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 > General Discussion > Grow Sydney or Grow the State of NSW

Grow Sydney or Grow the State of NSW

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
If we develop the 30 regional Cities in NSW, instead of continuing to overcrowd gridlock and pollute Sydney, we have much more chance of becoming an economic powerhouse in the Asia Pacific region reaching through to Europe. We will have space for our businesses to grow freely, the health of the wider community will be infinetly better and less stressed and society will again be able to enjoy the undoubted benefits of this wide brown land. Is this the future for NSW or would it be better for us to build more and more smaller units and concentrate the society and our businesses within the confines of the ocean on the east and the mountians on the west, leaving the rest of NSW for those braver souls who come from overseas or our ever diligent, but mostly unprofitable farmers? Let's have a discussion and take the initiative to guide government in the wise development of NSW and other states.
Posted by Voterland, Tuesday, 24 July 2012 9:51:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Voterland, you make a sensible suggestion…. in part.

But there’s one huge factor missing – continuous rapid population growth.

For as long as we have this, even the best efforts at decentralising businesses would only result in a little bit of lowering of the growth rate of Sydney!

What we need is a zero net immigration program, so that the size of Sydney can be capped.

Then, with a concerted program of encouraging businesses to relocate in regional centres, we might actually achieve something!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 8:36:40 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
Ahh Voter, your suggestion is certainly nirvana for NSW.
However it can only be done if we have a significant increase in GDP.
That would require an equally significant increase in growth.
It will not happen for the long time period that it would need.

We have just a few years available before our energy imports will be
too expensive.
We could perhaps do it if we stopped export of coal and gas.
We would need to install large scale coal to oil plants to replace our
import of diesel and petrol. With the current set of Greens it would
probably be a process too far.

Over the time it would take it is impossible due to lack and cost of energy.
Oh, is there enough water ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:28:35 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
Voterland,
I actually agree with Ludwig, we need to cut immigration back to net zero and then have a look at where we are going.

Your ideas are not new as we used to have a policy of 'decentralization' in NSW. In fact there was a department and a Minister who's job it was to assist businesses relocate to regional areas and state departments as well. But a Labor government changed that and withdrew government departments back to Sydney and regional towns lost a lot of people. My regional city lost about 1500 state employees which with families was about 6000 people.

Anyway i am happy for my town not to grow as it suits me fine. Do you know that many working people in regional towns can actually go home for lunch, which is unheard of in Sydney. Most take all of ten minutes to get to work. So why do you want to impose the problems of a Sydney lifestyle on us?

We like it as is, no big city problems and not ethnicity issues to speak of, little traffic problems and no drive by shootings. Yeah, I am happy to have a couple of malls and a few restrauants, a few cafes and a couple of chinese restraunts and a Thai place. We have three clubs and 5 pubs, who would want more?

You can keep your big cities. it is bad enough that I have to negotiate 2 sets of traffic lights to get to my shops now.
Posted by Banjo, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:46:29 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
Yes it was luck, a bit of geography & history, but US settlement caused their wealth, & our settlement restricted ours.

Just look at the size of most states in the US. They are small, miniscule compared to Oz.

Each state has a state capital. It also has the US offices required in any state capital.

So what does this do, it spreads government out, through out the country. It gives a reason for growth in each area.

Look at Oz. all the bureaucrats are stuffed into about 6 spots. There is just a little in Darwin & Hobart, luckily, or these two, & even Adelaide would be villages not cities.

So yes Voterland, a good idea, just you'll have to quadruple the number of states, to make it work. Can you imagine how good it would be to live in the Bowen basin, if one of those towns was the capital of a wealthy state. With mining funding the area, rather than Brisbane & Canberra bureaucracies, it might even get some infrastructure.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 1:12:53 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
So Hasbeen, you think we haven't enough politicians ?
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 2:05:53 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
No Bazz, no more, & no more bureaucrats either, I'd just like them spread around a bit, & a bit thinner in those 5 major cities.

Lets face it, you have more chance of kicking some sense into them, if they are close by most of the time.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 3:44:09 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 cannot have real growth if we have to borrow our potential from foreign private central banks who keep us as their debt slaves.

Money has no intrinsic worth and only is a symbol of our productivity.Why do we let bankers own the very soul of our creativity?
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 7:25:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It may take some time ; but the concept of endless growth with a finite landmass, is an outmoded concept.

What is required is acknowledgement of :

1. the demand side of the housing ( the need for population growth) is not questioned
2., that the direct financial incentive of growth promotion by financial services and infrastructure providers, is not articulated
3. that the destruction of our unappreciated ancient forests (Sydney bushland) is brushed a side
4. that the paving over of our finest farmland on the outskirts of Sydney is also totally ignored
5. that a generous and caring Australia ( with appropriate, culturally sensitive, foreign aid )can have full, vibrant employment and stable housing costs, without economic growth, if we stabilise our population numbers .

What is missing is a discussion of the Opportunity Cost of population growth.

For example, it is a no brainer that it is better to spend $4 billion on universities, research and export manufacture, rather than spend $4 billion on a road upgrade caused by population growth.

It is also a no brainer to train our thousands of unemployed 15-25 year olds for the mining jobs, rather than bring in overseas workers. It doesn't matter if mining projects are delayed 2-5 years.
They will still go ahead, but on terms set to benefit all Australians.

The reality is , that endless growth is not possible.

Full employment is possible with stable economic output, if you don't increase population numbers.

No, it is not the end of progress. New products will be developed within a stable population scenario.
Posted by Ralph Bennett, Wednesday, 25 July 2012 9:45:14 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
Sydney has become ugly, expensive and choked while Clover Moore and Kings Cross are disaster areas. People in the irrigation areas can sit on the riverbank and watch full rivers flow to the sea as their farms and businesses fade away. I am sure they get a warm feeling saving Richard Kingston’s birds by losing their irrigation water. Western New South Wales continues to be depopulated and everyone would love to move to coast to access its services and lifestyle.
Maybe the Sydney Greens with their desire to make their locale clean and pristine will build more dams to keep the rednecks somewhere west of Penrith and Windsor where they can’t despoil their city.
Posted by SILLER, Thursday, 26 July 2012 9:56:29 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
Planning Minister Brad Hazzard’s recent Green Paper on Planning invites wide community participation.
Some Sydney residents say higher density housing has not made homes more affordable or available than 20 years ago.
Voterland, has released very early results of it’s Voter Reaction Survey.
70% or more of residents who have initially responded say that:
They think :
progressively higher density has not made housing more affordable or more available in Sydney
advances in IT will lessen the need to travel to city offices
rebuilding and widening roads and highways attracts more traffic, creating traffic jams at either end
High priority - 90%+ of respondents said:
Sydney’s population should be capped at its present level or fall.
their suburb should be left as is with only minor changes & housing density not to be increased
residents themselves are better than government at building enjoyable, inclusive communities
existing open space & bushland in Sydney suburbs should be retained as such
infrastructure should be funded by government bonds rather than private/public partnerships
governments should not privatise public assets without specific voter approval
government should drive most new economic development to regional cities
There should be more rail and light rail in Sydney suburbs; rail services between all NSW cities
freight should be transported by rail instead of by road on trucks
They want:
Sydney’s prime role to be making its residents happy.
residents to have the most say on what happens in their area;
government plans to be submitted to residents at local council and state elections
developers to have no right of appeal to the Land & Environment Court
growth to be in NSW regional cities where land is cheap & is flat to assist energy conservation
more government offices to be located in regional cities
They prefer:
detached houses in their area
some transport corridors to be dedicated to pushbikes
new major roads to be toll free
The government is giving NSW residents a chance in a lifetime to work with government. We should grab it with both hands. Take the Voter Reaction Survey on http://www.voterland.org/campaign.php
Posted by Voterland, Tuesday, 31 July 2012 8:12:27 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, Banjo & Ralph,
Your idea of capping Sydney’s population sounds wise and likely to be popular with many. Regional NSW has lost a lot of young people to the cities and would probably like to win some back. More health care, education resources and cultural activities can be provided with slightly higher populations in the country without damaging it’s rural quality. Talk is of adding 2 million people to Sydney over 20 years. If that was halved by a tighter limit on immigration and spread around the 30 regional NSW cities, it would mean 30,000 extra people into each of those cities over 20 years – 1,500 per year. Most regional cities could cope okay with that.
So how would you feel about halving the NSW immigration intake to 1 million and spreading it around the regional cities at an average of 1,500 p.a. ?
Posted by Voterland, Friday, 3 August 2012 9:32:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Voterland, I feel very strongly that it is time to pull immigration right back to net zero. Then after and only after we have made the necessary improvements to all the services, infrastructure and environmental damage that we so desperately need, should we think about raising immigration again.

I’m not happy at all with the idea of Sydney still getting a million more people over the next 20 years.

As for spreading the population growth around, I would want to be very careful about enticing people to go it where it is most needed or least damaging.

I would suggest that some of the larger regional centres are big enough now and that many smaller towns would benefit the most from some population growth in terms of spurring a greater diversity of businesses and services.

The previous Qld PM, Anna Bligh, was thinking in much the same way as you appear to be doing: imploring people not to settle in the overcrowded southeast corner but to move instead to regional centres. But all the large regional centres up the coast were already struggling with rapid population growth, and didn’t need it to be boosted.

So to do it properly in NSW, it would require very careful analysis and then a comprehensive financial incentives scheme to get people to move to the right places.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 3 August 2012 10:08:48 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
I have to confess up front that I wouldn't live and work outside a major city even if you paid me several million dollars. In fact if you did pay me several million dollars, I'd immediately go and put a down-payment on an apartment in New York, or London... So it will come as no surprise to learn that in my view, Sydney is nowhere near big enough yet.

The most exciting and dynamic cities in the world have populations over ten million. They have grown that size because people want to be there, not because they are forced to do so.

While pontificating that "Sydney’s population should be capped at its present level or fall" might give some people the warm-and-fuzzies, it suffers from the problem that the legislation to enforce such a decision would be both unrealistic and unworkable, not to mention undemocratic and counter-productive. A few moments thought is all that are needed to realize this simple reality.

