Jump to content
exlex

Charter Cities

Recommended Posts

Construction of the city itself would most likely be the largest earner for those persons initially involved (across all trades and industries - think Carpentry, Electrical Engineers, Plumbers, IT specialists), most plausibly the result of FDI (foreign direct investment). These people will most likely live in the area in make-shift towns until habitable energy-efficient permanent structures became available to rent/buy.

 

The work completed would generally be paid for by the various construction companies which do not require relocation; think of it as a new branch (it need not be an entirely new business, and the expectation that the company would entirely relocate is a bit laughable). This pay would be used by the employees to feed/clothe themselves using the services provided by the city itself. This is generally how our economy works, also.

 

Economic growth is a pretty great reason; I imagine, as I've already stated, that there will be immense opportunities for companies/entrepreneurs in these cities. Shit, I'd love to be a part of such a worthwhile cause; I imagine the pay would be decent... unless of course a Fibre Optic infrastructure wasn't near the top of the list. :-p

 

(We are slowly coming out of a period in our history where bad investments were sold to continue growth, we need to come up with new ways to invest and grow (here comes a buzzword) sustainably.)

 

I would hope telecommunications infrastructure would be considered crucial to facilitate education/communication etc.

I'm sure in a few years time there'll be a few more organisations who have experience deploying renewable energy technology, too, I imagine that may help.

Edited by Errorist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Construction of the city itself would most likely be the largest earner for those persons initially involved (across all trades and industries - think Carpentry, Electrical Engineers, Plumbers, IT specialists), most plausibly the result of FDI (foreign direct investment). These people will most likely live in the area in make-shift towns until habitable energy-efficient permanent structures became available to rent/buy.

 

The work completed would generally be paid for by the various construction companies which do not require relocation; think of it as a new branch (it need not be an entirely new business, and the expectation that the company would entirely relocate is a bit laughable). This pay would be used by the employees to feed/clothe themselves using the services provided by the city itself. This is generally how our economy works, also.

Wait a minute; building the city would pay for building the city? Foreign investment is going to pay for things to be built, but then you're going to sell them to the builders? What?

 

Why would foreign bodies be interested in pouring money into this? What would they get out of it?

 

Economic growth is a pretty great reason; I imagine, as I've already stated, that there will be immense opportunities for companies/entrepreneurs in these cities. Shit, I'd love to be a part of such a worthwhile cause; I imagine the pay would be decent... unless of course a Fibre Optic infrastructure wasn't near the top of the list. :-p

 

(We are slowly coming out of a period in our history where bad investments were sold to continue growth, we need to come up with new ways to invest and grow (here comes a buzzword) sustainably.)

How would economic growth be served by an expensive city with no reason for being? What opportunities? Be exact here - what would these companies and entrepreneurs do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, economic growth is generally fuelled by these industries; particularly, the service industry is a great earner.

 

"Foreign bodies" are interested in gaining money from investments, and since I have no reason to assume so, I don't believe that these cities would be a failure (I do, however, automatically assume that economies are driven by the people/governments/businesses involved) and you obviously feel different about their possible success.

 

Yes, builders may wish to buy homes constructed in these new cities, but I doubt that will be a sentiment restricted to that segment of the population.

 

Are you interested in these ideas, or do you actual have difficulties with the concepts? I don't mean to offend, but the lack of comprehension regarding the increase in "wealth" for all parties involved due to the new opportunities for both investment (small businesses, franchises and infrastructure) and work is striking me as odd.

 

Charter Cities have a reason to be built (other than the fact that our population is increasing); there are plenty of people displaced by conflict and discrimination that have no jobs, no wealth or education.

(This is an example of people who will require education and training, shelter, food/water, clothing and other items; all possible avenues of investment to be recouped once they have settled - the investments can be backed by Government's so as to provide legitimacy.)

There are also those who are displaced for the same reasons with skills and education which they may wish to apply in their lives.

(This is an example of people who have the skills but lack the opportunity to apply them; the provision of these opportunities would result in such roles being filled and contributing to the local economy).

 

What do you see Big Business/Governments investing in should toxic debt be off the cards?

We have seen a huge investment by the Australian government in infrastructure in this country, we will undoubtedly see massive returns from the NBN and schools and roads etc.

Edited by Errorist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness me, you have the economic understanding of a 10 year old. I think I'll leave you with your weasel words, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodness me, you have the economic understanding of a 10 year old. I think I'll leave you with your weasel words, buddy.

i think you can do better than that :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weasel words?

I did say I didn't mean to offend you, I don't really have trouble with economic understanding... unless of course you'd like to point out where you feel I'm flawed in my views?

