The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Does size matter? An economic perspective on the population debate > Comments

Does size matter? An economic perspective on the population debate : Comments

By Andrew Leigh, published 28/3/2014

Population growth has the potential to get us things we cannot obtain in other ways: better cultural goods and a more productive, more entrepreneurial culture. A larger nation has more mouths, but also more minds.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Yes, Ludwig, agreed, all comments so far "are right on the money".
.
"We have the third-lowest population density of any country. Only Mongolia and Namibia have fewer people per hectare than Australia"

Yes, there's a good reason for that, like Australia, Mongolia and Namibia are mainly desert --what point is being made here, the amount of arable land in Australia is relatively small, so reference to overall population density is irrelevant. Brazil and the US can support populations of hundreds of millions, not Australia.

There are many countries with smaller populations than Australia which have prosperous economies, their people actually manufacture products and trade internationally, there's obviously enough smart people in Switzerland and Scandinavia.

There are facts and there's economic theory and, of course, vested interests.
Posted by mac, Friday, 28 March 2014 9:41:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Labor let in over 50,000 unproductive welfare for lifers, we certainly don't need these types.
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 28 March 2014 9:55:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And we're a world leader in loss of species and soil.
I suspect that, if builders, land developers and generally those who make a buck out of population growth could not fund political parties, our immigration programs would be a lot smaller.
Posted by Asclepius, Friday, 28 March 2014 12:21:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do have an aging population/shrinking taxpayer base. Unremarkable conventional thinkers like Andrew, seem to think we can solve both of those issues, by importing more people/taxpayers.
Never considered is tax reform, linked to the GNP, that grows with the economy, regardless of population numbers!
As other writers have noted, water is a limiting factor, in just how many we can support, or guarantee food security for!
We could grow a lot bigger, if we were to develop our vast and arid inland.
We could achieve much of that, with the creation, of a tide reliant, self flushing inland canal(s).
Salt water can be used to grow many things, given it is pumped around miles and miles of underground agpipes, covered in high tech membrane filter medium.
Many plants have stronger water pulling power than many pumps, and pumping the water around, could rely on wind, or solar thermal energy, or, some combination. And the pristine evaporate could be easily recovered and used again and again!
With permanent reliable water, and seriously expended food production, we could envisage a population as large as 100 million, residing in new cities, built alongside the canal.
The canal could also enable, amphibious aircraft and small boats, to use it as a transport hub and for emergency evacuations.
There'd be room for a hundred or more new Purpose built cities, and they would have trade and commerce, between them as well as the usual export markets.
A population of around 100 million, would make a domestic car/aerospace industries viable, and create economies of scale, that would allow us to export to the world.
And it would guarantee, no large nation would think it could simply take over, by putting a million boots on our ground, given we could easily match that number by then, and any defense industries manufacture and supply line, should we ever need to!
That said, without visionary projects, like that envisaged, we are nearly as large as our modest green belt and reliable water sources, fragile environment, will allow us to be.
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 28 March 2014 12:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Israel's economy benefited from the influx of highly skilled migrants from the former Soviet Union. Australia's economy can also benefit from sustainable population growth driven by smart migration and larger and better educated families.
Posted by Macedonian advocacy, Friday, 28 March 2014 1:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is a pity that your article was couched in such balanced and inoffensive terms, Mr Leigh. It gives those who wish to impose control over our population, a cohort that that permeates this Forum, open licence to ignore what you say, and instead just wheel out their tired mantras.

But this puzzled me a little:

"One side tells us that a big Australia is a 'catastrophe', while the other says that slow population growth will hurt share prices and drive up debt."

That sounds like two versions of one side of the discussion, rather than two sides...

No matter. To the meat.

"A larger nation has more mouths, but also more minds. Size has potential costs, but economics teaches us that these are best addressed by good policies to reduce congestion, increase housing supply and protect the environment."

The most interesting aspect of the population-control lobby is their insistence that we can somehow i) stand still and ii) continue to prosper. No amount of either logic or example will move them from this contradiction.

Thanks to the faux-comfort of our century-old role as primary producer, we have also become a net exporter of brainpower and ideas. Our level of innovation has been declining for decades - it is difficult to identify any Australian invention, or invention by an Australian, that has managed to stay within these shores. The inevitable result of the standstill brigade is that we slowly lose the last vestiges of our local "smarts", and develop an even more pronounced second-class intellectual culture.

But it is quite clear that the anti-growth brigade are extremely comfortable with the idea of creeping mediocrity, quite possibly as a result of their own life experiences, and their inability to cope too well with change.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 March 2014 1:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy