Here we go again – another economic analysis article in which there is not even a thought for the constantly and rapidly increasing demand for everything that our economy is supposed to provide!

Surely this is the crux of the matter. If we were to stabilise the demand, or at least greatly reduce the rate of increase, we might have some chance of the supply side actually matching the demand much more efficiently than it now does.

Due to rapid population growth, we have an ever-increasing demand for all manner of services, infrastructure, resources and export income. The existing population is paying through the nose to simply duplicate everything for ever-more people, and to repair and upgrade existing services and infrastructure which are being overburdened.

Instead of seeing all this economic activity that is generated by high immigration as a negative factor, we actually count it as a positive contribution to GDP and economic wellbeing!

Well, excuse me, but that is STUPID!

< …increasing living standards (measured by per capita consumption) cannot be sustained unless real per capita income growth returns. >

Absolutely! So how are we going to increase real per-capita improvements in living standards while we are struggling (and failing) to provide the same level of everything that we now have for an ever-bigger population?

Surely the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT POINT in economic reform is to steadily reduce immigration down to net zero or thereabouts, so that we may get ourselves onto the road towards a stable population, a stable demand for everything, and hence a much better prospect for being able to match supply with demand, with constantly improving quality… and hence be able to achieve a steadily improving per-capita living standard.

Can I ask you Geoff Carmody: If we continue on with very high immigration, how on earth are we going to achieve this?? How are things not going to get steadily worse?

Practically everything else that we could do would be nothing more than tinkering at the edges, rearranging the deck-chairs, and quite frankly; would just be ineffective!

Privatisation & Selling assets to pay for infrastructure for bigger self ingratiating immigration schemes is not only undemocratic, it is effectively a CargoCult mentality.

It inures us all into a belief that overseas expertise is best. That ours is worst.
Aussie politicians get FAT selling this country. They call citizens RACIST for objecting.

WARNING: PRIVATISATION is CARGO CULT & DEATH to AUSTRALIA and Australians.

Holden is just a tame warning of the consequences of this political Fascism.

As here are 'temporary' legal ramifications to unwinding existing privatisation errors, new fields of state run endeavours must be initiated to soak up lost jobs as foreign ownership tightens its jaws around our collective throats and shakes.

1. SA needs a Port Augusta to lake Eyre canal, downhill 15-mtrs over 300Km to flood the lake with sea-water, initiate clever vegetation regimes and a commercial salt recovery program. Schools participation as well as ex-Holden workers to be preferred workforce. Major national Hydrology benefits to accrue as cooler inland temps draw moist air from Grt-Aust-Bight.

2. Australia needs its own satellite launch program. Space based comms are cheaper, future proof and more flexible than terrestrial links. A major expansion of Australia's pitiful space program (heavily infested and hamstrung by US researchers) is needed. A new sub-5kg satellite technology and an equispaced 256 satellite capture array for <#2Billion is viable. Not only internet comms but also Materiel handling is possible. This world leading project would be employment city. State schools supplying workers on a merit/rotation basis. The days of hard-coded "commercial in confidence" preventing our workers gaining Ultra tech skills is OVER.

There is at least one such major employment startup for each state. The world SHOULD KNOW Australia is not a "World's Mine" bone for global powers to growl over.

REMEMBER: Globalisation is NOT an equal field of play but the 'Field of dreams' for those nations with nuclear weapons.

Ludwig makes a good point. How can we afford to pay for such high immigration? In the past we created some of our own credit to pay fro growth. Now since we have sold off all our Govt banks, all this new growth gets expressed as debt and the money moves off shore.

Even our own 4 big banks are up to 40% owned by HSBC,JP Morgan and Citibank,so any new money created by them half moves OS.

Under our present system, the more growth we have the more debt we incur. Time to re-invent Govt banks Geoff.

The author is correct on one point, if on no other, with the statement: “ programs can become just so much waffle and soak up scarce taxpayer funds” It is more than just a random coincidence that “Real per capita income in the September quarter, 2013, was about 2% lower than in the second half of 2011” when that almost that percentage was required to match the needs of servicing the extra number of Australia’ns over that period (1.8% growth rate per annum - similar to that of underdeveloped nations)

Getting rid of big government has to the first thing on the agenda, and a flat income tax rate with less reliance on income tax is a way to do that. While a very few people pay most of the tax, the rest will not make any attempt to resist Big Government; they are happy to take anything they don’t have to pay for. As long as this situation prevails, government will grow, and their will be no end to profligate spending and interference in the economy by politicians.

Getting older people (how old?) to work is nonsense. Employers don’t want older people, and just now many people over current pension age want to work?

Yes, “...using all available resources more extensively – working them harder – to do the job” is a fine idea but, in the meantime saving, not spending, is the key for both government (spending other people’s money) and individuals spending on credit. Big Government loves credit.

Then the author gets a bit muddled: concerned about the price of medicines (the only way around that would be regulation), but suggests that there might be too much regulation in coastal shipping. All regulation by is a irritation to someone, and should apply to far less than it does. The market is the best regulator. But, over-regulation is a result of Big Government, so that’s still the main thing to get rid of before anything else.

As far as medicine goes – yes, the manufacturers are No. 1 gougers. However, Americans seem to get around this by getting their supplies from Canada. Perhaps Australians could do something similar with SE Asia. If enough people did it, the over-grown government regulators would be powerless to stop the trade.

The National Commission of Audit is a waste of space, money and time. I don’t know who the Commissioners are, but I’d put my shirt on the idea that they are an ‘elite’ (and another arm of Big Government) that they are totally remote from the experiences of the rest of us. Forget the government altogether: they don’t represent us.

Not a population issue. In fact, almost none of Oz's current issues have anything to do with population or immigration. Some utilities such as power are noting falls in domestic consumption due in part to price and new power sources.

The story is is fall in employment in mining in WA but the writer is right to mention workplace productivity. We have far too many people on the dole (ignore the ABS one hour per week criterion for being employed), those who have dropped out and mature job seekers. If you roll em all together its about one million people who do bugger all who are fit and ready for work.

Per capita figures can be curious as they don't tell you much about distribution of wealth. World Bank puts Oz at about 9th in globe on per capita incomes, but not if you're black, young, unemployed or a female. Actually, if you take out the oil rich nations such as Bruni, Norway and Qatar, Oz would sit in the top five per capita.