Any article that make ridiculous comparisons to start with holds no credibility.

Norway has the North Sea Oil and huge hydro electric, and other resources with a 4m population. So much so that the government almost does not even need income tax.

So the alternative solution is to find huge oil and other reserves?

get real.

Perhaps another reason is their attitude toward their contribution toward their community.

In Norway, everybody's personal Tax records are accessible on-line for a certain period every year.

That way, everybody can see how much Tax each individual pays (or doesn't pay) and therefore, what contribution they are making to their society.

Likewise, the top-paying individual Taxpayers are announced and to make this list is seen as something with a great deal of personal prestige. It not only demonstrates personal financial success but also their degree of contribution toward the whole nation.

Over here, wealthy businessmen employ others to minimise or avoid paying tax and this is seen as normal and even admirable.

Everybody wants something from society but nobody is prepared to pay for it.

I think it does, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, of course there are other factors. But your post... doesn’t discount the assertion that a stable population or very low growth rate is indeed a major factor.

In fact, it drew this exact admission from the article's author:

>>Pericles... I cheerfully admit that there is no causal relationship between population growth and economic prosperity. That, indeed, was the whole point of my article<<

So, once we take population out of the equation, what are we left with?

Norway is a socialist country, where the government maintains a significant investment in its key export industries, as part of its budgetting process. It is therefore able to put in place the major infrastructure that keeps transaction costs low for business in general, as well as providing basic amenities for its 4.6m people.

There is so little similarity between the two countries, we could use precisely the same data to say “since we don't have these advantages, growing our population is the only viable alternative”

Just saying.

And all this nonsense about water is mere diversionary tactics by the dog-in-the-manger brigade.

Divergence offers a typical excuse.

>>The real issue is lack of suitable sites, a problem made more acute with risks of more evaporation and less run-off due to climate change.<<

Cobblers. The real issue is historic inactivity by successive State governments, whose backsides have now been conveniently covered by federal government.

Fester neatly summarizes the government's position.

>>...a study to investigate the potential of Northern Australia as a food bowl... suggested that irrigated land could be expanded by about 40,000 hectares.”

As the CSIRO pointed out:

“At the time of the study, all jurisdictions had a no-dams policy, and therefore we did not investigate the opportunities for dams in the north”

The folly of this blindness will become clear in the coming decades, as we spend an increasing amount on desalination - always a feel-good, jobs-for-the-boys project for State governments. In the meantime, its cost is a convenient peg on which the anti-immigration lobby can hang their xenophobic hats.

Jolly good, the discussion have been well and truly diverted onto nit-picking examples and finally the xenophobe card has been played.

This is what needs to be addressed: "Many Australians are deeply uncomfortable with rapid population growth. A recent poll (PDF 108KB) found that 48 per cent of Australians thought such growth would be bad for Australia, while only 24 per cent thought it would be good. They intuit, perhaps, that governments might not be up to the task of providing sustainable water, energy and transport infrastructure for rapidly growing cities."

This is the practical reality: 'Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman said government funding had not kept pace with population growth.

"I think we need to be clear for every 100 families that come to the region, there will be an appetite for a certain number of detached homes and apartment buildings. I'm not confident we've got the mix right," he said.

"I'm not confident we can fund the infrastructure needed in the plan (South East Queensland Regional Plan 2004). I go back to the federal government; they're the ones shovelling them through the door, and people like the premier and mayors then have to deal with it." '

and

'Ms Bligh said an additional population the size of Darwin (about 115,000) had to be accommodated in the state's southeast every year.'

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26761277-952,00.html

Ex-NSW Premier Bob Carr has voiced similar concerns:
'I need only summarise the indictments of such high-end population growth. It assumes rainfall reliability not reflected in any known data. It ignores evidence that high immigration has only a marginal impact on age distribution over the long term. It glides over the proof marshalled by Ross Gittins that high immigration worsens, not relieves, skill shortages. It also spikes the cost of land and cruels housing affordability.

It defies "carrying capacity" constraints. One windy day blows our onion paper-thin soil 1400 kilometres. Our rivers are mere creeks compared with those fed by the Alps, the Rockies or the Andes. Two capitals, Adelaide and Brisbane, have come perilously close to running out of water.'

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/perish-the-thought-that-we-can-handle-a-bigger-population-20091118-imfv.html

Are these the xenophobes?

Diverted, Cornflower? Nit-picking? Xenophobe card?

>>the discussion have been well and truly diverted onto nit-picking examples and finally the xenophobe card has been played<<

The article in question failed to make any connection between a "stable population" and prosperity. Yet the entire tone of the piece was "we don't need any more people".

I quote:

"Migration is the largest determinant of long-term population growth for Australia, and different migration levels mean the difference between population stabilisation and ongoing rapid growth."

Are you suggesting that this was merely a passing observation?

The article also adds its own colour, where it can.

"They intuit, perhaps, that governments might not be up to the task of providing sustainable water, energy and transport infrastructure..."

"They intuit, perhaps..."

Purely editorial. The poll itself drew no such conclusion.

You then quote a couple of politicians covering their own backsides.

A Brisbane mayor pointing the finger at the Feral Gumment. Surprise.

And quoting Bob Carr - puhlease! Only someone who lives outside NSW, and therefore doesn't live with the legacy of his period of arrogant inactivity could possibly consider him credible on the topic of infrastructure.

As for the "xenophobe card", please read what was said, and not what you think was said.

"In the meantime, its cost [water supply] is a convenient peg on which the anti-immigration lobby can hang their xenophobic hats"

They will. Betcha.

Pericles

"“At the time of the study, all jurisdictions had a no-dams policy, and therefore we did not investigate the opportunities for dams in the north”"

True, but the report did suggest that such investigation would have been a waste of resources, as:

"Despite high rainfall from November to April there
is almost no rain for the remaining six months.
Evaporation and plant transpiration is so high
throughout the year that, on average, for 10 months
of the year there is very little water to be seen.

Most rainfall occurs near the coasts and on
floodplains, so much of it runs quickly to the
sea, making it hard to capture. Relatively little
of the rainfall occurs in the upper reaches
of rivers where the topography to allow dam
construction might be more favourable.

The very high rates of evaporation (up to
3 metres a year) make it hard to store surface
water year round without large and deep storages,
for which there are few good sites. The significant
variability in rainfall from year to year, in addition
to its highly seasonal nature, also means
that water storages need to be very large.

For these reasons, the ability to conserve and
access surface water for consumptive use is highly
constrained. The Taskforce therefore considers that
extensive use of surface water is unlikely, principally
on the basis of water use efficiency and the likely very
high cost of capture and storage options."

Here is a link to the full report containing the above quote if you are interested:

http://www.nalwt.gov.au/reports.aspx

Again Pericles, I would ask you where you think all the water and food to support a larger population is going to come from? Yes, there are all the Jack and the Beanstalky stories about turning the North into a food bowl or the deserts into fertile oases, but such hopes seem at odds with the expert opinion.