 

You've asked me questions and I've answered them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weasel words?

I did say I didn't mean to offend you, I don't really have trouble with economic understanding... unless of course you'd like to point out where you feel I'm flawed in my views?

 

You've asked me questions and I've answered them.

Oh, I'm not offended. Look up weasel words on Wikipedia. You're saying a lot of stuff, but there's not a whole lot of data in it.

 

I see flaws in all of the mechanics you've proposed for these new cities. Builders buying the houses they've built? Are you going to have each builder make just one house?

 

You seem to rest your hopes on the service industry. As I've said, there appears to be no initial incentive to move to this new city, so there is no call for a service industry. The service industry is also not a good earner on an economy-wide scale - it's just moving wealth around your citizens. It's not a primary producer of wealth. If you provide services to members of a different economy, so you're shifting wealth into ours, then OK, but it's pretty difficult to attract lots of foreign visitors to your cafe for lunch unless they're already in town.

 

You also keep saying there will be 'opportunities' for businesses. What are these opportunities? Give me specifics.

 

Now you mention refugees - I hate to break it to you, but they don't have any money. Refugee camps aren't big earners.

 

And again, why would you need to establish a new city rather than just expanding an existing one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I inferred you being offended by you "leaving me" and the discussion because of my "weasel words".

 

And I repeat my question to you as to how you see investment on a global scale being handled in the next few decades should the trading of toxic debt be shifted away from?

 

Overall, this isn't my concept, however I agree with the notion that we have a variety of failed states in the world that require certain policy shifts and business ventures to exist in order to facilitate development in their countries; I feel this is a decent opportunity to expand our abilities in the field of Nation Building.

 

You're latching on and finding flaws in my ideas because they're not fleshed out, I understand that you cannot anticipate problems encountered by your extrapolation of my ideas because I have not given specificities to you. I'm likely not to fully flesh them out for you in discussion. We are talking about an extremely complex set of rules that have first to be decided upon, and then to be applied, which I feel should be easier than it appears.

 

However, your persistence about "builders" buying homes when I used one profession as an example is slightly strange.

I haven't been privy to Paul Romer's urban planning files, but I don't feel his aim will be set so low.

 

I don't have any "data" on the locations or primary economic capacity as this is not my concept. I am, however, eager to find social progress through the use of all human disciplines when given the chance.

 

I can see why you're so hesitant to the concept, our own Government is still having difficulties with Aboriginals and the "Intervention" and there are plenty of other possible avenues of social progress to follow... however...

You seem to want an explanation for why such a concept should be explored and funded (by man-power and financial backing), rather than improving our own cities; why is it you feel we can't do both of these things?

Edited by Errorist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the basic issue is why will people exist in those places? If they have a reason to be there, a primary economic driver for the location, then the rest of the service economy etc will build up around that. What's the basic economic driver here?

presumably, the initial primary investors would be avid Sim City players, all so eager to realise their vision of a civic utopia that the warm fuzzies they would get from achieving this would be their gift to humanity and more than enough compensation for the billions they would stand to lose?

 

i guess in theory, if you town-planned the shit out of a chunk of primo dirt, pre-loaded it will all the best new infrastructure, set up a model of governance that the United Federation of Planets would be proud of, bore the astronomical cost of all this while somehow persuading a critical mass of people across a range of demographics to relocate there -- BAM, instant thriving city...

 

but as you say, there needs to be a reason. pie-in-the-sky philanthropy aint gonna cut it.

 

now if we were talking about a glorified labour camp with some opportunities for pyramid schemes on the side, that could work. hmm...

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the basic issue is why will people exist in those places? If they have a reason to be there, a primary economic driver for the location, then the rest of the service economy etc will build up around that. What's the basic economic driver here?

presumably, the initial primary investors would be avid Sim City players, all so eager to realise their vision of a civic utopia that the warm fuzzies they would get from achieving this would be their gift to humanity and more than enough compensation for the billions they would stand to lose?

Lol @ Sim City players... microtransactions by millions of ex WoW players/gold farmers, more like. :-p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is microtransactions?

 

 

Now you mention refugees - I hate to break it to you, but they don't have any money.

maybe not. but they are human capital. the poor and the desperate can be a cost effective resource.

 

Levels of free public services and welfare support would be comparable to those in Indonesia.

