This type of question deserves a definition of its own...

>>...which is more important to you – effectively dealing with congestion or allowing our population to rapidly increase with no end in sight?<<

It is structured as a straight "either/or" proposition, when it is no such thing. Given that no-one would remotely consider agreeing with the idea that population will, or even should, increase both rapidly and indefinitely, there is no genuine choice available in the question.

I propose that this kind of pointless persiflage posing as paradox is henceforth termed a "Half Ludwig".

Because that isn't the whole story, of course. To qualify as a Full Ludwig, a further step is required.

The obligatory follow-up question. A question that - as a direct result of the fault-lines in the first question - is completely impossible to answer.

>>For all your apparent knowledge and concern about congested cities, it would appear that the latter absolutely takes priority with you. Why??<<

A subtle, but quite effective, variation on the "when did you stop beating your wife" journalist's cliché, the faux-naïf "Why??" at the end completes the picture.

Having fired off a Full Ludwig, the next phase is simple.

Pretend to be shocked and dismayed that your question hasn't been answered.

>>...you have completely avoided the other two questions. Are they too hard?<<

Brilliant strategy, so long as you are only interested in hearing the sound of your own voice.

OK, I will keep trying to clarify my point so even Ludwig can't claim it is not clear. I do not say new cities should be built when old ones become congested, I say new cities should be allowed to develop at any time, and congestion would be minimised right from the start. Refer the papers of Peter Gordon et al and Alex Anas et al on decentralisation and the stability of travel time. US cities with fast-growing low density and affordable housing have far superior trip-to-work times to the opposite extreme, the UK's heavily planned, high density, unaffordable housing cities. I have already explained in depth the reasons why.

".....Ever-more people would mean ever-less productive agricultural land, ever-more domestic consumption of our produce and ever-less AGRICULTURAL export income, all else being equal...."

This is a GOOD thing. Note I inserted the word "agricultural". I already explained; incomes related to agricultural production have declined relative to incomes related to urban production, by a factor of 4 since 1950. Japan did not become a wealthy nation by FEEDING the world, and it was not prevented from becoming a wealthy nation by having to IMPORT most of its food and resources.

Sir Paul Callaghan calculated for New Zealand, that if it had 100 more of the same kinds of urban businesses as its top 40 MANUFACTURING EXPORTERS, its average income would go from bottom of the OECD to the top. But more jobs in agriculture and exports of agricultural produce, would be “jobs”, but low paid ones that would drag the average DOWN. It is just plain stupid to “conserve” rural economies and “limit” urban economies; even “harm” to the environment being neutral.

The McKinsey Institute’s 1998 paper, “Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy”, proved that it was impossible for an economic agglomeration like Silicon Valley to occur at all in the UK, thanks to the urban planners. The same problem applies to Australia and NZ, and California now. The contemporary equivalents of Bill Gates would move to Texas to start their fledgling low-budget enterprises.

(Cont..….)

(Cont…….)
Re. your two questions YOU SAY I am not answering:

“Dealing with congested cities” is nothing whatsoever to do with population control. I already said that 11 billion people could live at low urban densities equivalent to Houston, and not fill the present USA; leaving several continents for farming and resource extraction.

IF the world really started “running out of food”, then the price of farmland would go up to the point that farmland would not be affordable to develop, and sell houses and buildings on it to urban populations, who also would be paying a whole lot higher proportion of their income for food. Refer Robert Shiller, “Unlearned Lessons from the Housing Bubble”.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/unlearned-lessons-from-the-housing-bubble

I already said that population increase “levels out” of its own accord. You are setting up straw man arguments that do not resemble anything I am saying. I am not sure if I specifically said that I accept projections of a peak global population of 11 to 12 billion people, or that I see this as no problem whatsoever; but this is indeed what I hold.