Social engineering experiments have never, ever had the results that are advertised beforehand, and invariably create infinitely more problems than they "solve".
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 3 August 2012 10:20:46 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
I feel sorry for Pericles as he/she simply does not understand the future.
The days of large cities are ending.
No choice, energy decline will enforce that.
In times of high unemployment and economic decline as zero growth
changes to contraction it will be the outer suburbs and towns
in the country that will be livable.
The inner cities will be a virtual madhouse of crime due to unemployment
and food shortage due to transport costs.

I know it is impossible but governments today should ban new
construction in Sydney and Melbourne, and ban the export of natural gas and coal.
Also all immigration should be stopped. We will not have the energy to
support our present population in the more distant time on the
presumption that we do ban energy export.
On the presumption that we are stupid enough to export all our gas
and coal, then the problem will occur much sooner.

Solar and wind cannot supply enough power, even if we can solve the
energy storage problem. No such system can cope with a week of
overcast, windless cold days.
What is needed 10 years ago is a crash program on geothermal energy
and nuclear energy. Unless we do that before we exhaust our other
energy sources we will not go back to the steam age, but to the horse
and cart age.
Posted by Bazz, Friday, 3 August 2012 11:31:50 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
<< I have to confess up front that I wouldn't live and work outside a major city even if you paid me several million dollars. >>

Pericles, are you really that strongly city-centric? I find it very hard to believe that if you were offered a single million dollars to live somewhere like, Cairns or Bunbury or Launceston, with the freedom to move after five years, that you wouldn’t jump at the chance. May be you wouldn’t, but I reckon millions of city dwellers would.

In fact, for a million dollars, most people would move to Oodnadatta or Marble Bar or Eucla tomorrow!

Cities << … have grown that size because people want to be there, not because they are forced to do so. >>

Um… not true. Lots of people have to go where they can get a job, but would much prefer to live in a smaller centre with less congestion and shorter travelling times. Many people are strongly compelled, if not forced, to live in cities, against their desire.

Many people want to be in regional cities, small towns, on farms or right out in the back blocks on cattle stations, and dread the thought of living in a big city.

With the right sorts of financial incentives, many city dwellers could be enticed into less congested environs.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 3 August 2012 9:15:12 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
<< While pontificating that "Sydney’s population should be capped at its present level or fall" might give some people the warm-and-fuzzies, it suffers from the problem that the legislation to enforce such a decision would be both unrealistic and unworkable, not to mention undemocratic and counter-productive. >>

Pericles, the first step: to reduce immigration to net zero or at least to a much lower level, is extremely easy. This alone would be half the issue dealt with.

Then financial incentives, land releases, building approvals, complete no-development areas as with national parks and all of that sort of stuff, would go a long way towards getting people to live where they are happy and are best placed in the interests of a healthy community, environment and nation.

It shouldn’t be difficult and it is certainly not unrealistic, unworkable or undemocratic. It is just an extension of what government has always done.

In fact, it is surely a core duty of government to plan this sort of thing and to make it happen effectively.

I wouldn’t call it social engineering, but rather just sensible planning for our national future.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 3 August 2012 9:17:19 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
Thanks for your sympathy, Bazz, but it is entirely misplaced.

>>I feel sorry for Pericles as he/she simply does not understand the future.<<

I suspect that I am not alone in that lack of "understanding". 

There are, I am aware, people who do think that they "understand" the future. Nor are they afraid to share this "understanding" with me at every opportunity. However, I happen to believe that they are no more able to predict the future than I am. They just think they can, which is an entirely different proposition.

>>The days of large cities are ending... it will be the outer suburbs and towns in the country that will be livable<<

Such certainty is impressive. But how is it that "outer suburbs" will survive, once the city has become "a virtual madhouse of crime"? I find your logic entirely unpersuasive.

And that's my point, Ludwig...

>>Lots of people have to go where they can get a job, but would much prefer to live in a smaller centre with less congestion and shorter travelling times.<<

Maybe they think they would "prefer" that lifestyle, but if there are no jobs there, why would they? If the jobs are in the city, that's where people will be. And if you somehow manage to force the jobs out of the city into the country, will you not simply be re-creating the same problems that you believe exist in the cities? 

>>With the right sorts of financial incentives, many city dwellers could be enticed into less congested environs.<<

Ok, maybe they would. But who will provide those financial incentives? And would the other benefits of city living - the theatres, the concert halls, the restaurants etc., all of which depend upon a densely-populated area - follow?

They can't all become botanists, you know.

>>In fact, it is surely a core duty of government to plan this sort of thing<<

I fundamentally disagree with that statement.

>>I wouldn’t call it social engineering<<

You may not choose to call it that. But that is precisely, exactly what it is
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 4 August 2012 3:43:09 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
Pericles, it is all a matter of mathematics.
The picture I describe is just starting to become apparent.
A lot will depend on whether we will be able to afford to import oil.

Energy will become very much more expensive and at times unavailable.
The outer suburbs will have the ability and space to grow a significant
percentage of their own food. Likewise the regional towns are already
close to farms and in both the outer suburbs and towns there will be
a return of the weekly market.
This is already starting to happen for other reasons, but as the
supermarket model gradually fails the local market will increase.
The days of the 1500km salad are ending.

High rise buildings will have increasing difficulty in maintaining a
reliable lift service. The nature of work will also change as industry
becomes more local. Many products that we take for granted will be
either unavailable or far too expensive.

The financial industry as it is known now will disappear.
An economy based on credit will be impossible.
I suggest that you read a few books such as Richard Heinberg's The End of Growth.
Another is Jeff Rubin's Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller.
Google those authors and you will find talks on Utube.

Don't ask when this will happen, as it has already started and will,
to reuse a phrase, be a python squeeze.
Posted by Bazz, Saturday, 4 August 2012 4:25:04 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
<< If the jobs are in the city, that's where people will be. And if you somehow manage to force the jobs out of the city into the country, will you not simply be re-creating the same problems that you believe exist in the cities? >>

No Pericles you wouldn’t just be creating the same sorts of problems in smaller centres.

For example, the problems of chronic traffic congestion in peak-hour times in our major cities is not going to be repeated in smaller centres if you manage to get a small number of people to move there instead.

<< …who will provide those financial incentives? >>

The state and federal governments, using tax-payers’ dollars. And local government as well.

Let’s face it; at the moment, a great deal of our tax and rates money is going into duplicating infrastructure and services for ever-more people, as well as going into repairing and upgrading infrastructure that would not need work if it wasn’t being constantly further stressed by population growth.

So if we were to put a relatively small amount of this revenue into incentives to get people to live away from big cities, and away from regional centres that are not coping with current growth pressures, we’d ultimately be able to reduce the level of expense being put into the constant struggle to catch up with the damage wrought by continuous population pressure.

But only if we reduce immigration to net zero and head straight towards a stable population.

I wrote:

>>In fact, it is surely a core duty of government to plan this sort of thing<<

You replied:

<< I fundamentally disagree with that statement. >>

Could you please elaborate. Are you suggesting that it is not a fundamental role of government of manage where people live, how population centres expand, what areas should remain undeveloped or remain agricultural rather than paved over with houses, and to strive to get people to not move into areas with stressed water supplies or congestion problems and do what they can to revitalise small towns that are suffering from population decline?
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 August 2012 10:19:18 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
That's about it, Ludwig.

>>Are you suggesting that it is not a fundamental role of government of manage where people live, how population centres expand, what areas should remain undeveloped or remain agricultural rather than paved over with houses, and to strive to get people to not move into areas with stressed water supplies or congestion problems and do what they can to revitalise small towns that are suffering from population decline?<<

That is precisely what I am saying.

It is only in the last century or so that governments have taken it upon themselves to run permanent interference on the natural development of a nation and its economy.

The problem being that taxation has shifted from having a specific purpose - usually to fund a war - to being itself the justification for having a government. Government itself - and by extension, the public servants who suck upon its teat - has become little more than a gravy-train for people who enjoy meddling in other people's lives.

It is an Alice Through the Looking Glass world. Vast sums of money are spent every day on activities that produce no benefit to the citizenry, but are justified on the basis that it is "government money". It is not. It is money that has been extracted from productive commercial activities, in order to support an entire landscape of unproductive activities.

I exclude, of course, some functions that the population at large supports - Health, for example, and Education. Although even there, the amount of our money spent on "administration" instead of healthcare or classrooms, is scandalous.

Any money that is spent on creating work in Outer WoopWoop, just so that people will move there, is a simple distortion of economic cost-benefits. If it costs a dollar to produce a widget in Alexandria, and a dollar-plus-government-subsidy to produce the same widget in Outer WoopWoop, you are causing damage to the Australian economy.

It would be different if all Government Departments moved to Outer WoopWoop, since they do not create any economic value in the first place.

Why don't they, do you think?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 August 2012 11:06:17 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
<< That is precisely what I am saying. >>

Hmmmm. We do indeed have a fundamentally different view on this subject then.

Surely as society becomes larger and more complex and encounters all manner of problems with resource provision, infrastructure and services, the planning and regulatory roles of government become very important.

Yes there are inefficiencies all over the place, but that is no reason to jump to the end of the spectrum and denounce these government roles or their bureaucracies.

Push for greater efficiency, but certainly don’t push for less government control.

Crikey, the LAST thing we need is much more of a free-for-all society, where the aggressive and ruthless would come to dominate.

I put it to you Pericles, that the sort of scenario that you seem to desire would be far worse than the current substandard and inefficient government planning and regulatory regime.

<< It would be different if all Government Departments moved to Outer WoopWoop, since they do not create any economic value in the first place. Why don't they, do you think? >>

I’d espouse the movement of some government offices to the towns that need population growth or could handle it without significant problems. That would be a good first step.

And as for government not creating any economic value – not true!

Their creation of economic value, or more broadly; quality of life value, comes via the regulation and planning of all sorts of things so that they (hopefully) won’t fall into decline, become less productive and cost big money (become an economic burden) to repair.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 6 August 2012 1:14:48 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
As you suggest, Ludwig, it depends upon your point of view.

>>Surely as society becomes larger and more complex and encounters all manner of problems with resource provision, infrastructure and services, the planning and regulatory roles of government become very important.<<

You say "surely", but I'm not so certain. Trouble is, "the planning and regulatory roles of government" are merely a cover for buck-passing and inactivity. "Planning" is virtually non-existent (NSW transport infrastructure being a case in point). And "regulatory" is simply another word for "controlling". As in "control for control's sake" - the petty bureaucracy that governs the preparation of one cup of coffee in a coffee shop is, frankly, mind-blowing.

