts makes no mention of land
> losses and the attendant increase in water & energy consumption, plus
> mandatory road-building. Like most economic creeds, housing starts are
> still defined mainly in terms of money and jobs. The land itself is
> treated as an infinite sink for this "progress" to occur in.
>
> Fromhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_starts:
>
> "Housing Starts are used in the United States of America as an
> indicator of the state of the economy. Housing Starts are the number
> of privately owned new homes (technically housing units) on which
> construction has been started over some period. Housing starts are an
> im****tant economic indicator because they show how much money the
> general public has. If there is a rise in housing starts it likely
> means there is more money in the economy. Additionally if there are
> more Housing Starts in a time period the Federal Funds Rate is
> presumably low enough for individuals to be willing to borrow money
> from banks."
>
> With annual U.S. population growth at 3 million, housing starts must
> be consuming thousands of acres each year. Does anyone in the building
> industry see an end to this malignancy? Does anyone see that
> population growth is the chicken & egg precursor to job-creation?
>
> With U.S. population projections of 400 to 500 million by mid-century,
> millions of acres of "empty" space will be written off as expendable.
> Nature will keep getting buried for the sake of construction jobs and
> real estate profits. There will be the usual talk of energy efficient
> homes, but they will never reverse the net impact of overpopulation.
>
> http://www.wcs.org/humanfootprint(housing
starts are stomping all
> over the place)
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/terrasrvr.htm
>
> Economic growth: the endless replacement of nature with people.