Why do people in developed countries still fall into the "debt trap" ?

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,415
I have slighlty lower than 151 million as population in 1950

1950 United States Census - Wikipedia

I said that TOTAL amount of land is not important... what is important is land in desirable areas ....A plot of land in central Paris, London or New York is worth gold... the same size plot of land in the middle of the new Mexico desert is worth next to nothing

Study shows huge disparity in U.S. urban land value, with NYC making up 10% | 6sqft


A recently-published study by economists at the University of Illinois and the University of Michigan shows that 48 percent–almost half–of the total value of America’s urban land can be found within the borders of five of what Citylab’s Richard Florida calls “superstar metro areas:” New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Chicago. According to the study, the value of America’s urban land is a total of $25 trillion as of 2010

That’s an average of $511,000 per acre or $100,000 for the typical residential lot of a fifth of an acre. But in NYC, which makes up a whopping 10 percent of this total, an acre of land is worth more than $5 million.

One acre of central land in New York City is worth approximately 72 times more than an equivalent acre of central Atlanta or Pittsburgh, and almost 1,400 times more than the Rust Belt and Sunbelt metro equivalent land.

New York’s is highest at a total of $2.5 trillion, followed by Los Angeles at $2.3 trillion. But the third most valuable urban land ($1.1 trillion) can be found in Washington, D.C. which has the nation’s sixth largest population (in third-most-populous Chicago, urban land is worth $863 billion). The New York metro area also has the highest average price per acre at more than $5 million, followed by San Francisco, Honolulu, and Jersey City–directly across from Manhattan—where land is worth $3.3 million per acre. Los Angeles is fifth at $2.7 million per acre.

What US land is really worth, state by state




On average, the value of central urban land is about four times that of land over 10 miles from a city center. In superstar cities, the difference is far greater: In Chicago, Washington D.C., and Philadelphia, central land is about 30 times more valuable than the land that surrounds it; in New York and Denver, it’s about 20 times more valuable, and in Boston, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, Austin, Dallas, and Houston, its value is 10 times higher
Tomar, we agree that the most prime land in city centres is extremely valuable and house prices there reflect that. But we are talking about house prices in general, the kind of prices the average person has to pay, not to live in the centre, but to live anywhere! What I cannot understand is why new houses are not built further out of the boundary of a city. For example London has an outer boundary of about 100 miles long, and let's say houses were built outside it, in a ring one mile deep. That would release 64,000 acres which is enough room for half a million houses which could be sold (at £200,000 each BELOW current house prices) for 100 billion in total, thus basically solving the housing shortage there. So why is it not done?
 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,415
Just because there is land, doesn't mean that you should develop it. In Australia we have built houses all over our best farming land so now have to grow food in the marginal areas. What do you think will happen to the planet if Brazil develops the rest of the Amazon?
How much land does a house take up? 24 million people live in Australia, occupying a total of probably 5000 square miles in actual urban area, which is a tiny part of the country. To accommodate the population increase of recent decades would require about 1000 square miles of new urban landscape.

Isn't any difficulty with agricultural production in Australia down to drought?
 
Last edited:

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,999
Australia
How much land does a house take up? 2
That's what the first Gaucho said when he burnt a few acres of Amazon rainforest for his ranch

24 million people live in Australia, occupying a total of probably 5000 square miles in actual urban area, which is a tiny part of the country
Look up the percentage of Australia's land mass that is arable and where it is located.
 

fascinating

Ad Honorem
Dec 2011
2,415
Arable land in Australia occupies 6% of the total, or about 180,000 square miles, about 15 times the area of urban land, which is in fact about 12,000 sq miles. (Most Australians appear to live in cities with very low density of population, because that area means there is only 2000 a square mile, and that's assuming absolutely everyone lives in cities).
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,999
Australia
So what do you think we should use instead of water? We don't have enough now to support the existing population.
 

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,346
Sydney
Land acreage by itself means nothing
Russia has plenty of land unfit for anything related to growing crops
what matter is soil , water and sunshine
Australia is a brick , mostly , the productivity per surface is very low
the Good Lord made it fit for rabbits , marginal cattle grazing and suitable to be defiled by sheep
even then , water is the limitating factor , as all West farmers are aware just now
we have a drought , as usual
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,999
Australia
Why do so many people overestimate the carrying capacity of Australia?
If Australia adopts such technology Chinese scientists successfully convert sand into soil - Times of India, will it make any difference?
Nothing will make any difference unless a LOT more water falls from the sky.

It is quite easy to convert sand into soil. You simply dump a pile of vegetable matter on top, soak it with water, and then let bacteria, fungi, and worms go to work. Then dig it through and repeat until you get the consistency you want. The above Chinese method is faster but no more effective. In any case, the limiting factor in Australia is water so it isn't feasible for large-scale.

The main way to solve the problem is with trees. When there are enough trees in an area, they start to generate their own climate and rainfall increases naturally. Israel is the only country on the planet who has managed to reverse the desertification of their land.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ichon and Runa

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
5,346
Sydney
" soak it with water " ????
that's certainly good for a pot plant , not so useful for a ten thousand acres property around lake Eyre

P.S. lake Eyre is not a lake really it's a salt pan the size of half of wales
 

Dan Howard

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
4,999
Australia
" soak it with water " ????
that's certainly good for a pot plant , not so useful for a ten thousand acres property around lake Eyre

P.S. lake Eyre is not a lake really it's a salt pan the size of half of wales
Read my entire post. I already said it won't work in Australia because of water limitations. The above Chinese method requires just as much water so isn't feasible either.