Wonderful stuff. Clear and concise, and spot-on.

The best article I've read on OLO yet.

Well done Cameron.

Yes,I agree,excellent article.High population growth mainly serves vested interests, not the nation.

Well said!
Of course the "utility theory" that economics is based on also leads to the conclusion that to maximise utility one must minimise company profits. (Hence "competition" is seen as Good Thing...so long as it doesn't impact company profits!)
Whilst the corporate spruikers love economics when it benefits them, they also like to ignore this little gem.
When the amount of GDP channelled into rewarding "investors" strips the ware earner's buying power, real productivity stops.
It is actually quite simple: we are in the grip of regressive economics because we have an imbalance in politics and business due to the demographic "hump". We need less rent-seeking and more wages growth. More simply: Howard, Rudd, and the entire Landlord/corporate sycophant set needs to go, and real industry needs to be boosted by supporting R&D.
Bringing in more welfare recipients is not a good approach...but it keeps the current house prices ticking over and keeps wages low. ie. Keep the regressive Ponzi economy ticking over so profiteering can continue.

I will conceed that, unlike most anti-pops, Murray is not a raving loony and knows something about the debate. However, there are various bits of the argument missing. One benefit often cited for immigration is that it makes up needed skills in the economy. Even low-skill workers have their place as they will do the jobs that native-born Australians avoid (cleaning, certain types of laboring ect).. However, most of the immigration to Australia seems to be skilled, and that greatly weakens Murray's arguments about human capital. Another country has done the investing, and we are reaping the benefits. As for arguments that this population level or that population level would place too much of a burden on the nation, most of these can be dismissed out of hand. Agriculture uses up the landscape, not people. the real question is - is our agricultural production sustainable (Yes, but the issue could do with further debate.)

A version of this article was first published (with all hyperlinks and images) here: http://ckmurray.blogspot.com/2010/04/economic-arguments-against-population.html

Curmudgeon, my interpretation of the skilled worker argument is theat large employers of skilled workers don't want to pay the market price for these skills, and would rather have government intervene to allow them to increase the pool of workers with those skills and pay them all a lower wage. There can be no shortage. If the value of these skills to a particular company and the economy in general is so great why aren't they paid accordingly? If particluar skills earn workers a large premium, others will go out of their way to learn those skills in a hurry.

Cam - quite so, that's the way it should happen, of course. But bottlenecks develop in these in-demand skills and the recruitment market never works as a proper market in that expectations and status get in the way. Nurses are a good case in point. There is a shortage so why don't hospitals offer more money to attract more people to that honourable profession? Or is that women (nurses are still mainly female) are less likely to want to be nurses in the first place? In any case, higher wages should be permitted to attract skiled workers from anywhere.. and that includes through immigration.