And expensive.

One of the reasons is that there is a difference, for example, in the manner in which decisions are made within a government enterprise, and a public company. There is a mass of literature available that explains how, in the best-run companies, decision-making is most efficiently accomplished at the lowest possible level within the organization - by the folk who understand best, the implications and outcomes of any action.

The precise opposite occurs in the Public Service, where even the tiniest of decisions is pushed "up the tree", until someone finally has the courage to authorize the action.

>>Push for greater efficiency, but certainly don’t push for less government control.<<

Sadly, the two are synonymous. Greater efficiency cannot be achieved without a reduction in government control.

Finally...

>>And as for government not creating any economic value – not true! Their creation of economic value, or more broadly; quality of life value, comes via the regulation and planning of all sorts of things so that they (hopefully) won’t fall into decline, become less productive and cost big money (become an economic burden) to repair...<<

Do you perhaps have a "for-instance" from real life that you can share?

Word of advice: don't use NSW Transport. Or NSW Water. Or... the list is quite extensive. But I await your example with interest.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 6 August 2012 2:18:09 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
To arrange your immigration cap – we talk of developers, government or home buyers paying for existing infrastructure. When people immigrate to Australia they get to enjoy all the infrastructure provided by the existing residents of Australia over many years. Would it be unfair therefore to ask newcomers to pay $100,000 (it could be financed) towards the capital cost of that infrastructure. That would probably reduce numbers quite a bit. Would a ten year waiting period before being eligible to health and pension welfare also be reasonable and cut down numbers? Interested in your thoughts.
Posted by Voterland, Monday, 6 August 2012 2:31:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bazz, Taking up your point on energy, are we foolish to allow our coal, oil and gas to be exported when we will need it in the future? Should we just do without the export earnings and keep these resources here. It would make a dent in jobs. But if we kept all the coal here, wouldn’t we reduce world pollution as Aus is just tiny in its use of coal compared to the amount burned by some of our customers. By keeping the coal we would have it for our use later and cut pollution? Good idea or bad one?
Posted by Voterland, Monday, 6 August 2012 2:33:15 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo, We just love your rural town, wherever it is. Nothing like the bush and we’ve plenty of links with it. But we could do with a bit of growth because of past losses. NO benefit in all the jobs going and taking the kids with them, banks, pubs and retailers shutting, etc. If we just added that 1,500 to each regional city each year it would probably still be nice but country kids would enjoy more opportunities. Even without the NBN I can send Votergrams (Votergrams@voterland.org )from anyone, to all the MPs in any state or federal parliament from my place in the bush. Many people would love the country lifestyle along with the ability to earn a decent living. The internet will give this generation of children and teens that ability. Would you accept that sort of slight growth which brings some benefits as well?
Posted by Voterland, Monday, 6 August 2012 2:34:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Voterland, it would just be desirable to keep our coal & gas but
if we do not we will likely have disastrous economic effects.
However politicians would prefer that they give us circuses instead of
cutting back on party time for the sake of our future and children.

No one seems to take into account that if we started 20 years ago we
might just be able to transition to alternative energy systems, using
our coal and gas, and be able to avoid really bad economic conditions.

The Hirsch report to the US Energy Dept pointed this out but the US
government closed down further research and hid the report.
Some school kids in the US hacked the dept web site and found it.

www.netl.doe.gov/publications/others/pdf/oil_peaking_netl.pdf

The point of that is that our government did exactly the same stunt.

www.manicore.com/fichiers/Australian_Govt_Oil_supply_trends.pdf

This report was on the dept web site but was removed shortly after
but a French journalist had downloaded in the time it was up so it escaped.

I don't think it is a conspiracy more of a wink wink knudge knudge.
amongst most governments.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 6 August 2012 3:20:02 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
Hasbeen

you are right! Dividing up NSW into more states would take forever- ask the folks in New England. Why don’t we list out the government departments then allocate them each a regional city (with some logic if possible). Some have already moved – tax office to Albury & Newcastle; mapping to Bathurst; Agriculture to Orange. Next we could lobby the government to make the moves. It is far easier to make it happen than many believe. We have been doing that through FairGO (www.fairgo.org )for 26 years in every Australian parliament on every conceivable issue. Don’t win them all but do win over 90%. Your input would be great.
Posted by FairGO4voters, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 11:08:39 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
Ah yes transfer all depts around the state.
I agree a good idea. Even the NBN will make it easier.
However branches of most would still be needed in the capital cities.

Modern rail systems, not "High Speed Rail", would be needed and would
have an increased customer base.

Are any of you aware that the 7 km two station SW Sydney branch line
cost more than the line from Alice Springs to Darwin ?
I have tried to find that article again but no go. It was on here.

http://crudeoilpeak.info/

It was about the high cost of rail building in NSW.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 12:04:31 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
<< Trouble is, "the planning and regulatory roles of government" are merely a cover for buck-passing and inactivity. >>

Wow, you do have the most dismal view of government, Pericles!

<< There is a mass of literature available that explains how, in the best-run companies, decision-making is most efficiently accomplished at the lowest possible level within the organization - by the folk who understand best, the implications and outcomes of any action. >>

Decisions on the nuts and bolts operating procedure of a company can perhaps be best made by those who are actually doing the stuff rather than the somewhat detached board of directors. Actually, good nuts and bolts decisions would still get made by the top echelon, but with plenty of understanding of and input from the workers.

Major decisions about future planning which require a full understanding of finances, markets, competition, etc, must be made by those at the top level, whose specific job it is to have a full understanding of this stuff and direct the organisation accordingly. They can’t be made by those at the lowest possible level.

And so it should be with government. And it is… but it’s just not done very well a lot of the time.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 8:29:18 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
I wrote:

>>Push for greater efficiency, but certainly don’t push for less government control.<<

You replied:

<< Sadly, the two are synonymous. Greater efficiency cannot be achieved without a reduction in government control. >>

Not so!

You might get better efficiency within a particular business or development, but at what cost to the environment and the integrity of our whole economic system?

Without government regulation, you’d have an absolute piecemeal approach, with everyone doing their own thing in their own way and not coordinating. They’d be out to get what they can in the short term without any thought for the longer term. They wouldn’t have the choice to consider the longer term. If they did, someone else would simply jump in in front of them and exploit those resources or that market niche more aggressively.

In short, a lack of or a much looser level of government regulation would in the bigger picture mean a much less efficient business regime and economic system than our current system with its often somewhat overburdensome red tape.

<< Do you perhaps have a "for-instance" from real life that you can share? >>

Tree-clearing regulations, erosion control, weed management and the like. This is the area I was involved with for 12 years with the Queensland government.

By striving to develop a much better balance between tree cover and cleared grazing and agricultural land, by preventing clearing on sloping and highly erodible soils, by requiring significant weeds to be addressed, etc, the government was striving to preserve the productivity of the land, reduce the amount of environmental damage and reduce the number of things that would deplete productivity in the future and cost huge money to repair, or which would just be unrecoverable.

By doing this, the government was actually creating economic value, compared to what would have happened in the absence of this sort of regulatory regime. Or you could say that it was preserving economic value, and quality of life value and quality of environment value, rather than creating these things, if you like.

How’s that for a good example, Pericles?
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 7 August 2012 8:32:43 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
Your "for instance" is interesting, Ludwig. Did it have any direct bearing on economic prosperity, though - what commercial benefit was achieved, and by whom?

On the broader theme, though, I came across an intriguing book called "City: A Guidebook for the Urban Age" by P D Smith (you may recall his 2003 biography of Einstein?) some of the contents of which might quite upset you.

He notes that in 2008, according to UN statistics, the world became over 50% urban - i.e. more people now live in cities than outside. This is likely, on present trends, to reach 75% by as early as 2050. That's an awful lot of extra people choosing to live in cities - all in the next forty years. Wow.

The Economist commented on this as follows:

"Migrants to cities are attracted by plentiful jobs, access to hospitals and education, and the ability to escape the enervating boredom of a peasant's agricultural life"

You might think the last part (which of course coincides with my own view) a touch judgemental, but the follow-up is less so.

"Those factors are more than enough to make up for the squalor, disease and spectacular poverty that those same migrants must often first endure when they become urban dwellers."

I am fairly certain that this trade-off applies to the more seasoned city-dwellers also. They may bitch and moan about the traffic jams and pathetic public transport, and cry into their beer at the ghastly pollution etc., but they know that their kids would not take kindly to being transplanted to Lesser WoopWoop public, and have a little private fear that the creaking, understaffed health system "out there" would let them down at a critical moment...

Life in the city is not totally blissful, of course. It is indeed crowded and noisy. But at least it is a constant source of intellectual and cultural nourishment.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 9 August 2012 8:54:16 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
<< Did it have any direct bearing on economic prosperity, though - what commercial benefit was achieved, and by whom? >>

Pericles, I think I explained that in my last post.

The bearing on economic prosperity is by way of preventing the degradation of agricultural lands from soil loss, the spread of weeds and other things. Not only do these things have a direct effect on productivity, but they require a lot of expense to fix up, which of course affects the economic bottom line after productivity. ie: income minus expenses.

The longer term commercial benefit would be realised by graziers, cane-growers and other primary producers, and would flow on to benefit country towns and the whole state economy.

Then there was the environmental / productivity balance motivation of the legislation, in which the desire was to preserve ecological values as well as sustainable productivity.

The tree-clearing legislation and other regulations regarding the productivity and environmental aspects of rural management are clearly a whole lot better than nothing or than the previous haphazard virtual free-for-all situation.

I did hundreds of property assessments all over north and central Queensland. I had long and detailed conversations with the landholders in just about every instance.

The feeling was pretty universal that the government was right to tighten the whole business up. Even the most anti-authoritarian landholders, who decried interference in their business on their land, blamed other landholders, past and present, for stuffing it up, rather than blaming the government for doing something about it.

It is quite amazing that the whole legislation wasn’t skittled. I reckon it could easily have been if Agforce or an otherwise united effort from landholders had mounted a major challenge against it. That didn’t happen despite some pretty awful vegetation mapping in some areas, on which the legislation was largely based.

The reason it wasn’t skittled is that landholders could generally see the merit in it, even if it did limit some of them in their desires to clear trees and increase productivity.