I already explained that IF and when population increased to some actually unmanageable level, either globally or in too great a majority of nations, things would find their own level. Political pre-emptions (especially compulsory birth control) are LESS MORAL than simply letting human ingenuity cope as best it can. If and when a “mass cull” of human numbers occurs due to the consequences of humanity over-reaching in “development”, so be it; no one tyrant is responsible; it is an “act of nature”. Humanity has suffered mass culls for most of its existence, never due to global over-population, but to lack of technology and to bad politics. Politically imposed “pre-emptions” always left a government judged by history as “tyrannical”. I already recommended you read “Environmentalism Refuted” by George Reisman.

http://mises.org/daily/661

Of course the modern Green high priesthood objects to reason and enlightenment just as much as the medieval papal hierarchy ever did

How was the beach, Ludwig? Did it ever occur to you that your presence not only despoiled it but that it was less congested after you left?

Barring localised catastrophe, congestion has been getting worse since hominids developed sufficient frontal cortex to wonder where all the mammoth disappeared to.

Perhaps to better impress people with your line of argument you could always include a clear and specific statement as to what exactly you are going to do, or do without, to reduce congestion.

Then, even if your questions don't convince others to do without or do with less, they will at least be impressed with your demonstration of self-sacrifice.

You could call this a Full Ludwig with Pike… Not to be confused with the rationale of, "Mum won't like it, Uncle Arthur."

Congestion is the flipside of agglomeration economies in the urban economy. It is amusing that urban planners read Ed Glaeser and get all excited over CBD agglomeration economies, yet they throw up their hands in horror over "induced traffic". Is not an "induced driver" a new participant in a growing agglomeration economy somewhere in the urban economy?

Free markets actually find their own balance between agglomeration economies and congestion and land "rents" (in the "economic rent" sense of the term). Congestion, labour cost pressures, and economic rents all drive decentralisation. Agglomeration economies are of multiple types. It is wrong to expect all of them to locate at the same central location. Garment manufacturers quit Manhattan decades ago, for good reasons.

Having a number of different types of agglomerations spread through an urban economy, maximises the agglomeration economies and minimises the congestion dis-economies. It also minimises the economic rent cost of land to businesses and households, and minimises labour cost pressures. Furthermore, agglomeration economies need not involve contiguity of the participants. Access is the crucial thing. "A few minutes car trip" substitutes, in Silicon Valley, for Manhattan-ites elevator ride, walk, and subway ride, to interact face to face with other participants in the "agglomeration".

Typical urban economies now have less than 20% of their employment in the CBD. Even Manhattan falls short of this as a proportion of the total "New York" urban economy, which covers an area the size of Belgium. No Australian city has more than 20% of the urban economy's employment, in its CBD.

Of course congestion is at its worst for CBD-related commuting. The relative lack of congestion for the other 80% plus of commuting, is a success of “market” balancing in the economy that goes unnoticed. And inter-nodal congestion is the easiest fixed, because the roads involved are utilised in both directions during both "rush hours"; adding a new lane to an existing single one doubles the capacity; adding one to two adds 50%; adding one to three adds 33%, and so on. But adding capacity to already-large CBD transport infrastructure is far less effective.

Haaaaaa hahahaaaaa!

When Pericles starts carrying on like a Pommie pork chop I know I have got to the nub of the issue!

This is indeed the question that needs answering –

>>...which is more important to you – effectively dealing with congestion or allowing our population to rapidly increase with no end in sight? <<

He devotes a whole post to total abject prattle, to the extent that one has to wonder about his sanity, and of course he doesn’t even attempt to answer the question that his post is written in response to!! ( :>|

This is classic Pericles. I could call it a Full Pericles with double pike….except that he landed on his head while attempting this amazing manoeuvre!

Hope it didn’t hurt too much, but did knock a bit sense into him so that he might not try it again and might instead address the debate at hand rather than filibustering off on bizarre and meaningless tangents! It certainly couldn’t have knocked any sense out of him!!

The beach Pericles. I recommend the beach. It’s a great place to mull out. It can be a real sanity saver at times! But do it soon, because there’s not much sanity there left to save, apparently!

.

<< I do not say new cities should be built when old ones become congested, I say new cities should be allowed to develop at any time, and congestion would be minimised right from the start. >>

Yes Phil, I understand that.

<< This is a GOOD thing >>

No it is not! You are thinking in very restricted terms when you say that economic growth generated by urban production is much higher than for agricultural production.

continued