Urban Growth – Population, GDP, COL, etc.

[dragonfly]

So over the years in internet discussions I've used both TN and MA growth as illustrations of the difference local policy makers can make to the fortunes of states. The former has been outgrowing the latter every year and so anticipating the swapping of their population rankings has been sort of a background interest. The puzzle is this: I came upon a website that shows that swap in 2021 stats. They also show Mass as fewer population in 2021 than the 2020 census results. Here is their page for TN: https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/tennessee-population  and the page for MA: https://worldpopulationreview.com/states/massachusetts-population

Anyone know the nitty-gritty on that website and more to the point what is the actual current rankings of the two states?

Edited October 5, 2021 by dragonfly

[Rockatansky]

12 hours ago, dragonfly said:

what is the actual current rankings of the two states

The latest official data for TN and MA are from the 2020 Census.
TN: 6,910,840

MA: 7,029,917

I poked around that webpage's sources and couldn't find any applicable 2021 data. The TN SDC has 2021 data, but its out of date and doesn't account for the 2020 Redistricting data.

[ruraljuror]

17 hours ago, dragonfly said:

So over the years in internet discussions I've used both TN and MA growth as illustrations of the difference local policy makers can make to the fortunes of states.

Your statement piqued my interest, so I did a little calculating using data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Between 2000 and 2019, the per capita GDP of Texas grew from $47,664 to $61,682 which represents 29% growth. 

Over the same time period, the per capita GDP of Massachusetts grew from $56, 519 to $75,258, which represents 33% growth.

In this light, not only is Massachusetts' per capita GDP 22% higher than the per capita GDP of Texas, it's also been growing at about a 4% faster clip over the last couple of decades.

Tennessee went from a per capita GDP of $40, 877 to $48,440 for a growth rate of about 19%, for anyone that's curious. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by ruraljuror

[dragonfly]

7 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

Your statement piqued my interest, so I did a little calculating using data from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis:

Between 2000 and 2019, the per capita GDP of Texas grew from $47,664 to $61,682 which represents 29% growth. 

Over the same time period, the per capita GDP of Massachusetts grew from $56, 519 to $75,258, which represents 33% growth.

In this light, not only is Massachusetts' per capita GDP 22% higher than the per capita GDP of Texas, it's also been growing at about a 4% faster clip over the last couple of decades.

Tennessee went from a per capita GDP of $40, 877 to $48,440 for a growth rate of about 19%, for anyone that's curious. 

 

What piqued my interest in 2007 was a WSJ feature article on the economic status of Houston which at that time was growing very fast, almost at the same rate as 'Austin at about 3.5+ times the metro population of Austin. These economic figures are fairly difficult to understand and here is what is confusing. The article stated that the Houston workforce was essentially 1/2 the productivity of the NYC workforce which according to the per capita GDP interpretation means that NYC per capita GDP is twice that of Houston. If you drill down that means that cab drivers in NYC produce twice as much as their Houston counterparts, teachers produce twice as much, police officers produce twice as much, as do  auto mechanics, etc etc. Is this really the case? Do auto mechanics in NYC fix twice as many vehicles as the ones in Houston? Do average passenger miles driven by cab drivers in NYC equal twice those in Houston? Of course not. The difference between Houston and NYC metros is vast in several arenas. Taxation is drastically different. Land use policy, and availability is drastically different, resulting in housing costs and real estate taxes drastically diverging. Thus Houston metro population was booming in 2007 while NYC metro population was stagnant by comparison. Policy has as much to do with this as does land availability. The same goes with MA and TN. If you are going to compare per capita GDP growth between the two states as the only driver of population growth, you get nonsense in your analysis. Something else has to be driving the difference in population growth between TN and MA and guess what? It is per capita GDP corrected for COL, and below is the spreadsheet that proves it. Corrected for COL, TN per capita GDP in 2016 was $52,355. In MA it was $47,889. In TX, $65,168; in NY $53,766. 

Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fa8tNa48ct5vxz2UdgH-0TTlgms6mKdbO71QinDfQZo/edit#gid=155632612

Edited October 6, 2021 by dragonfly

[MLBrumby]

46 minutes ago, dragonfly said:

 

What piqued my interest in 2007 was a WSJ feature article on the economic status of Houston which at that time was growing very fast, almost at the same rate as 'Austin at about 3.5+ times the metro population of Austin. These economic figures are fairly difficult to understand and here is what is confusing. The article stated that the Houston workforce was essentially 1/2 the productivity of the NYC workforce which according to the per capita GDP interpretation means that NYC per capita GDP is twice that of Houston. If you drill down that means that cab drivers in NYC produce twice as much as their Houston counterparts, teachers produce twice as much, police officers produce twice as much, as do  auto mechanics, etc etc. Is this really the case? Do auto mechanics in NYC fix twice as many vehicles as the ones in Houston? Do average passenger miles driven by cab drivers in NYC equal twice those in Houston? Of course not. The difference between Houston and NYC metros is vast in several arenas. Taxation is drastically different. Land use policy, and availability is drastically different, resulting in housing costs and real estate taxes drastically diverging. Thus Houston metro population was booming in 2007 while NYC metro population was stagnant by comparison. Policy has as much to do with this as does land availability. The same goes with MA and TN. If you are going to compare per capita GDP growth between the two states as the only driver of population growth, you get nonsense in your analysis. Something else has to be driving the difference in population growth between TN and MA and guess what? It is per capita GDP corrected for COL, and below is the spreadsheet that proves it. Corrected for COL, TN per capita GDP in 2016 was $52,355. In MA it was $47,889. In TX, $65,168; in NY $53,766. 

Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fa8tNa48ct5vxz2UdgH-0TTlgms6mKdbO71QinDfQZo/edit#gid=155632612

Was hoping someone was going to weigh in on this. Nice job Dragonfly!

[ruraljuror]

10 hours ago, dragonfly said:

 

What piqued my interest in 2007 was a WSJ feature article on the economic status of Houston which at that time was growing very fast, almost at the same rate as 'Austin at about 3.5+ times the metro population of Austin. These economic figures are fairly difficult to understand and here is what is confusing. The article stated that the Houston workforce was essentially 1/2 the productivity of the NYC workforce which according to the per capita GDP interpretation means that NYC per capita GDP is twice that of Houston. If you drill down that means that cab drivers in NYC produce twice as much as their Houston counterparts, teachers produce twice as much, police officers produce twice as much, as do  auto mechanics, etc etc. Is this really the case? Do auto mechanics in NYC fix twice as many vehicles as the ones in Houston? Do average passenger miles driven by cab drivers in NYC equal twice those in Houston? Of course not. The difference between Houston and NYC metros is vast in several arenas. Taxation is drastically different. Land use policy, and availability is drastically different, resulting in housing costs and real estate taxes drastically diverging. Thus Houston metro population was booming in 2007 while NYC metro population was stagnant by comparison. Policy has as much to do with this as does land availability. The same goes with MA and TN. If you are going to compare per capita GDP growth between the two states as the only driver of population growth, you get nonsense in your analysis. Something else has to be driving the difference in population growth between TN and MA and guess what? It is per capita GDP corrected for COL, and below is the spreadsheet that proves it. Corrected for COL, TN per capita GDP in 2016 was $52,355. In MA it was $47,889. In TX, $65,168; in NY $53,766. 

Link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Fa8tNa48ct5vxz2UdgH-0TTlgms6mKdbO71QinDfQZo/edit#gid=155632612

 

If your claims are that the population of Texas is growing faster than the population of Massachusetts and that the cost of living in Texas is lower than the cost of living in Massachusetts, I've got no disputes with those assertions whatsoever.  I'd also like to point out that there's a lot that I like about Texas, so I hope you're not taking this personally.