Wow…all that, and I’ve only responded to your first paragraph!

More later ( :>)
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 11 August 2012 9:15:08 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 are drifting a little from the point, I suspect Ludwig.

>>The longer term commercial benefit would be realised by graziers, cane-growers and other primary producers, and would flow on to benefit country towns and the whole state economy.<<

We started the discussion considering the role of the government in "town planning", and whether it was a good use of taxpayers' money to fund a city-to-country exodus. Your example seems tightly focussed on one aspect of government interference, the creation of regulations governing "Tree-clearing regulations, erosion control, weed management and the like". Regulations that, it would appear, have the backing of those whom it would affect...

>>The reason it wasn’t skittled is that landholders could generally see the merit in it<<

So, you conducted "hundreds of property assessments all over north and central Queensland" - using taxpayers' money - to arrive at the same conclusion as the landowners. Or are you suggesting that the landholders were too stupid to work it out for themselves?

The difference between this example and the forced-exodus scenario is that the population has already worked out for itself that it prefers city life. I know for a fact that I wouldn't exchange my proximity to Cate Blanchett's Sydney Theatre Company for Lesser WoopWoop's Amateur Dramatic Society. Or condemn myself to seeing Opera Australia visit once a year to perform HMS Pinafore, instead of travelling the ten minutes needed to see their impeccable Salome, or the ability to catch the Sydney Symphony, Simone Young and Christine Brewer's Wagner celebration, at the Opera House

http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/whatson/wagner_under_the_sails.aspx

It simply doesn't enter the equation. In the same way that even those living an hour out of town are unwilling to give up their ability to visit Luna Park of a weekend, or go to a show at The Star, or...

http://www.weekendnotes.com/sydney/

Life's too short to spend it in the wilderness.
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 12 August 2012 2:59:05 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
Further to your previous post Pericles….

I reckon there is a balance point, or an optimum position between a big city and woop woop. In Australia, this is in population centres of around 100 000 or perhaps 150 000 people. Above this, the negative factors take precedence, below it, the services, variety of entertainment and variety of goods are not so great.

This would make my centres of Townsville and Cairns pretty close to ideal... but just a little overcooked perhaps. The traffic is pretty awful, and traffic lights are multiplying like flies!

But of course, neither the state nor federal governments care about this. Both just want to grow these north Queensland centres as fast as they possibly can, with no end in sight.

Yes there is an urbanisation, or citification if you like, of the world’s population happening at a pretty rapid rate.

But in Australia, this need not be the case. Indeed, this comes back to the core of our disagreement: I would advocate a strong level of governance, aimed at achieving the best quality of life in our cities and certainly NOT just leaving it up to the whims of chance with minimum planning or regulation.

Anyway, Cairns and Townsville are certainly the places to be, especially in winter. MUUUUUCH better than Sydney!! ( :>)
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 13 August 2012 10:03:29 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
An interesting choice of population numbers, Ludwig.

>>I reckon there is a balance point, or an optimum position between a big city and woop woop. In Australia, this is in population centres of around 100 000 or perhaps 150 000 people.<<

In that bracket, you have Albury/Wodonga, Launceston, Toowoomba, Darwin and Cairns. Perhaps you might indicate, for the record, where in those fine cities one might find the "variety of entertainment" you believe is available.

Here's a quick "What's On" guide:

http://www.alburywodongaaustralia.com.au/events.asp

I'm sure that Dr Piffle and the Burlap Band will be very entertaining on Friday this week. But if you can't hold out for them, there's always the Wodonga Junior Olympics tomorrow. "Are you the record holder for Wii Sports in your household? Then come along and see how your skills stack up against the other kids."

http://www.visitlauncestontamar.com.au/pages/events/

http://www.toowoombaholidays.com.au/events/

http://www.informationcentres.com.au/information/darwin/darwin-events-calendar/whats-on-in-darwin.html

http://tools.cairns.com.au/events/index.php?category_id=5

I would of course - and I do - visit Cairns for a break. Love the reef. But to live there would - for me personally, I must stress - be death on a stick. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the lifestyle offered is in any way inferior, simply because I couldn't stand it myself. But I am happy to use it as evidence as to why people wouldn't necessarily automatically choose it over city life.

The mere fact that you are proposing bribery, with taxpayers' money, as the only way to prise the citydweller out of his comfort zone, should tell you something, surely?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 13 August 2012 4:03:05 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 are drifting a little from the point, I suspect Ludwig. >>

I think it is just a wobble, Pericles…. or a swerve. Or the evolution of a broader discussion!

<< So, you conducted "hundreds of property assessments all over north and central Queensland" - using taxpayers' money - to arrive at the same conclusion as the landowners. Or are you suggesting that the landholders were too stupid to work it out for themselves? >>

No. I came to the same conclusion as landholders some of the time, agreed with the vegetation mapping some of the time and found the reality of the situation to be somewhere in between some of the time.

Many assessments could be done with remote sensing in my office, without a visit. That is; using aerial photography, satellite imagery, ground photos provided by the landholder, etc.

Many more assessments were done by my colleagues in another department, if it didn’t require knowledge of the tree species, rocks and soils and thus an ability to accurately and confidently determine which regional ecosystems we were dealing with, and whether the vegetation could be called remnant or non-remnant.

Only the more difficult ones required the on-ground assessment of an expert in the fields of botany, geomorphology and vegetation disturbance.

<< The difference between this example and the forced-exodus scenario is that the population has already worked out for itself that it prefers city life. >>

‘forced exodus’ ??

Incentives. We’ve been talking about incentives to move away from the big cities.

And As I said somewhere back down the line; I don’t think that a lot of people who live in the big cities actually choose to do so, and would dearly love to live in Noosa or Hervey Bay or Coffs Harbour if they could.

While things like opera and drama may be of great importance to you, I’m sure open spaces, lack of road congestion, the proximity of bushland and beaches and the sounds of birds singing mean much more to many people.

Life’s too short to spend it couped up in some smoggy city!!
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 8:21:59 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
<< In that bracket, you have Albury/Wodonga, Launceston, Toowoomba, Darwin and Cairns. Perhaps you might indicate, for the record, where in those fine cities one might find the "variety of entertainment" you believe is available. >>

Pericles, of course they don’t have the variety of entertainment that Sadney or Melborin have!

Obviously, the variety of entertainment is of major importance to you. But I wonder how many people feel the same way? I’d take a guess at only a small percentage of the city-dwelling population.

You’ve concentrated on a single factor. But of course there are many considerations that affect our quality of life, in the cities, in smaller centres and out woop woop!

We’ve discussed this. I thought you agreed.

You and I are very different. I spend my spare time on the beaches, in the bush, travelling around the countryside, photographing plants, rocks and landscapes, spying on birds – of the feathered variety…and the bikini-clad variety!. Oh, and headbanging away on OLO!! ( :>/

Two things enticed me to visit Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide earlier this year – botanic gardens and nude beaches!! !! !! The best botanical gardens and the most interesting nude beaches are in the big population centres. But apart from those things, I really didn’t enjoy being in those crowded environs.

Opera, theatre, concerts, etc mean less to me than whether Gillard’s hair is red or orange!! And I reckon this is the same for a very large portion of the population, and another very large portion only occasionally indulges in any of that sort of thing.

If that sort of entertainment was important to a big portion of the populace, then regional cities would have the full complement of it!
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 10:02:49 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
Bribery only works for a short time, Ludwig.

>>We’ve been talking about incentives to move away from the big cities.<<

Quite soon, reality creeps in - hopefully before they become economically quagmired, and unable to transition back.

And it's not exclusively "Opera, theatre, concerts, etc", there is entertainment here for every taste.

But you knew that, didn't you.

However, you are entirely mistaken on this assertion, for some very obvious reasons:

>>If that sort of entertainment was important to a big portion of the populace, then regional cities would have the full complement of it!<<

The smaller the catchment area, the cheaper the show needs to be, in order to be staged at all. Which is why only large cities can sustain multiple theatres, concert halls and an Opera House. So it is not only unlikely, but completely impractical, that anything more than Dr Piffle and the Burlap Band (who, I am sure, are perfectly wonderful) is available in tiny townships.

In central Sydney we have the Star complex for more relaxed forms of entertainment, and myriad pubs for pub bands to play in, across a broad spectrum of musical tastes.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/restaurants-and-bars/pub-brawl-20110527-1f76i.html

http://www.10best.com/destinations/australia/sydney/coogee/nightlife/coogee-bay-hotel/

>>Two things enticed me to visit Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Adelaide earlier this year – botanic gardens and nude beaches!!<<

[Sigh] You miss so much.

>>I don’t think that a lot of people who live in the big cities actually choose to do so, and would dearly love to live in Noosa or Hervey Bay or Coffs Harbour if they could.<<

Then why don't they move there?

Oh, that's right. Because the city is where the jobs are. As The Economist points out...

"Migrants to cities are attracted by plentiful jobs, access to hospitals and education, and the ability to escape the enervating boredom of a peasant's agricultural life"

It is also the same mix that keeps them here.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 4:30:11 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
<< Bribery only works for a short time, Ludwig.>>

I think you are entirely on the wrong track Pericles in thinking about it in that manner.

What I call perfectly proper planning and a fundamental responsibility of government, you call social engineering and denounce entirely!

It is really quite amazing how differently we view this.

If people were to be enticed to move out of the big cities with well-planned financial incentives, I would imagine that a good portion of them would stay in their new homes after the financial incentives stop and the time period (if there was to be one) compelling them stay runs out.

It would be self-promulgating. More people – more businesses, more variety of goods, services and entertainment and hence plenty of reasons for people to stay, if they aren’t totally enamoured with their new environment, which I think many would be very quickly!

<< The smaller the catchment area, the cheaper the show needs to be.. >>

But if a considerably larger portion of the populace was interested in this sort of entertainment, there would be a big catchment in smaller centres!

<< [Sigh] You miss so much.>>

Have you walked in a national park lately or closely examined flowers or birds or rocks? When did you last go to a botanic garden…. or a nude beach…. or a non-nude beach adorned with copious bikini-clad babes?

Ohhh…. you miss soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much!! !!

<< Then why don't they move there? >>

They DO!! In droves!! You’ve heard of the sea-change and tree-change movements.

