So while I sympathize with the overarching view of your comment, the details are too incoherent for its being so argumentative.
> Yeah, stuff was never scarce. I don't know where on earth you got that idea. After World War 2 the US stumbled upon the greatest wealth creation machine the planet has ever known
So how does this mean stuff was not scarce before WWII?
> Big houses and big cars far from the "noisy, dirty" city are expensive
So, given that they'd already been afforded at one point, the real problem is declining income to cover their carrying cost. So let's focus on that rather than a red herring of one symptom. If it's a given that wages will go down forever, then why even worry about regrouping in the cities when that would only stave off the trend for a few decades? Better to focus on the reason real wages are going down!
> Prosperous empires over-expand and over-build and eventually collapse due to endless war, internal conflicts and better competition. Density wins because it is much, much more efficient
These two bits do not follow. If empires collapse due to being trapped into being too spread out, then that implies it is impossible for them to naturally shrink back down and grow denser! Still I would posit this applies in the much more general sense of spread out in the world rather than a single defensible landmass. I'd venture to say those foreign military bases in all of the colonies use a lot more resources (including the wars they encourage!) than people commuting from suburbs, my own love for walkability notwithstanding.
PS You can't bounce back and forth between the economic paradigms of resources and financials. While better competition makes prices lower, that doesn't affect resource usage in a major way - compared to say economies of scale. Don't conflate the two.
> Yeah, stuff was never scarce. I don't know where on earth you got that idea. After World War 2 the US stumbled upon the greatest wealth creation machine the planet has ever known
So how does this mean stuff was not scarce before WWII?
> Big houses and big cars far from the "noisy, dirty" city are expensive
So, given that they'd already been afforded at one point, the real problem is declining income to cover their carrying cost. So let's focus on that rather than a red herring of one symptom. If it's a given that wages will go down forever, then why even worry about regrouping in the cities when that would only stave off the trend for a few decades? Better to focus on the reason real wages are going down!
> Prosperous empires over-expand and over-build and eventually collapse due to endless war, internal conflicts and better competition. Density wins because it is much, much more efficient
These two bits do not follow. If empires collapse due to being trapped into being too spread out, then that implies it is impossible for them to naturally shrink back down and grow denser! Still I would posit this applies in the much more general sense of spread out in the world rather than a single defensible landmass. I'd venture to say those foreign military bases in all of the colonies use a lot more resources (including the wars they encourage!) than people commuting from suburbs, my own love for walkability notwithstanding.
PS You can't bounce back and forth between the economic paradigms of resources and financials. While better competition makes prices lower, that doesn't affect resource usage in a major way - compared to say economies of scale. Don't conflate the two.