That said, nothing that you wrote in your post above addresses the fact that the per capita GDP of Massachusetts has been growing at a faster rate than the per capita GDP of Texas for the last 20 years. You're also going to be hard pressed to find any economists that will argue that population growth and cost of living are better indicators of a state's "fortunes" than per capita GDP (see India with tons of population growth and a very low cost of living as one example to support this point).

I do, however, think you make an interesting point by bringing cost of living into the equation with regard to per capita GDP, but I think you're missing a crucial part of the analysis. The greater amount of money spent on cost of living in Massachusetts doesn't happen in a vacuum and it doesn't just disappear - that money is reinvested back into the state and the people who live there.  Just for a few examples, I did a quick google search about state rankings in terms of education, healthcare outcomes, and poverty: According to the first sources that popped up (so correct me if you can find better data of course) but it looks like Massachusetts is ranked 1st in education, 2nd in healthcare outcomes, and 10th in poverty. Texas, on the other hand, is ranked 34th in education, 42nd in healthcare outcomes, and 41st in poverty. 

I would argue that Massachusetts is getting a pretty good ROI on the cost of living and that having a better educated, healthier, and less financially strained population is what's driving Massachusetts' faster per capita GDP growth relative to Texas, but even if you look at Massachusetts' public spending as nothing but an anchor that isn't driving growth, then it's even more impressive that Massachusetts is able to achieve a faster per capita GDP growth rate despite the larger cost of living.

10 hours ago, dragonfly said:

If you drill down that means that cab drivers in NYC produce twice as much as their Houston counterparts, teachers produce twice as much, police officers produce twice as much, as do  auto mechanics, etc etc. Is this really the case? Do auto mechanics in NYC fix twice as many vehicles as the ones in Houston? Do average passenger miles driven by cab drivers in NYC equal twice those in Houston? Of course not. 

I also wanted to point out that what you've written here about NYC vs Houston teachers/cab drivers, etc. is a fundamental misunderstanding of how per capita GDP works, just as an FYI.  Per capita GDP doesn't indicate that teachers or cabbies in one area are doing more work or producing more value than teachers or cabbies in another area - it means that there's so much value being created in one area relative to another that when said value is divided across the entire population that there's a notable difference. The work of teachers and cab drivers and other professions that are more consistent across areas with different cost of living actually reduce per capita GDP discrepancies to make them more consistent, whereas the other professions with less consistency across areas with different costs of living are what's driving those discrepancies apart. 

 

[dragonfly]

3 hours ago, ruraljuror said:

I would argue that Massachusetts is getting a pretty good ROI on the cost of living and that having a better educated, healthier, and less financially strained population is what's driving Massachusetts' faster per capita GDP growth relative to Texas, but even if you look at Massachusetts' public spending as nothing but an anchor that isn't driving growth, then it's even more impressive that Massachusetts is able to achieve a faster per capita GDP growth rate despite the larger cost of living.

I also wanted to point out that what you've written here about NYC vs Houston teachers/cab drivers, etc. is a fundamental misunderstanding of how per capita GDP works, just as an FYI.  Per capita GDP doesn't indicate that teachers or cabbies in one area are doing more work or producing more value than teachers or cabbies in another area - it means that there's so much value being created in one area relative to another that when said value is divided across the entire population that there's a notable difference. The work of teachers and cab drivers and other professions that are more consistent across areas with different cost of living actually reduce per capita GDP discrepancies to make them more consistent, whereas the other professions with less consistency across areas with different costs of living are what's driving those discrepancies apart. 

OK so let's look at a little logic here. Population of Texas is exploding and the consequent job creation blows Mass out of the water. If the MA worker is creating so much value for the US economy, why can't that state blow away both TN and TX in job creation per capita when obviously it doesn't? It doesn't because raw GDP per capita like I said before, can generate nonsense, unless it is combined with the COL and maybe other factors.