Edited by @~thehung

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, fims would be investing in, say, manufacturing facilities that would have ample room for future expansion (which they would not necessarily have in an existing city), cheap labour (which they wouldn't otherwise have in Australia) and high-grade manufacturing infrastructure and training opportunities to create semi-skilled workers (which they might not have in Indonesia). Essentially a "best of both worlds" scenario, with Australia footing a substantial portion of the bill in expectation of significant returns via taxing of the workers and production. It would be more expensive for companies to set up shop here, but would perhaps provide opportunities that aren't available elsewhere. Plus, if this is sold as a "Good Thing" for all those poor Indonesians who now have relatively high-grade facilities in a first-world country, it could prove to be a PR boon to corporations who want to show off how responsible they are (as well as for any Aussie companies who still want to be able to slap a "Made in Australia" sticker on their products).

 

It's an interesting idea, if perhaps slightly terrifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make much sense. For a start, it would be a smuggling and illegal immigrant nightmare, and secondly if you had public services and welfare at the same state is Indonesia it would be a slum city. Thirdly, it would still be cheaper for corporations to just set up a manufacturing hub in Indonesia.

Yeah, I'm struggling to figure out what the actual point is.

 

Is it an easy way for the Australian government to tax foreign workers? But then, what's in it for Indonesia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't make much sense. For a start, it would be a smuggling and illegal immigrant nightmare, and secondly if you had public services and welfare at the same state is Indonesia it would be a slum city. Thirdly, it would still be cheaper for corporations to just set up a manufacturing hub in Indonesia.

I know, but that would make for some interesting dodgy enterprises. I wonder if it'd end up like Kowloon Walled City. I want this thing to happen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bring back the Multi Function Polis!

 

+1

 

they could produce stobie poles, and also pie floaters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok if you read the full article you'll see this oz based concept is the only one I copied to grab attention.

 

Obviously the concept is better suited to third world countries wanting to drag their working conditions upward somewhat as I understand it.

 

Anyway some obvious reasons for doing the oz charter city would be to transform audtralian leather and wool into products here rather than overseas. Im not sure I like the model but hey it's better then the status quo, maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I just think it's a stupid concept. You're basically saying we'll rent a bunch of land to some poor country to build themselves a city, then after a few years we'll move them all out and keep it for ourselves.

Hong. Kong.

 

The concept is arse backwards.

 

You rent a piece of land from a POOR country, when you're a land-poor RICH country, and go from there.

 

Most of the rest flows on. A long-term lease makes the infrastructure costs worthwhile, lets you off-shore pollutant or less desirable processes, you can trade the cap-ex costs to the country supplying the land through job-growth, gives you a cultural hold, etc, etc.

 

It *is* neo-colonialism, but its not inherently bad.

Edited by VannA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, I just think it's a stupid concept. You're basically saying we'll rent a bunch of land to some poor country to build themselves a city, then after a few years we'll move them all out and keep it for ourselves.

Hong. Kong.

 

Are you saying HK is an example of this charter city idea, or an example of your reversed one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite confused.

 

We establish a city for what effectively become second-class citizens in all but name that we then legally exploit above their paygrade in their home country but below ours.

 

In essence we create a separate economic pool, a separate class, a city to reflect this and then spend millions on defense since their natural wish would be get out of said cities.

 

Where's the benefit?

 

Vanna, orin - help me out with this shit - you two are the social philosophers.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm quite confused.

 

We establish a city for what effectively become second-class citizens in all but name that we then legally exploit above their paygrade in their home country but below ours.

 

In essence we create a separate economic pool, a separate class, a city to reflect this and then spend millions on defense since their natural wish would be get out of said cities.

 

Where's the benefit?

 

Vanna, orin - help me out with this shit - you two are the social philosophers.

Hey, I didn't get it either. Sounded like a stupid-arse idea both economically and socially to me.

 

If we want to spend a bunch of money helping Indonesia not be such a backwater, there are much more effective ways to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with OJ >.>

 

HK is the closest RL example I can think of, to the concept of the OP, but it still has the rich/poor reversed.

 

There is virtually no reason to undertake this, in the method described.

 

In all cases, it would be better to simply to create a new city.

 

The concept also works when a corporation wants to create a town/city..

 

Dubai, despite the differences, is, I think, likely to demonstrate why the service industry alone cannot sustain an area like this. Australia already has similiar problems, in many places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a stupid idea, especially for us.

 

In our case, it's just a subversive way to create a new underclass. Next thing you know, they'd expect unemployed citizens to move to this new shithole because there's jobs growth there.

 

In the case of establishing it in a poor country, it's just a case of exploitation. Strip the resources, then fuck off, leaving a pink elephant concrete jungle surrounded by barren, polluted land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of many valid and valuable reasons to create a new city, or a township, for a variety of testing, and even to offer housing to others, etc. But never as an investment you expect a return on, within anything short of a century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×