James,

I think you have it the wring way around. The economy is here to service the population, the population is not here to service the economy. The economy is a tool by which to help society run, not an end in itself. I have yet to hear a justification for incresing the population that is not based on the economy.

There are also limits to the carrying capacity of the land where population is concerned, and we are already seeing problems throughout the country in the supply of water. People don't want to pay the true cost of it either. This is one factor, the fertility of the soils is another, as is the current reliance on fossil fuels - the price of oil is unlikley to come down much now, it will just rise.

What an absolute and utter crock.
“As the IGR notes, even a moderately slower rate of growth and a population of 30 million in 2050 would produce a real GDP 17 per cent lower than with a population of 36 million.”
What's the diff between 36 mil, and 30 mil? 'Bout 16.666...% by my reckoning. In other words, Paterson has discovered 17% less people will result in 17% less GDP. Bugger.
Still, GDP isn't that hard to fix. Since it's only a measure of cash transactions, all we need is an ash Wednesday, or a black Friday, or hey! A good flood always boosts GDP.
And the supporting pensioners argument is pathetic, too; unless Paterson thinks we can keep expanding the population without end. Otherwise, as soon as growth stops, the proportion of pensioners has to increase, regardless of total population size -particularly with ongoing improvements in health care and consequent longevity.
So when's the best time to pull the plug, vis a vis supporting pensioners? When there are 3 million of them, or 8 million of them, or 20 million of them?
I'm guessin' the best time for Paterson, is when Paterson is a pensioner.
“...the Coalition should stand on principle and support what is best for the Australian economy, (and to hell with the Australian people) just as John Howard did.”
If you want to grow up to be an economist, you might have to work on those sums a bit more.

Sorry but you are a fool if you think Abbot and his party would honour any of the commitments they give on population or immigration. Or anything else for that matter. They will ramp up immigration and baby bonuses the same as Howard did despite anything they say now. Remember "core and non core" promises. Havent we learned yet? Politicians are liars. FFS Abbot even admitted it and still we act as if he is really going to cut population growth.

This is nothing but populist political point scoring and posturing and in line with everything this "oppose everything" opposition has done since Abbot was made leader.

Indeed I am a hard man Cheryl.

For me Personally, the author would have needed not his experience in politics (which over the years has taught me doesn't mean much at all when it comes to sounds thinking- especially Rudd and Tony Abbot- but instead would actually have to make a convincing and comprehensive case to convince me he's right (instead he makes vague and often false generalizations which I provided plenty of counter-evidence, hence the big debunker is in fact me).

I'm sorry but it's clear Mr Paterson does not intend to make a case but make some spin. He proved his insincerity by saying how the government 'correctly' ignored the will of the public in privatization, which any consumer of the asset sold off will tell you was a gigantic mistake (that is, if the motive for selling it was sincere at all- which I doubt).

All in all, even if he WERE truthfully and unavoidably correct, it would just mean a tradeoff between more space and higher cost of maintaining it (which quite frankly there is no wrong answer depending on what is more important to each person). Of course, a higher population actually puts a huge economic strain unless we permit and pay for the development of more infrastructure and houses (which requires the sacrifice of more land) before they become economically stimulating.

Also the disingenuous and long since debunked 'pensioner problem'- that we need more (working age) people to prop up the pensions for the oldies (assuming we MUST retain the pension), ignoring that these people will also grow old, and the problem will repeat anyway.

When the executive dictates the political agenda and we can merely nod one way or the other, with nary a real choice in sight, HOW IS THAT DEMOCRACY?

I have no f*Yn idea what an SPA line is or isn't, but I do know that isn't democratic.

Any move that is known to be directly opposed by 80% of the population, which the Executive pushes through under the supposed outcome of the democratic process is bunkum, sheer and utter bunk.

If 80% of the population opposes it, fine, we won't give them the chance to vote on that one, we'll just slide it through shall we?

Yeah, if I'm on the wrong side of the line that thinks that is acceptable, that is fine with me.

I can't see why we have trouble selling the democratic process in Afghanistan, it is just like what you had under the Taliban, they make the decisions, you can decide which color turban, but the decisions will be the same.

Population growth does necessarily translate into less welfare per Australia. The more salient aspect of population growth is the sight of more people, including foreigners, utilising more resources - education, health, transport, infrastructure, etc. The benefits of population growth are harder to appreciate - the transfer of skills, knowledge, entrepreneurship, culture, etc.

The fear that population growth is linked to lower standards of living can be attributed to misconceptions of how economies work. More people mean that the economic pie is sliced into more pieces - people fear that their slice is getting less and less. However, the exponential benefits of a greater population mean that the size of the pie gets bigger too - everyone's slice is bigger.