Also, yes auto mechanics in NYC are likely not making 2x the money of ones in Houston, but they certainly make significantly more without fixing more vehicles, so to say that their marginal contribution to the state GDP is less than NYC  investment bankers misses MY point and saying I misunderstand all this is a bogus point, because my point was to introduce some sarcasm into the argument. For a little entertainment if nobody minds.

Also given per capita GDP of MA say is growing faster than Texas. So is the COL. I tried to find a COL trend table for the states and couldn't come up with it but suppose the COL increases in MA are trending upward much faster than the other two states, say enough to more than negate the increase in per capita GDP then where are we? I don't have the numbers.

So why don't I do this to further illustrate the possible absurdities of raw GDP numbers and their purported explanatory powers. Let's compare Hawaii and TN and their numbers from the table I linked above. Does the average Hawaii resident actually contribute $55,169 to the U.S. economy with the TN resident contributing much less at $46,858? Really, I mean a state with virtually zero manufacturing, contributes 20% more per capita to the U.S. economy than residents of a much larger state with several auto plants and numerous other industrial facilities? I don't think so. This comes back to my 'nonsense' explanation. You could say well, Hawaii has tourism, but then so does TN.

Let's look at another example with a different angle, at my locality and a well-known brand. The company Igloo is based here and had a suburban plant at the intersection of the state's biggest road, Katy Fwy (I-10) and Beltway 8, a toll road. They closed the plant, sold it and built a gigantic facility further west, literally in the country near Brookshire. So their real estate tax went way down, and they acquired so much space that they could build all manner of efficiencies into the facility that they didn't have before. Assume a high price for the sold land more than paid for the much larger parcel. Let's even presume that the COL in Brookshire is so much lower than in Houston/burbs, that new hires will work for a bit less while having a higher living standard than their Houston co-workers. As a result of all the previous, Igloo can sell their products for a bit less (adjusted for inflation) than before. Maybe people even come from out of state to work there and live in Brookshire as per job creation. Can anyone really maintain that the per capita product (in dollars) of this workforce, which went down because of this move really caused Texas to contribute less to the U.S. economy? With the company selling products nationwide for a bit cheaper? I think that argument would be absurd on the face of it. This would indicate that products made in lower COL states are made more efficiently than they can be made in higher COL states which is opposite to the argument in the WSJ article. Economics has never been straightforward.

Edited October 6, 2021 by dragonfly

[ruraljuror]

55 minutes ago, dragonfly said:

OK so let's look at a little logic here. Population of Texas is exploding and the consequent job creation blows Mass out of the water. If the MA worker is creating so much value for the US economy, why can't that state blow away both TN and TX in job creation per capita when obviously it doesn't? It doesn't because raw GDP per capita like I said before, can generate nonsense, unless it is combined with the COL and maybe other factors.

Also, yes auto mechanics in NYC are likely not making 2x the money of ones in Houston, but they certainly make significantly more without fixing more vehicles, so to say that their marginal contribution to the state GDP is less than NYC  investment bankers misses MY point and saying I misunderstand all this is a bogus point, because my point was to introduce some sarcasm into the argument. For a little entertainment if nobody minds.

Also given per capita GDP of MA say is growing faster than Texas. So is the COL. I tried to find a COL trend table for the states and couldn't come up with it but suppose the COL increases in MA are trending upward much faster than the other two states, say enough to more than negate the increase in per capita GDP then where are we? I don't have the numbers.

So why don't I do this to further illustrate the possible absurdities of raw GDP numbers and their purported explanatory powers. Let's compare Hawaii and TN and their numbers from the table I linked above. Does the average Hawaii resident actually contribute $55,169 to the U.S. economy with the TN resident contributing much less at $46,858? Really, I mean a state with virtually zero manufacturing, contributes 20% more per capita to the U.S. economy than residents of a much larger state with several auto plants and numerous other industrial facilities? I don't think so. This comes back to my 'nonsense' explanation. You could say well, Hawaii has tourism, but then so does TN.