So with the right sorts of financial incentives, this momentum can be helped along a bit…. and everyone would be a winner!
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 15 August 2012 8:56:26 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 may surprise you to learn, Ludwig, that Sydney is surrounded by National Parks.

>>Have you walked in a national park lately or closely examined flowers or birds or rocks? When did you last go to a botanic garden…. or a nude beach…. or a non-nude beach adorned with copious bikini-clad babes?<<

All the above, apart from the nude beaches bit, which tend to be full of middle-aged men for some reason.

>>What I call perfectly proper planning and a fundamental responsibility of government, you call social engineering and denounce entirely!<<

Yep. If people wanted to live in a country town, they would do so without any government bribery to help them along. And if they did, businesses would need to follow them, in order to keep their employees.

Business is pretty astute when it comes to taking the path of least resistance - why pay more to people in the city, when there are heaps of willing candidates out in Lower WoopWoop? The reason is, because they ain't there. And they ain't there, because they prefer the extra rush from living in a vibrant, movin' and shakin' city, rather than being surrounded by a load of placid sheep. And farm animals.

Even government departments can't move far away from the major population centres before they run out of people who want to work there. It's a supply and demand thing, you see. Your view is that if you artificially create the demand in these out-of-the-way places, the supply will follow. In my view, that doesn't happen, and for a very good reason.

Cities are more interesting than flowers, birds or rocks.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 16 August 2012 12:17:46 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
<< It may surprise you to learn, Ludwig, that Sydney is surrounded by National Parks. >>

But Pericles, they’re outside the city! And they are soooo different to the city environment!!

You do surprise me that you have ever visited a national park in your area! And you have actually noticed a flower and a bird or two. Rocks? No that’s a bit too much to expect!

So you have been to Royal Botanic Gardens? But you haven’t been to a nude beach but somehow know that they are predominantly patronised by middle-aged men. No, there is a good variety of people, male and female, on those beaches, especially in Sydney and other big population centres.

<< Yep. If people wanted to live in a country town, they would do so without any government bribery to help them along. >>

And more would do it if they were helped financially to get out of the drab, grey, depressing, congested, crime-ridden, horrible city, and into wonderful leafy green unoppressed, unflustered, unhurried surrounds!

Hey, let’s not forget that this is about easing the congestion and overload on infrastructure and services in Sydney and about being able to reallocate funding away from building ever-more infrastructure and services for ever-more people and putting it into real quality-of-life improvements for the existing population.

It’s about revitalising small towns and adding a variety of goods and services to larger centres, where it can be done without significant negative impacts from population growth.

And it’s about encouraging people to go to centres where there may be no net gain for the existing community, but also no loss.

Now, all of that adds up to a set of very good reasons for our government to implement some decent population distribution planning, policies and incentives….. and to certainly NOT just let it go on as it is, with Sydney becoming progressively more overcrowded and less able to cope with it, small towns continuing to decline and medium sized towns just staying as they are with no improvement.

<< Cities are more interesting than flowers, birds or rocks. >>

Phoowey!!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 16 August 2012 10:06:20 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
Not at all, Ludwig.

>>But Pericles, they’re outside the city! And they are soooo different to the city environment!!<<

They are a part of city living, not separate from it. One of the joys of living in Sydney is the proximity of all that green stuff, all those birdy things, and a range of idyllic walks that make the heart sing. The rocks, though, you can keep. Waste of space. Although the Three Sisters are quite pretty, I suppose.

>>So you have been to Royal Botanic Gardens?<<

'Knoath. I can even see it from where I am sitting right now. Lovely spot. Nice trees. Noisy bats.

>>But you haven’t been to a nude beach but somehow know that they are predominantly patronised by middle-aged men.<<

Ok, that part was largely hearsay. Although I will submit this link in evidence... possibly a little nsfw, if your boss is looking for a reason to fire you.

http://www.sydneynudistinfo.com/sydney-nudist-beaches.html

>>...more would do it if they were helped financially to get out of the drab, grey, depressing, congested, crime-ridden, horrible city, and into wonderful leafy green unoppressed, unflustered, unhurried surrounds!<<

As I said, it would definitely take bribery to make it happen. But have you actually done any sums that give you a clue as to the scale of subsidy necessary?

Try working through an example, just to bring the discussion away from dark satanic mills, and into the real world of commerce.

Let's say I currently run a successful small company of a thousand people. Turnover $200m p.a., net profit $8m. We are based in the CBD, so my staff travel here from all directions. They are a typical demographic spread; let's say 200 are under-thirty; six hundred are between 30 and 50, 80% of them are married, 70% of them married-with-children, 60% of them with children at school. The remaining 200 are over fifty, three-quarters of whom are empty-nesters.

You are Fatty O'Barrell, and you want me to move the entire shooting match to Lesser WoopWoop - I'll leave you to pick the spot.

What figure would need to be on the cheque?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 17 August 2012 5:28:10 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
<< They are a part of city living, not separate from it. One of the joys of living in Sydney is the proximity of all that green stuff, all those birdy things, and a range of idyllic walks that make the heart sing. >>

Wonderful! Pericles, you do continue to surprise me (:>)

So then, what have you got against regional centres? They have the same sort of mix…..only better!!

Why do you think people would be loathe to go there if they were incentivised into making such a move, and loathe to stay there after that?

I just don’t get that part of your argument.

Tree- and sea-change movements show that there are many people who want to get out of the cities and go to greener environs and nicer climes. But I bet far fewer actually do it than what desire to do it!

<< 'Knoath. I can even see it from where I am sitting right now. >>

Wow, you really are right in the guts of that massive morbid metropolis!!

<< …have you actually done any sums that give you a clue as to the scale of subsidy necessary? >>

No. I’m just talking in broad principles. I could ask the same sort of question of you – do you have any idea of the financial burden in NSW budgetary terms that population growth places on Sydney each year, which necessitates the building of new infrastructure and the duplication of services? Do you know how much money could be redirected into the improvement of existing infrastructure and services if this demand for new stuff was stopped or halved or otherwise considerably reduced??

No of course you don’t. And no of course I don’t have any idea of the financial side of things…other than to say, that if financial incentives for people to get out of the city do work, then a whole lot of funding will be freed up by way of reduced demand for new infrastructure and services.

Gee, I wish I was old Fatty O’Barrellguts. I’d have the place fixed up no time!!
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 17 August 2012 8:42:44 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
Nothing at all, Ludwig.

>>So then, what have you got against regional centres?<<

I am sure the people who live there enjoy living there. There is also a solid reason for their being sited where they are - supporting a mining industry, such as Lithgow or Newcastle, or as a focus for a farming community such as Dubbo. I have absolutely nothing against them, or the people who live there.

What I do disagree with, though, is the transplantation of people from a city to a country town, using taxpayers money as an "incentive", for no better purpose than social engineering. However worthy you may believe the concept to be, that is what it comes down to.

I see it as a very similar process to the creation of a "model town", which was a post-war fad in England. The 1946 Labour Government passed the New Towns Act, with all the best social-engineering intentions. If you would like to check on the results, take a look at Basildon, one of the earliest, and now firmly entrenched as home of Essex culture. And if you are unsure about Essex culture, Google TOWIE.

The next example would be Bracknell - and I think this would be a concern to any country town that you chose for your own transplant experiment. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia:

"The site was originally a village cum small town in the civil parish of Warfield in the Easthampstead Rural District. Very little of the original Bracknell is left."

How did the inhabitants of "the original Bracknell" feel, do you think?

New Towns were an exercise in the use of taxpayers money to avoid rebuilding cities, and instead creating new centres of population away from them. Nice idea, but the results were less than ideal, from any perspective. Which is why you don't hear the Labour Party at election-time boasting about having been responsible for creating Basildon. They're too embarrassed.

Enjoy your rural life, Ludwig, as I enjoy my city. It is a personal choice, made not only by people, remember, but by businesses who need those people.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 18 August 2012 8:22:14 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
<< What I do disagree with, though, is the transplantation of people from a city to a country town, using taxpayers money as an "incentive", for no better purpose than social engineering. >>

How can you say; ‘for no better purpose’?

The reasons are palpable!

How can you condone the currently terrible management regime of squeeze-em-in, regardless of overstressed infrastructure, thus reducing the quality of life of current residents and necessitating huge ongoing expenses on duplicating infrastructure as well as vainly trying to improve existing infrastructure…. and services...blah, blah...?

I mean, what is happening in Sydney is nothing short of absurd!!

And it can be called social engineering just as validly as attempts to redistribute the population somewhat. Or perhaps antisocial engineering would be a better term!!

Now, throughout the history of this country, we have had incentivisation to move to smaller towns, be they mining towns, agricultural centres or coastal communities. The incentives have been jobs, lifestyle, environment, availability of land and housing, the costs thereof, advertising and promotion of these places, etc, etc.

And people have been actively prevented from moving to other areas by the lack of approvals for land releases, the preservation of areas as national parks, agricultural land, heritage sites, urban parkland, etc, etc.

All of this sort of thing is social engineering if you like to call it that. And it is all completely fair and reasonable governmental management of population distribution.

So I am not talking about anything drastically new here, Pericles.
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 18 August 2012 9:37:08 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
What "terrible management regime", Ludwig?

>>How can you condone the currently terrible management regime of squeeze-em-in, regardless of overstressed infrastructure, thus reducing the quality of life of current residents and necessitating huge ongoing expenses on duplicating infrastructure as well as vainly trying to improve existing infrastructure…. and services...blah, blah...?<<

Blah blah, indeed. Who is "squeezing"? You seem to imagine some kind of cackling monster, herding the poor and weak into the cities against their will. Instead of which, people are choosing to live here because that's where the jobs are. And the jobs are here because the services are here. And the services (and culture, by the way) are here because of the simple economies of scale that a city creates.

If things were as bad as you say, surely masses of folk would be voting with their feet? And I don't count the retirees who choose to spend their last years in rural solitude as sea-changers or tree-changers. They are - economically speaking only, of course - parasites, and you are welcome to them.

And where is the duplication of infrastructure you keep bringing up? Is it more expensive somehow to extend existing infrastructure in the outskirts of a city, than build new stuff from scratch in Lesser WoopWoop? How does that work?

