Treplo.com - Economics & Finance World Blog

It is commonly accepted thought that the more population country has the more food and supply it can provide for its people. Thus, economic growth of the country which controls its population density is growing while countries which have uncontrolled population growth would never develop economically and, therefore will not supply its citizens sufficiently.

Is it really true? The fact is developing countries do have overpopulated areas and poverty is the main problem they face. However, there are many examples which disprove this, such as the one of the Netherlands and its former colony Indonesia. Though the Netherlands has four times the population density of Indonesia, it is the latter which has a severe poverty problem and is considered overpopulated. Furthermore, contrary to what is expected, the gross national product in overpopulated developing countries is rising. This means that the economic state of countries with a large population isn’t necessarily worsening, and if so- population growth is not responsible for it.

Though we have seen that population growth is not the cause of poverty, some experts blame population growth of reducing available quantities of food. Actually, it is quite the opposite that is true. The largest increases in the production of food is in the third world countries, which happen to be where there are the largest increases of population.

Given what we know, we can surely say that population growth is exempted of being responsible for the poverty in the world or the reduction in the output of food per person. Researchers should more pay their attention to other problems caused by overpopulation, such as environmental pollution and natural resources degradation.

Source: EasyArticles.

Until a few decades ago this movement of people was a migration – from a home country to a host country – with little, if any, interaction between those who migrated and those who stayed back. To a large extent, it can be argued, that the interaction was limited to the sending of remittances back home. With advances in the areas of transport and communication, migrants nowadays not only travel back and forth, and maintain constant touch with their families, but also play a more active part in the social, political and economic fields of both countries, than was ever possible before. What does this duality augur for the U.S.? How does the immigrant population, which is growing rapidly, affect life socially, economically and politically?
Research has shown that immigration is rapidly changing the face of American cities. Immigrants prefer urban locations to rural areas when starting a new life; better opportunities for
employment, education and health-care being their primary concern. Analysis of census data released in August 2006 for the Western cities of Phoenix, Tucson and Denver has confirmed that the non–Hispanic white population has indeed dropped to less than 50 percent. The changes are apparent: schools have to cope with children who do not speak English natively; politicians are recognizing the importance of the non-White population. The area’s economy has received a boost because of the immigrants, and the local White population is benefiting from it. Quite understandably, the question of racism has, and will continue, to raise its ugly head in these circumstances, but the economic benefits and the good will of the American people, have so far, out-manoeuvred such stumbling blocks.
With contemporary migration, urban life will benefit economically as it did years before. However, change in political and social atmosphere is imminent as politicians and policymakers try to woo and represent the vast multitude of the foreign born population; which stood at about 12 percent of the total population in 2004.
Furthermore, people are no longer confined to a nation-state; they transcend national borders. Conventional methods to address the concerns of contemporary immigrants cannot be used; owing to transnational identities. Policies that are made under the assumption that people will conform to the ideas and ideals of just one country, can prove to be counter-productive; not
only to the lives of the immigrants but also to the “well-being” of the nation. Resisting this inevitable change is futile; instead what she suggests is to face this challenge head–on, and to convert what looks as “threatening” the American way of life, into its strength. Ideals of democracy, equality and freedom that America has always stood for, can be transported across borders while reaping economic benefits in return. America can proclaim without consternation even today: ; Give me your tired, your poor, / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.

Source: EasyArticles.

“One should hardly have to tell academicians that information is a valuable resource: knowledge is power.” - G. Stigler “The Economics of Information”

The strength of the recent boom in private equity has many analysts concerned that a growing percentage of the United States’ gross domestic product is moving “off the radar”. Because private investors are under no obligation to share financial information in the way that society has grown accustomed, these analysts are concerned that the resulting information opacity increases the risks of unexpected economic shocks.

Private equity refers to investment in assets that are not available on for public trading. Virtually all small businesses are organized as private businesses, but in the rarefied environs of the nation’s largest companies the preferred organization is the public corporation.

When private equity firms approach a public company with an offer to buy the company and take it private, they typically offer a substantial premium to the market value of the company. For example, when private equity firm KKR purchased First Data for over $25 billion, this represented a 26% premium over the prevailing market rate for the shares of the company.

Private equity firms are capable of purchasing any business, public or private, but many of the larger firms have concentrated on purchasing distressed companies that have recently undergone troubles. These so called turnaround jobs have been a significant source of acquisitions recently. Two private equity giants, Blackstone and Centerbridge, are engaged in a bidding frenzy for the troubled Chrysler arm of DaimlerChrysler. Chrysler lost over $1 billion last year, but DaimlerChrysler will receive in excess of $6 billion for the company.

While private equity investments carry their own risks, they also are uniquely suited to reward the greater economy. Private equity’s ability to look beyond the day to day shifts in stock price and concentrate on building long term wealth could allow enhanced risk taking. When TXU was purchased by a consortium of private equity firms, the staid energy giant changed its culture. The firm shelved plans to build coal-powered plants and now is working on the largest nuclear facility in the United States. This change from safe investments to much more risky operations could only occur thanks to private equity.

The real concern with private equity, however, is the high debt load taken on by the acquired company to leverage the investment made by the principals. These so called leveraged buyouts result in companies with huge amounts of debt. And the risk of companies becoming unable to service that debt in an economic downturn is no small matter. The IMF has publicly warned regulators around the world to pay close attention to rising levels of private debt.

All of these concerns notwithstanding, private equity is clearly the way of the future. The reason is clear - enormous profits are possible. When Google purchased DoubleClick for $3.1 billion, it also allowed a private equity firm to get out of an investment it only paid $1.1 billion for, just a few years ago. These substantial profits will attract a growing part of the investment world.

The increasingly global economy is also becoming an increasingly private economy. New risks abound in this changing landscape, but the rewards for success will be substantial.

Source: EasyArticles.

In an ever uncertain housing market now more than ever people are looking for new ways to collect more equity out of their property investment. With house prices levelling off, and even falling in some regions it has become clear that sellers are having to look for more ingenious ways to boost their profits.
Unfortunately for estate agents it looks like it is their commission that seems to be in danger. Whilst some people will still need an estate agent to act on their behalf a growing number are finding that they are more than capable of marketing their own properties. If you can show someone around your own house why pay thousands for someone to do it?
The Department for Communities and Local Government have valued the average UK property at £218,330. An estate agents fee at 2% would be £4366.60 not including VAT. So even if you own a property outright by saving on these fees it would be the same as experiencing a 2% rise in your equity. Should however you have a mortgage to pay off your equity will be less and the percentage of your profit an agent takes will grow.
The ‘for sale by owner’ market is growing each year in the UK and is expected to keep growing to levels seen in the USA where it is a well known and established practice. There are many websites out there that range in quality and price, however generally, for under £150 you can purchase a ‘for sale sign’ to display outside your property, and an online advert. These adverts are displayed on leading property websites that estate agents use to advertise their property. Websites like www.MoveWise.co.uk can help sellers reach millions of potential buyers each month. The image private sellers can now project is every bit as professional as an estate agent.
If you are due to sell your property and are worried about the state of the housing market it is well worth sitting down and having a long hard look at your options. It could be very expensive not to.

Source: EasyArticles.