Let's look at another example with a different angle, at my locality and a well-known brand. The company Igloo is based here and had a suburban plant at the intersection of the state's biggest road, Katy Fwy (I-10) and Beltway 8, a toll road. They closed the plant, sold it and built a gigantic facility further west, literally in the country near Brookshire. So their real estate tax went way down, and they acquired so much space that they could build all manner of efficiencies into the facility that they didn't have before. Assume a high price for the sold land more than paid for the much larger parcel. Let's even presume that the COL in Brookshire is so much lower than in Houston/burbs, that new hires will work for a bit less while having a higher living standard than their Houston co-workers. As a result, Igloo can sell their products for a bit less than before. Maybe people even come from out of state to work there and live in Brookshire as per job creation. Can anyone really maintain that the per capita product (in dollars) of this workforce, which went down because of this move really caused Texas to contribute less to the U.S. economy? With the company selling products nationwide for a bit cheaper? I think that argument would be absurd on the face of it. This would indicate that products made in lower COL states are made more efficiently than they can be made in higher COL states which is opposite to the argument in the WSJ article.

Regardless what you think about the value of GDP as a metric, you're still not addressing the growth rates. As an olive branch, I will grant you that Texas per capita GDP growth has improved over the last 5 years at about 3% slower than Massachusetts - down from about 4% slower than Massachusetts over the last two decades, so the growth rate gap is narrowing. That said, it's not as though Texas is catching up, it's just losing ground less slowly than it was earlier in the millennium.

You are right, however, that this analysis could be impacted if cost of living in Massachusetts were climbing significantly faster than in Texas, but I'm curious what makes you think that's the case. Do you believe the population growth that you're touting as a measure of success is bringing costs down somehow? Correct me if I'm missing something, but the law of supply and demand would seem to indicate otherwise, which may be the reason you're having trouble finding the numbers you're looking for. I know cost of living in Nashville has been pretty steep of late at least and we're much closer to the TX than the MA tract. 

I'll also note that you're correct that I totally missed your joke in the previous post, which is my bad, but I do still think you're missing the larger point with your mechanic and igloo comparisons, and the source of the confusion again seems to be supply and demand. A mechanic can charge more for fixing your car in the middle of a city than they can charge for fixing a similar car out in the boondocks because there are lots of customers in the city and transporting their cars out to the boondocks costs time and money for which the city mechanic is able to charge a premium. The market dictates the value, not the mechanic.

In your igloo example, however, I would argue (and the market would agree) that the value created by the relocated work force as you describe it did indeed cause Texas to contribute less to the economy unless they're selling more units as a result. By selling their product for less, they should be able to move more product and net additional revenue, otherwise the relocation was a bad business decision. If Igloo lowers its price and is unable to move any additional units to make up for the reduced revenue, however, then you are correct that Texas would then in fact be contributing less to the US economy. Even if they move the exact same number of units pre and post relocation, the lower prices (with no additional sales) indicate that the market values the product less after than before the move, which is then fairly reflected in GDP.

I'm genuinely curious, does that argument still seem absurd to you after having read this explanation? 

 

Edited October 6, 2021 by ruraljuror

[Bos2Nash]

@ruraljuror, @dragonfly, @MLBrumby, @Rockatansky

Please continue your conversation here.

[Armacing]

On 12/16/2021 at 11:55 AM, Mr_Bond said:

I would argue that the Federal Reserve's policies have made cheap money available primarily to the wealthy and have contributed to the wealth gap.  Here is a perfect example.  Big investors flush with cash and low interest rates make housing less affordable for those who need it.  When the market drops and the VC firms dump a bunch of houses, it will be another VC firm that buys them in big blocks from the firms in trouble.  These homes may not be owner-occupied for many years.

***Continuing this discussion about economics from the "Economics" thread as apparently we are only allowed to discuss non-political aspects of economics in that thread... or more precisely: non-controversial political aspects of economics.***

Yes, Mr_Bond, you are absolutely correct.  The fact that only people with good credit can take advantage of the credit-expansion policies of the Fed is just one of the many ways the system is rigged to keep poor people poor and rich people rich.  The monetary inflation policies of the Fed are another example because wages don't keep up with rising retail costs and debt-financed asset appreciation - thus resulting in a decrease in the standard of living and a destruction of wealth for those with cash savings.

Some people might say "Those poor people should be investing in stocks!", but stocks come with risk.  Some people on limited/fixed income cannot afford to take any risks with their money.  Yet those are exactly the people that the government is robbing with the greatest counterfeiting operation on the face of the planet:  The Federal Reserve Bank.  The economic manipulation inflicted upon Americans is a high crime and the Fed Board should be tried with treason, but they won't be because the un-educated masses have been brain-washed to believe it's the central banks job to de-value the currency.

The plight of the ignorant and deluded masses is made worse by the fact that their genocidal government was successful in it's efforts to marginalize the concept of gold and silver as money.  Owning gold and silver is portrayed as crazy or stupid by so many media outlets and the investment community.  Few Americans are aware of the fact that the government confiscated the gold of americans in 1933 by force based on an executive order from the president.  This was done to remove the last safe-haven store of wealth that was available to average Americans and cement the economic control of the Socialist/Fascist alliance between big government and big business. 

Although Americans are free to own metals today, most do not because this knowledge was lost during the generation while it was illegal, and many public institutions choose not to publicize it or even actively denounce it as a "bad idea".  It is interesting to note, however, that using physical gold & silver as a hedge against inflation is common in other countries.  There was an article about people buying gold in Istanbul because of the Turkish currency crisis just a few days ago.  If the public in the US knew about the true rate of inflation, maybe they would discover what everyone else around the world seems to know and buy more gold for saving.  You should check out the real rate of inflation.

[samsonh]

48 minutes ago, Armacing said:

***Continuing this discussion about economics from the "Economics" thread as apparently we are only allowed to discuss non-political aspects of economics in that thread... or more precisely: non-controversial political aspects of economics.***

Yes, Mr_Bond, you are absolutely correct.  The fact that only people with good credit can take advantage of the credit-expansion policies of the Fed is just one of the many ways the system is rigged to keep poor people poor and rich people rich.  The monetary inflation policies of the Fed are another example because wages don't keep up with rising retail costs and debt-financed asset appreciation - thus resulting in a decrease in the standard of living and a destruction of wealth for those with cash savings.

Some people might say "Those poor people should be investing in stocks!", but stocks come with risk.  Some people on limited/fixed income cannot afford to take any risks with their money.  Yet those are exactly the people that the government is robbing with the greatest counterfeiting operation on the face of the planet:  The Federal Reserve Bank.  The economic manipulation inflicted upon Americans is a high crime and the Fed Board should be tried with treason, but they won't be because the un-educated masses have been brain-washed to believe it's the central banks job to de-value the currency.

The plight of the ignorant and deluded masses is made worse by the fact that their genocidal government was successful in it's efforts to marginalize the concept of gold and silver as money.  Owning gold and silver is portrayed as crazy or stupid by so many media outlets and the investment community.  Few Americans are aware of the fact that the government confiscated the gold of americans in 1933 by force based on an executive order from the president.  This was done to remove the last safe-haven store of wealth that was available to average Americans and cement the economic control of the Socialist/Fascist alliance between big government and big business. 

Although Americans are free to own metals today, most do not because this knowledge was lost during the generation while it was illegal, and many public institutions choose not to publicize it or even actively denounce it as a "bad idea".  It is interesting to note, however, that using physical gold & silver as a hedge against inflation is common in other countries.  There was an article about people buying gold in Istanbul because of the Turkish currency crisis just a few days ago.  If the public in the US knew about the true rate of inflation, maybe they would discover what everyone else around the world seems to know and buy more gold for saving.  You should check out the real rate of inflation.