>>And people have been actively prevented from moving to other areas by the lack of approvals for land releases, the preservation of areas as national parks, agricultural land, heritage sites, urban parkland, etc, etc.<<

Aha! So you would ride roughshod over the will of the people who prefer to keep their environment out of the hands of land developers, and who would rather maintain their surroundings of "national parks, agricultural land, heritage sites, urban parkland". Instead, you would insist that they make room for thousands of your forced refugees from the overcrowded cities.

That's not nice.

But do tell. How would you change their mind? "Do a Bracknell", and simply pass a law that says "sorry folk, we're going to build you out, in the name of...?

In the name of what? Progress? Or social engineering?
Posted by Pericles, Sunday, 19 August 2012 4:07:40 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
<< What "terrible management regime", Ludwig? >>

Oh dear Pericles, we are getting nowhere here.

Right back to the basics of our discussion we go! Why do we have to go back there? Isn’t it bleedingly obvious?

What is it about my elucidation of the terrible management regime, that you’ve quoted from my last post and otherwise read in my previous posts on this thread that you don’t understand?

Have a listen to this presentation by Professor Ian Lowe, especially his comments on infrastructure regarding population growth in the big cities around the middle of this talk:

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/australia27s-population-debate/4197352

More on population and infrastructure from John Coulter:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/evidence-behind-queenslands-cost-of-living-fears-20120409-1wl8d.html

<< Is it more expensive somehow to extend existing infrastructure in the outskirts of a city, than build new stuff from scratch in Lesser WoopWoop? >>

What’s this ‘from scratch’ business?

I advocate adding population to existing towns, instead of the big cities, under a stable population regime or at least a regime of much lower national population growth. Otherwise there’s no point – we’d continue to have rapid growth in the big cities even if we did manage to get a lot of people to settle in smaller centres.

The cost of building new infrastructure and services would presumably not be significantly different in the city and in smaller centres. But it would cost more in the big cities to fix badly overstressed I & S than it would to deal with much more minor stresses to existing I & S in smaller centres.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 5:45:12 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
<< Aha! So you would ride roughshod over the will of the people who prefer to keep their environment out of the hands of land developers, and who would rather maintain their surroundings of "national parks, agricultural land, heritage sites, urban parkland". Instead, you would insist that they make room for thousands of your forced refugees from the overcrowded cities. >>

What sort of a straw-man argument is this? You know perfectly well that I haven’t advocated any such thing, and indeed you know that I am a staunch environmentalist who would absolutely be opposed to any alienation of land set aside for conservation. There should only be urban expansion in suitable areas, which abound on the fringes of most small centres.

<< Or social engineering? >>

You hold onto that thought; that the sort of population-distribution planning that I advocate has to be social engineering and has to be totally bad. Continue to think that it is something entirely new and unacceptable, rather than a simple extension of what government has always done. Continue to think that such actions are totally outside of the role of government rather than a perfectly fair and reasonable and fundamental part of good governance.

What more can I say? I just totally disagree with you. And at the more basic level of the way government operates, I totally disagree that government should be minimalist and I will continue to advocate strong governance, especially as population growth further stresses demand – supply patterns for energy, food, all manner of goods, infrastructure, services and environment.

And I guess that’s about the size of it.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 5:48:10 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
Fair enough, Ludwig.

>>What more can I say? I just totally disagree with you.<<

And we do indeed disagree at the most fundamental level.

>>I totally disagree that government should be minimalist and I will continue to advocate strong governance, especially as population growth further stresses demand – supply patterns for energy, food, all manner of goods, infrastructure, services and environment.<<

And Five Year Plans, too?

We all know how that went, don't we?

Or do you believe we can trust our government to do it differently? As I see it, the more power you allow a ruling body to exercise, the more they want, until eventually individuals count for nothing any longer. Great, if you happen to work for them. You can then pick up all the multitude of lurks and perks that are denied non-government employees.

Pretty lousy though if you have any thoughts about running your own business - or life, even - without the dead weight of bureaucracy constantly saying "do this, don't do that".

There isn't even the pretence any longer that it is "for the good of the community", just so long as there is a sound-bite back-story that can be repeated ad nauseam. Population growth. Pollution damage. Natural resources shortage. Agriculture exhaustion. Industrial over-growth.

If you have a spare moment, do yourself a favour and have a read of this:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137681/bjorn-lomborg/environmental-alarmism-then-and-now

I know you will disagree with everything Lomberg writes, simply because you choose to disagree. But it might just be worth a little effort to revisit the source of your prejudice against individual freedom.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 21 August 2012 11:11:55 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
<< Or do you believe we can trust our government to do it differently? >>

No we can’t trust them. So we should be lobbying very hard for a better standard of government, and certainly not for an even worse standard, which is what a minimalist governmental regime would be.

<< As I see it, the more power you allow a ruling body to exercise, the more they want… >>

Aha, this is getting to the nub of your hatred of government. It is always going to be a balancing act. Yes governments can go too far and exert too much power. Yes bureaucracies can be too big and inefficient. And yes governments can overdo it in some areas and undercook it in others at the same time.

So what should we be doing?

It is obvious to me that we should be striving for a better quality of governance, which is efficient in its management of society…. and certainly not lobbying for the minimisation of government.

The great problem with minimalist government is that there would be a minimum number of laws, a minimum regulatory effort to get people to obey the law and basically a very free rein for the powerful, aggressive and unscrupulous elements of society to suppress the rest of us. It would also mean that we’d have no chance of planning for our national future or that of each town, region or state.

I appreciate your concerns about the quality of government. But I think your desired solution of minimising the whole caboodle is entirely the wrong thing to do.

<< … it might just be worth a little effort to revisit the source of your prejudice against individual freedom. >>

Again, with good governance, strict laws and the effective regulation thereof, personal freedoms would be protected, not reduced. With a slack government, which administers a minimum number of laws, or basically lets the law go to pot, personal freedoms would be very seriously reduced for the vast majority of us.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:26:20 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
<< I know you will disagree with everything Lomberg writes, simply because you choose to disagree >>

That is truly amazing Pericles. What an extraordinarily wrong-headed article!

I mean, what is he suggesting – that because societies haven’t collapsed anywhere in the modern era due to limits in providing the essentials for their continuous growth, that it won’t happen at all, anywhere….and that there actually aren’t any limits and that we can continue to grow indefinitely?

It would appear so…. which of course is just mind-numbingly absurd!

So, you would simply choose to agree with Lomborg I presume? If you agree with him, you’d have to simply choose to do so, because there isn’t the slightest inkling of logical reasoning to do so!!

So then, let me see if I’ve got this right – you have no problem with rapid population growth in Sydney, with no end in sight. You have no problem with the obvious road congestion that it is causing or the stressing of all manner of infrastructure and services. You have no problem with the enormous expense needed to struggle to keep this I&S from completely going asunder, let alone actually improving it at all, or the enormous expense paid by current residents to build I&S for new residents, rather than this money being put into fixing current I&S in a scenario where there is no or much reduced increasing pressure upon it.

You don’t have an issue with the now quite large enclaves of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions in Sydney and the disharmony that has been demonstrated here and there (the Cronulla riots come to mind).

You think that as things get more stressed and tetchier that government should basically just hang back and let it sort itself out, with the rougher, less lawful and more unscrupulous elements prevailing.

You think that Sydney can have another two million or four million or more without any reduction in the average quality of life and without considerable strife erupting at least in some quarters, and with a reduced level of governance?

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:33:42 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
In short you really think that we will have a better society with a very low level of governance and that personal freedom would actually be reduced by good governance more so than by the consequences of letting the aggressive and ruthless prevail?

Is this basically right?

I’m still trying to clarify your exact views, because from what I’ve gleaned so far, I find them incredibly hard to believe.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:34:46 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
Not quite, Ludwig.

>>I mean, what is he suggesting – that because societies haven’t collapsed anywhere in the modern era due to limits in providing the essentials for their continuous growth, that it won’t happen at all, anywhere….and that there actually aren’t any limits and that we can continue to grow indefinitely?<<

I suspect that you only read the intro, and chose not to read the rest. Lomberg simply highlighted the fact that the various contributions to the debate back in the sixties and seventies i) were completely inaccurate in their forecasting, ii) directed attention towards entirely the wrong "solutions" and iii) persist today.

We all know from the experience of the past few decades that economic growth has done far more to alleviate the misery of poverty around the world than any adherence to the strictures of "The Limits to Growth", "Silent Spring" or "The Population Bomb".

I know that you believe this to have been wrong thinking. In your view, none of the hundreds of millions who are now eating properly should have been born in the first place, so wouldn't have needed economic growth to sustain them. In my view, however, this is merely a more polite form of eugenics, where you decide who gets born and who doesn't.

Lomberg does not believe that "there actually aren’t any limits and that we can continue to grow indefinitely". You would like to think that he does, so that you can ridicule his ideas as mathematically impossible - which, of course, they would be. But if you actually read what he writes, instead of believing sound-bites, you would find that his point is that alarmism - which is at the heart of everything you believe - does not create good policy.

In fact, precisely the reverse.

"If [The Limits to Growth's] suggestions been followed over subsequent decades, there would be no 'rise of the rest', no half a billion Chinese, Indians and others lifted out of grinding poverty; no massive improvements in health, longevity and quality of life for billions across the planet..."

Do you disagree with that view?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 7:59:46 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
Here's a little clarification for you, Ludwig.

>>So then, let me see if I’ve got this right – you have no problem with rapid population growth in Sydney, with no end in sight.<<

I don't see a problem that Sydney is growing. I don't see it as "rapid", it seems eminently sustainable to me. The problem with infrastructure is not that it is expensive, but that it lacks political will - discussions on a second airport, new railway lines, water supply etc. have been going on for decades, passed from one government to the next without a resolution. And because they can't make big decisions, they spend their time making small ones, those that limit the rights of the citizenry. Those are easy. Receptus ignavorum.

Compared to other major population centres, our government is lazy, inefficient, incompetent and quite often corrupt.

>>You have no problem with the obvious road congestion that it is causing or the stressing of all manner of infrastructure and services. <<

London. Rome. Berlin. New York. Los Angeles. Bangkok. Seoul. Jakarta.

I have to tell you that we stack up quite well in comparison.

>>You have no problem with the enormous expense needed to struggle to keep this I&S from completely going asunder, let alone actually improving it at all...etc<<

If I felt that my taxes were actually being spent on infrastructure, I'd be a lot happier. Sadly, there is so much waste on non-essential departments, salaries-and-perks and the endless non-decision-making processes. Do you know how much we have spent so far on failing to implement a unified ticketing system for public transport? Pathetic, institutionalized incompetence.

