Pericles

There is nothing to stop you presenting arguments in support of strong population growth. You might even start by answering my question as to why you would offer this comment on Eben's research,

"neither population growth nor decline are in themselves necessary or sufficient conditions to determine a specific economic outcome",

after making the comment in a previous thread

"would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children".

Now if you liken "slow but steady" to the effort of Aesop's tortoise, you might conclude that the result can be quite substantial, as I did. Did I "invent stuff"? Well, if you do not present your arguments precisely, then dont get offended if people dont follow them. Perhaps this is one reason for the poor comprehension you frequently observe in others?

Of course there isn't, individual.

>>Pericles There is nothing to stop you presenting arguments in support of strong population growth<<

The fact that I don't do so, should tell you something.

>>You might even start by answering my question as to why you would offer this comment on Eben's research, "neither population growth nor decline are in themselves necessary or sufficient conditions to determine a specific economic outcome"<<

Well, basically because it is true. Do you disagree?

http://www.sfu.ca/~swartz/conditions1.htm

I also gave two examples that illustrated the point.

And once more - although I sometimes wonder why I bother - I offered "would you like more people in Australia, or suffer a slow but steady decline in your standard of living, and that of your children" as a potential qualifier to your somewhat one-eyed "If you ask people the question 'would you like more people in Australia', the majority would indeed answer 'of course not'."

It is true that I share the view of many, that our demographic makeup will become painfully skewed in the next couple of decades, if we do not maintain a reasonably substantial base of income taxpayers.

That does not qualify me for inclusion in any group described as "pop growth cargo cultists", who favour "never-ending expansionism, where continuous growth is purported to be vitally important"

But it is clear from this thread alone that intelligent debate is not possible, if you refuse to listen to anything that even vaguely suggests that we have not yet, by a very long way, fulfilled our potential as a Nation.

Apologies, that was a response to Fester

Pericles

I agree with you that there are implications for an ageing Australia, but is increasing immigration an answer?

For one thing, the problem Australia now faces is in part because of post WW II migration. I mention this to emphasise that while immigration might buy you a few years, it leaves you with a bigger problem to deal with subsequently.

In addition, the current high rate of immigration is causing massive public sector debt, which will make the impact of declining tax revenue from fewer taxpayers far more calamitous.

I look at the flood disaster in Queensland and think how much worse is the financial burden because of the many tens of billions of dollars borrowed to pay for the infrastructure for a rapidly growing population. How much more difficult will it be to deal with the consequences of an ageing population if governments are still burdened with this debt?

My own view is that every effort should be made to make ageing Australians as healthy as possible. Preventive health programs and public health initiatives, such as compulsory reductions in the fat and salt content of processed foods, would be a start. And despite Cheryl's claim that antipops dont consider technology, I am very optimistic of the potential of technology to improve things. The successful treatment of tuberculosis had a tremendously positive economic impact. There is every reason to believe that further advances in medicine could also make a substantial difference.

Are you sure, Fester?

>>In addition, the current high rate of immigration is causing massive public sector debt<<

I'd like to see some evidence of that, if you have some.

And just one small point.

>>...which will make the impact of declining tax revenue from fewer taxpayers far more calamitous.<<

Tax revenues are unlikely to decline in the future. On the contrary, they are more likely to increase as demands upon the public purse grow.

I obviously like your idea that we should keep our ageing population healthy, but this doesn't simply happen, free of cost. It requires health programmes and their associated health workers, plus, don't forget, willing participants. Who, if they work hard at it, are going to live even longer...

So we will continue to need to extract more - not less - in taxes. From a diminishing base.

It is not enough to talk of population growth in terms of slogans ("Ponzi schemes"). We need to apply some serious thought to what we want, and how we achieve it. Simply saying "we're full. No more", doesn't help.

<I'd like to see some evidence of that, if you have some.>

I would have thought it obvious that the Australian living standard is underpinned by a per capita infrastructure cost. So when you increase the population, you must provide new infrastructure as well as maintain or upgrade existing infrastructure. I have heard that the infrastructure cost for a stable population typically amounts to about an eighth of the budget, based on a fifty year average lifespan for the infrastructure. With two percent population growth the cost amounts to about a quarter of Government expenditure, so it is unsurprising that governments in Australia have gone heavily into the red in recent years. And despite this there is still a national infrastructure shortfall of some 700 billion dollars.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/careers/engineers-slam-lack-of-investment-the-nation-needs-new-infrastructure-spending/story-fn717l4s-1225987412246

Without pursuing high population growth, you do not have the high cost of providing infrastructure, which greatly eases the financial burden on government.

<I obviously like your idea that we should keep our ageing population healthy, but this doesn't simply happen, free of cost.>

I think of it in terms of the net benefit, Pericles. Water fluoridation is another example of a public health measure which delivers a benefit far in excess of its cost. Salt reduction is another measure which could deliver a very substantial public health benefit.

http://www.suite101.com/content/salt-reduction-improves-health-a194393

The big unknown is what will technology deliver and when, but I think it unreasonable to think that the advance of medicine will stop.

But I think you might also take another look at Provo, Utah. You have spoken of us needing to grow in order to reach our potential, yet Provo seems to offer much with a population of about 120,000.