Shadowstats! The true cranks. Why hasn’t shadowstats raised his prices in a decade? 
 

A quote on shadowstats post from fullstackeconomics:

”Williams doesn’t seem to realize this. He thinks methodological changes reduced the measured inflation rate by 5.1 percent every year. This is akin to driving your car 2,000 miles during a 31-hour road trip and then concluding that the car was traveling at 2,000 miles per hour.”

 

feel free to read through the full debunking yourself, https://fullstackeconomics.com/no-the-real-inflation-rate-isnt-14-percent/

 

also: gold is a terrible hedge. Look at the performance of gold this year. Just horrible.

Edited December 17, 2021 by samsonh

[Mr_Bond]

On 12/17/2021 at 12:29 PM, Armacing said:

Few Americans are aware of the fact that the government confiscated the gold of americans in 1933 by force based on an executive order from the president.  This was done to remove the last safe-haven store of wealth that was available to average Americans and cement the economic control of the Socialist/Fascist alliance between big government and big business. 

When a client asks me about the need to own precious metals, I mention FDR's 1933 executive order and tell them, "Own smaller coins and bars.  Put them in a very safe safe in your home.  Do not buy an ETF.  Do not put your metals in a safe deposit box or any other place where someone can keep you from getting to them."

Funny story a friend told me about working in the trust department of a bank.  The bank was executor of a man's will.  He died.  The trust officers had to go through his home and find anything of value: cash hidden in socks, uncashed checks stuck in a pile of old magazines, stuff like that.  After several days, they felt like they were done and were walking towards the front door when someone said, "Don't those curtains look a little funny, a little stretched?"  In the bottom seam of the curtains, the man had placed one ounce gold coins.  Lots of gold coins.

[samsonh]

2 hours ago, Mr_Bond said:

When a client asks me about the need to own precious metals, I mention FDR's 1933 executive order and tell them, "Own smaller coins and bars.  Put them in a very safe safe in your home.  Do not buy an ETF.  Do not put your metals in a safe deposit box or any other place where someone can keep you from getting to them."

Funny story a friend told me about working in the trust department of a bank.  The bank was executor of a man's will.  He died.  The trust officers had to go through his home and find anything of value: cash hidden in socks, uncashed checks stuck in a pile of old magazines, stuff like that.  After several days, they felt like they were done and were walking towards the front door when someone said, "Don't those curtains look a little funny, a little stretched?"  In the bottom seam of the curtains, the man had placed one ounce gold coins.  Lots of gold coins.

I would give the exact opposite advice. Never take physical possession. You will get ripped off buying and selling, you have to worry about getting robbed, and if the world goes to hell it won’t make a difference whether you have some  physical gold or not. 
 

Buy a super cheap and liquid ETF, and you don’t get ripped off on the bid ask spread and can’t get physically robbed.

[Armacing]

14 hours ago, samsonh said:

I would give the exact opposite advice. Never take physical possession. You will get ripped off buying and selling, you have to worry about getting robbed, and if the world goes to hell it won’t make a difference whether you have some  physical gold or not. 
 

Buy a super cheap and liquid ETF, and you don’t get ripped off on the bid ask spread and can’t get physically robbed.

ETF is a rip off because you can't take physical possession.  Everything you say about physical possession is wrong.  Physical possession is the key to everything.  If physical possession is meaningless why did the Fed have to confiscate gold in 1933?  If physical possession is meaningless why did Germany request all their gold be sent back to Germany in the mid 2000's?  I don't have to worry about getting robbed any more if I have gold than if I don't.  Gold must always be hidden in such a way that common robbers or even government investigators cannot find it.  If you think hidden gold is easy to find then you clearly haven't been paying attention to all the hidden gold around the world and even it this country that people are still looking for.