>>You don’t have an issue with the now quite large enclaves of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions in Sydney and the disharmony that has been demonstrated here and there (the Cronulla riots come to mind).<<

Ooops, you are beginning to show the real reason for your fears, Ludwig. You don't like immigrants.

I have no problem with immigration at all. Most immigrants are hard-working self-starters, who tend to show up the locals as laid-back loafers.

And Cronulla was... when, exactly?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 8:29:40 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 guess who else is showing the real reason for their stance. Real reasons apart from ego gratification that is.

(gosh Ludwig you must have stomped on his ego something bad to have him follow you around as he does from thread to thread)

"Most immigrants are hard-working self-starters, who tend to show up the locals as laid-back loafers"

You don't like the "locals" do you, Pericles?

But then again it's hardly surprising since many failed poms carry a chip on their shoulder about the "locals"
Posted by KarlX, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:04:21 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
<< I suspect that you only read the intro, and chose not to read the rest >>

Pericles, yes I only read the intro. It was not at all clear that it was just the start of a much longer article. So I purchased the whole article and have now read it.

And lo and behold, the intro, as you would expect, pretty clearly outlines the main points and conclusion in the article, and yes my conclusions are just the same; Lomborg is off the rails with this one!

He writes: < Their [The Club of Rome’s] devastating collapse was predicted to occur just after 2010, so it may be too soon for that to be definitively falsified. But the trends to date offer little support for the gloom-and-doom thesis. >

It is indeed far too early to say that they were wrong. And by crikey, I see just a few [actually many very serious] indications that major upheaval is not far away.

< The basic point of The Limits to Growth seemed intuitive, even obvious: if ever-more people use ever-more stuff, eventually they will bump into the planet’s physical limits.

Yes, obvious indeed!


< So why did the authors get it wrong? Because they overlooked human ingenuity. >

We can’t say that they got it wrong just because it hasn’t happened yet!

Human ingenuity is extremely selective! Yes we can be good at technology, but we often use technology to drive us deeper into the global demand-and-supply crisis. And we are terribly dumb when it comes to controlling our expansionism or enormous impact on the environment and other species and on our own life-support systems. What about seriously depleted fisheries all around the world? We’ve used technology to improve our fishing capability, which in combination of ever-larger populations has greatly exacerbated the depletion of fish stocks. Brilliant!

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:40:24 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
Pericles, you write:

<< We all know from the experience of the past few decades that economic growth has done far more to alleviate the misery of poverty around the world than any adherence to the strictures of "The Limits to Growth”… >>

Now hold on, if we’d had a considerably lower rate of population growth over that time, we’d no doubt have had a considerably better alleviation of poverty and increase in quality of life around the world. Population growth works against economic growth, or at least, against per-capita economic growth!

You say that Lomborg is only criticising alarmism and not the actual limits to growth philosophy. Well, that is not entirely clear from the article. And at any rate, it is just wrong!

What he calls alarmism was in fact totally fair and reasonable awareness and expression of a very real concern, which was appreciated by lots of people, if not by many governments. The timelines for predictions are not highly accurate, but what would you expect?
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:43:00 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
Thanks for the clarification Pericles.

<< …it seems eminently sustainable to me. >>

Wow!

<< The problem with infrastructure is not that it is expensive, but that it lacks political will - discussions on a second airport, new railway lines, water supply etc. have been going on for decades >>

Maybe that’s got more to do with these things being inherently very difficult to deal with than it does with government incompetence. No matter what the government does, it will result in considerable disapproval from one quarter or another.

Yes discussions on these things have been going on for decades. So um, why didn’t our government see the main causal factor and strive to stop population growth decades ago??

This is the biggest flaw in our governmental system – that both Lib and Lab just can’t help themselves but to continue stressing environments, services and infrastructure, and thus peoples’ quality of life, and making it very difficult indeed to implement solutions.

So actually, your great criticism of government being unable to make big decisions and do things efficiently is probably very closely connected to the most stupid thing that they do – facilitate rapid unending population growth! You criticise government for all sorts of stuff, but not for this! Doesn’t add up to me!

<< Compared to other major population centres, our government is lazy, inefficient, incompetent and quite often corrupt. >>

Is it?? Do you really think it is significantly worse than in London, Rome, Berlin, New York, Los Angeles, Bangkok, Seoul or Jakarta?

<< Ooops, you are beginning to show the real reason for your fears, Ludwig. You don't like immigrants. >>

You dearly wish this was true. But after our discussions over the last several years, you well and truly know that it ain’t so. And um, you haven’t confirmed or denied that you are concerned about enclaves and simmering racial/ethnic/religious tensions.

<< And Cronulla was... when, exactly? >>

2005 I believe. What’s the point of the question?

.

Thanks for your input, KarlX.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 4:48:34 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
A simple point, Ludwig.

>>2005 I believe. What’s the point of the question?<<

One isolated incident of rowdiness, seven years ago, in which there were no casualties, is evidence of nothing except hooliganism. Which you brought up in the context of...

>>...now quite large enclaves of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions in Sydney and the disharmony that has been demonstrated here and there (the Cronulla riots come to mind)<<

Which causes one to ask, why did you bring it up in the first place, if not to highlight your anti-immigration posturing?

And I notice you only read the parts of his article that you agreed with:

>>Lomborg is off the rails with this one!<<

Did you perhaps glance at the graph that showed the difference between the Limits to Growth scenario and reality? Did you read the litany of examples where their "forecasts" were spectacularly wrong?

>>And by crikey, I see just a few [actually many very serious] indications that major upheaval is not far away.<<

Did you notice that even the IPCC is continuing to forecast global economic growth through the entire 21st century?

Did you read the reality behind our puny eforts at "recycling", which is a completely wasteful activity, a net consumption of money and manpower?

>>We can’t say that they got it wrong just because it hasn’t happened yet!<<

Do you know how silly that sounds? They all "forecast" disaster, which not only hasn't occurred, but is further away than when they made their predictions.

So, exactly what convinces you that Lomborg is "off the rails"?

Incidentally, KarlX

>>You don't like the "locals" do you, Pericles?<<

Yep. Love 'em. Especially the bludgers.
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 5:47:02 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
<< One isolated incident of rowdiness, seven years ago >>

And didn’t it cause a stir! I think it is fair to say that there is a whole lot of concern about simmering tensions of the sort that flared up on that occasion. But I’m not surprised that you say that you are not concerned about it in your city.

<< Which causes one to ask, why did you bring it up in the first place, if not to highlight your anti-immigration posturing? >>

Because it is another downside of population growth in Sydney, along with all the others that I have repeatedly mentioned.

<< Did you read the litany of examples where their "forecasts" were spectacularly wrong? >>

You are still missing my main criticism of Lomborg’s article – that it is far too early to condemn the Club of Rome’s predictions, beyond some inaccuracy in the timelines.

If we look back on this after about ?2030, we may then almost be far enough down the road to say that the forecasts were spectacularly wrong…. if we haven’t seen major upheaval events by that time. But we can’t say that yet! And I get the distinct feeling that they’ll be proven right, at least in part, over the next few years.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 8:59:39 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
<< Did you read the reality behind our puny eforts at "recycling", which is a completely wasteful activity, a net consumption of money and manpower? >>

Now there’s something I’m inclined to agree with. Recycling is fine as part of a holistic approach to sustainability but in isolation it is meaningless. Yes, it has been used as an excuse by some to say that they are doing their bit for the environment by recycling, while at the same time overconsuming resources of all sorts and not giving a hoot about the bigger picture of sustainability.


<< They all "forecast" disaster, which not only hasn't occurred, but is further away than when they made their predictions. >>

Whaat??

Says who? Where does this come from? That’s really stretching it. Disaster… or major upheaval events of some sort…. are further away than when they made their predictions!? Interesting comment indeed!! ( :>|

<< So, exactly what convinces you that Lomborg is "off the rails"? >>

I really think I made that patently clear.

So Pericles, do you consider yourself to be a local or an immigrant or both? Which takes precedence?
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 22 August 2012 9:01:05 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
That's a very odd question, Ludwig.

>>So Pericles, do you consider yourself to be a local or an immigrant or both? Which takes precedence?<<

I don't give it a moment's thought.

>>I think it is fair to say that there is a whole lot of concern about simmering tensions of the sort that flared up on that occasion<<

And I think that it is "fair to say" that Cronulla is only dragged into the conversation by people who feel it necessary to talk about "simmering tensions" and "inner-city powder keg" and "residents living in fear", for reasons known only to themselves.

>>...it is another downside of population growth in Sydney<<

If population growth in Sydney (have you ever actually lived in a city, by the way?) causes seaside hooliganism once in a blue moon, then I hardly call it a downside. Rather, it is indicative of a thoroughly stable environment.

>>...it is far too early to condemn the Club of Rome’s predictions, beyond some inaccuracy in the timelines<<

Not really. It is not so much the timelines, but the trends. Instead of becoming scarcer, all of their examples have become more plentiful. Nobody is for a moment suggesting that this will go on ad infinitum, that would be ridiculous. But if you start from a set of data that is so blatantly wrong, is it not fair to suggest that the "remedies" might also be pretty pointless?

Which puts into context your final expostulation.

>>Whaat?? Says who? Where does this come from? That’s really stretching it. Disaster… or major upheaval events of some sort…. are further away than when they made their predictions!?<<

Picture the scene. The villain in a silent movie has tied the beautiful heiress to the railway lines, and is sauntering away with a swagger and an evil chuckle. In order for the moment to hold any tension at all, the train must be heading towards her, not away from her.

So if you are predicating disaster on scarcer resources, when they in fact are getting more plentiful, surely the same logic will apply.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 23 August 2012 8:00:58 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 I think that it is "fair to say" that Cronulla is only dragged into the conversation by people who feel it necessary to talk about "simmering tensions" and "inner-city powder keg" and "residents living in fear", for reasons known only to themselves. >>

This sort of thing is of considerable concern in Sydney for a lot of people. It is interesting that you dismiss it entirely.

<< have you ever actually lived in a city… >>

24 years in Perth. Does that count?

<< Rather, it is indicative of a thoroughly stable environment. >>

Really?

Sydney does have a pretty good level of harmony, compared to many cities around the world. But the stage is set for some pretty ugly carry-on when the various stresses associated with overpopulation start to manifest themselves more sharply.

<< Nobody is for a moment suggesting that this will go on ad infinitum, that would be ridiculous. >>

Exactly. That is the main point isn’t it? We are seeing good access to resources that were predicted by the Club of Rome to have become critically hard to obtain. But it can’t last, especially with the still rapidly increasing demand. And we really only need one vital resource to become badly depleted for major upheaval to occur.

I get the feeling that if we were to explore Lomborg’s article to the enth degree, we would agree on most of the nitty gritty, but still disagree on whether the Club of Rome got it basically right or wrong.

<< In order for the moment to hold any tension at all, the train must be heading towards her, not away from her. >>

Of course. But the proverbial train’s a-comin round the bend! How can you possibly figure that because of current relatively good resource access and quality of life around the world, the old choo-choo is actually heading down the track away from us??

Who was it who said:

<< Nobody is for a moment suggesting that this will go on ad infinitum, that would be ridiculous. >> ?
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 23 August 2012 9:38:17 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
Nope.

>>24 years in Perth. Does that count?<<

That's just another country town, Ludwig, as you very well know.

I've lived and worked in Perth, and thoroughly enjoyed the place. But it is pretty much a backwater in city terms.

>>How can you possibly figure that because of current relatively good resource access and quality of life around the world, the old choo-choo is actually heading down the track away from us??<<

That's out of context. The observation was directly related to the predictions made by The Limits to Growth. They said "going down", and prescribed remedies appropriate to that condition. Since then, it has been only "going up". But some folk still believe that the medicine they were proposing - effectively, a reduction in all forms of industrial production - was appropriate.

Economic imperatives will eventually drive the necessary changes, in the same way that they have for hundreds of years - ever since we were an agriculture-based world, in fact. You can't see it, because you don't want to see it. Why you don't, remains a mystery.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 23 August 2012 2:00:39 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
< 24 years in Perth. Does that count? >

<< Nope >>

Haaa hahaha!

No wonder I felt the need to ask, coz I somehow didn’t think it would!

So where’s your cut-off point then Pericles?

What to you comprises a real city.. a man’s city…a megalopolis… and what is a woossy excuse for a city?

Sydney – now there’s a real man’s city if ever there wuz one. So presumably Melbourne is too? What about Briz or Adelaide – pretty woossy? Presumably Canberra and Hobart are both totally woossed out!

I’d say Perth definitely makes big city status. It is much more similar to Sydney than it is to Kalgoorlie…. or Townsville!

<< Economic imperatives will eventually drive the necessary changes >>

Absolutely they will. It’s just a crying shame that we seem unable to plan for these changes to any significant extent and have to just be beholden to the whims of changing economics.

<< Since then, it has been only "going up". >>

Since then resource access and quality of life have been going up. But what else has been going up?

Deforestation, overfishing, energy demand, the demand for everything else, the rate of depletion of relatively cheap oil and relatively cheap minerals, the amount of land under agriculture. You get the picture. To say that current indications are pretty good is to seriously not look at the whole picture!

The Club of Rome, Paul Ehrlich and others made predictions, which have not eventuated….yet. But the core of their messages is absolutely spot on!

So I can’t see how my train comments were out of context. No matter which way you look at it, the train is surely heading towards us and not away from us.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 23 August 2012 5:10:38 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
<< You can't see it, because you don't want to see it. >>

You’ve make this sort of statement a number of times in this discussion. But you would surely know by now that it is completely off-track. I am as open to your arguments as anyone could be and will freely express agreement with you wherever it occurs, which it often does.

I am not one to hold on to my views religiously. Rather I am one who is very happy to fully engage those who have some disagreement or total vehement disagreement, and to adjust my outlook accordingly.

One example is my shift from being very pro AGW (a warmist) to being a sceptic.

If you reckon I can’t see something, it is because I have carefully considered it and come to the conclusion that it is not what you purport it to be.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 23 August 2012 5:12:17 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
Fair enough.

>>If you reckon I can’t see something, it is because I have carefully considered it and come to the conclusion that it is not what you purport it to be<<

I'll withdraw the comment.

And that's probably a good point for me to bow out of the discussion. I genuinely believe that people, when left to organize themselves, solve problems a hundred times faster and more efficiently than governments. You take the view that we need to be cared for by a pervasive and all-powerful government.

I suspect that our positions are too far apart to arrive at any meaningful middle ground.

And I really did enjoy my time in Perth. Cracking beaches, fabulous climate, cricket tracks that were an opener's heaven.

It's still a provincial country town in drag, though.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 23 August 2012 5:52:16 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
Thanks Pericles

I have really enjoyed the discussion and would be happy for it to continue for a long time yet.

I totally respect your feeling that it is a good time to end it, but you’ve left me with a comment that I can’t resist responding to.

You say:

<< I genuinely believe that people, when left to organize themselves, solve problems a hundred times faster and more efficiently than governments >>

But governments are not divorced from the people; governments are part of the organisation of the people. And that is why I advocate improved and stronger governance rather than reduced governance.

Hey, did you see my reply to you a few days ago on the ‘Going extinct is no fun’ thread?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13991#241754
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 23 August 2012 8:21:48 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
Well, it is slightly off-topic, Ludwig, but I'll bite.

>>But governments are not divorced from the people; governments are part of the organisation of the people. And that is why I advocate improved and stronger governance rather than reduced governance.<<

Sadly, governments do not see themselves as "part of the organization of people". That is an ideal that probably never existed in the first place, but certainly does not pass even the slightest scrutiny.

Historically, government was a matter of kings-and-subjects. Kings were by definition divorced from the people. When parliaments were invented, in their various guises, they were inhabited predominantly by patricians. While there was a form of connection - the rabble outside the Senate were ever a source of genuine physical fear for the Seantors - it was still effectively command-and-control. With a bit of bread-and-circuses thrown in.

Governments today range from the outright dictatorships of central Africa, through the sham politics of the Duma, to the fraudulent "Representative Democracy" we enjoy. Which is, when you look at it carefully, neither representative, nor democratic. None - not one single one of them - regards itself as beholden to the people. Only to themselves. The Government.

The fact is, unfortunately, that governments invariably take on a life of their own, entirely separate from the citizenry that they nominally represent. We become simply "the numbers", that political parties need in order to carry on their work. The bureaucracy that they surround themselves with is a means to enable them to enact their policies, not to engage with their subjects in any meaningful way.

But that said, I am aware that I am an outsider, and therefore can be treated as if I just don't understand how wonderfully it is all working, truly-ruly.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 August 2012 9:30:17 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
Alright, so then how would the people efficiently organise themselves outside of government without forming what essentially would be a new government, or a new political party that would have operate within the existing regime?

If we are to have good organisation of a very large number of people such as in Sydney, let alone in the whole country, then we’d have to have what amounts to a government, and a pretty big and powerful one at that, wouldn’t we?

And it would no doubt have all the same sort of problems as we now see – inefficiencies, contradictions, vested interests, etc. It’d take on a life of its own, at least to some extent.

Without government or with weak governance, the rule of law would break down and the powerful, ruthless and very strongly self-centred would come to rule.... even more-so than they do now... in fact, much more-so than they do now!

Without government, in times of stressed resources, if the people were left to organise themselves, THIS is what we’d end up with!

There’s also no way in the world that we are going to get a much smaller and less intrusive government. So there’s not much point in pushing for it. But there is a very real point in pushing for better governance, and every expectation that we can get it, because it will be demanded by the people as things get worse.
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 24 August 2012 9:57:39 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
Ludwig and Pericles, you are both right to some extent. Government can be arrogant, corrupt and uncaring of the community. But it can be very responsive too.
This is a subject tackled by a Sydneysider in the 1970’s after conflicts with hopeless government. He decided that government would work better with more input from voters and more notice taken of it by politicians. He figured that as opposed to bureaucrats who could “say NO!”, he would help people to get results from government by going via elected politicians. He learned that many people wrote to their local MP or the relevant minister and got no result. So he invented the Votergram which went to every member of parliament and launched it in 1986. A resounding success to this day it had MPs doing what voters wanted and taking on board good ideas. Because it went to all MPs it was party neutral. Because it went to all MPs it did not matter whether or not the local MP responded. Others would. The opposition pressured the government, Back bench pressured cabinet. Cabinet pressured the minister. It operates in every parliament of Australia.
The NSW Government has now proposed new ways in which the community can be involved in the planning of housing developments. With necessary public participation and negotiation there is every chance that this will rectify the thoroughly corrupt planning processes that have plagued some Sydney suburbs in the last decade. Then with any sort of luck voters will convince politicians to get rid of those offensive bureaucrats who like to work more for the developers than the voters who pay them. Of course it may be that the developers pay them too.They have certainly paid a lot to political parties but voters are getting the upper hand. In any case, many of the developers are in such a perilous financial state that they are likely to collapse as the GFC recession hits Australia.
Posted by Voterland, Friday, 24 August 2012 11:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That is hilarious, Voterland.

>>So he invented the Votergram which went to every member of parliament and launched it in 1986. A resounding success to this day it had MPs doing what voters wanted and taking on board good ideas<<

What on earth did they write about that was such a "resounding success"?

It certainly couldn't have been on the topic of airports, water supply, rail systems, road building or road maintenance, public/private partnerships, unified public transport ticketing systems - in fact, public transport in general... so what could it have been?

Or, perhaps they did write on those subjects.

In which case, I'd suggest that "resounding success" is probably overstating the case.

Monumentally.

But hey, I'm being unnecessarily cynical. Do tell. What resounding successes have been wrought, instigated by the Votergram?
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 24 August 2012 6:11:57 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
<< Then with any sort of luck voters will convince politicians to get rid of those offensive bureaucrats who like to work more for the developers than the voters who pay them. Of course it may be that the developers pay them too.They have certainly paid a lot to political parties but voters are getting the upper hand. >>

Voterland, I would love to think that voters are getting the upper hand with the terrible bias of government towards developers, big business and continuous-growth-espousing pseudoeconomists!

But I can’t see it.

What makes you think that voters are gaining ground here?
Posted by Ludwig, Saturday, 25 August 2012 8:36:01 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. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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