If society disintegrates it's true that you'll need guns, ammo, food, and water.  But once society is restored, it's also nice to have a store of wealth to re-start your life with, and that's where gold comes in.  Gold never loses its value.  If someone is just buying and selling gold coins at a coin shop or pawn shop it's true they will lose money, but that's not why or how smart people handle gold.  You buy the gold and never sell it for dollars.  Now, you may at some point in the future trade it for physical assets like land, guns, ammo, or maybe even vehicles, perhaps buying your way onto a boat or across an international border.  But trading gold for fiat currency is just about the dumbest thing a person can do.

As for the current and recent valuation of gold:  It's the bargain of the century.  When it becomes obvious that gold is way more valuable than what the metals exchanges are pegging the price at, then it will be too late and you won't be able to buy gold at any price.  I say load up now while you still can.  During March of 2020 when the pandemic was hitting and the stock market was crashing, it was literally impossible to buy gold.  I checked the online gold sellers and they were all sold out... as in no gold for sale.  What do you call the price when nobody is willing to sell it to you for any price?  Infinite?  Not really.  Actually, nobody was willing to sell at the posted market price because the market price wasn't reflecting reality at that time.  In the consumer market, the price must have spiked well above $2,000 to actually convince someone to part with their gold while staring into a novel pandemic of unknown consequences.  And that's really my point in all of this.  During a true crisis, the price of physical gold in the consumer market will surge while the stock market tanks.  I call that a great hedge.  It won't even matter what the published price is on the London Metals Exchange - and that's assuming we even have access to the internet to know that price (a big assumption).

[Armacing]

On 12/17/2021 at 12:59 PM, samsonh said:

”Williams doesn’t seem to realize this. He thinks methodological changes reduced the measured inflation rate by 5.1 percent every year. This is akin to driving your car 2,000 miles during a 31-hour road trip and then concluding that the car was traveling at 2,000 miles per hour.”

feel free to read through the full debunking yourself, https://fullstackeconomics.com/no-the-real-inflation-rate-isnt-14-percent/

also: gold is a terrible hedge. Look at the performance of gold this year. Just horrible.

Of course there are government apologists aplenty these days, but it doesn't take a degree in economics to realize the government is under-stating inflation.  They fail to differentiate between the price of compulsory purchases like food/shelter/medical care and discretionary purchases like smart phones, etc.  They look at a basket of goods rather than the absolute minimum things a person needs to survive, so the methodology itself is deceptive. 

But we need not even trouble ourselves with the trivial details of how CPI is calculated.  All we need to do is know that the Fed targets 2% inflation but the interest rate is set at 0.25%... meaning the average person with a bank account looses about 2% of their purchasing power annually (compounding) by design.  Literally robbing savers to pump money/credit back into the inflationary bubble.  When you know the game is rigged and the house has stacked the deck against you, then it's time to cash out your fiat for physical gold and go home.  Last one left holding the monopoly money is a rotten egg!

[QCxpat]

Nashville: The Evolving Urban Form by Wendell Cox, NewGeography 01/23/2022.   A nice story, with charts, regarding population growth in the Nashville metro area.

Excerpt:  "Business Migration.  Tennessee is also attracting businesses from elsewhere.  A Hoover Institution report by Joseph Vranich and Lee E. Ohanian found that in a 3.5-year period ending in June, 2021, the corporate headquarters of 272 companies left California, with Tennessee ranking as the second leading destination state, following Texas.  Tennessee’s second ranking was an improvement over previous years, when Arizona or Nevada ranked second (based on related research)."

"Comparative Advantages.  Not only has metro Nashville emerged as one of the principal growth centers of the nation, but its momentum may be improving, especially due to net domestic migration. These improved demographics arises, at least in part, from widening competitive advantages, such as its low cost of living, and the absence of a state income tax.  Nashville ... appears to have a bright future ahead."

 

 

Link:  https://www.newgeography.com/content/007325-nashville-the-evolving-urban-form

Edited January 26, 2022 by QCxpat