Just the facts, Sardine. Just the facts.

>>...what evidence can you provide for your assertion that population growth and GDP per capita "have moved hand-in-glove upwards for more than thirty years"? Have you any statistics and graphs at hand to support this claim?<<

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html

(You might need to cut-and-paste this one, for some reason the OLO editor cuts off before the closing bracket)

Here's the ABS version:

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/1383.0.55.001Main+Features132009

And here's the chart of population increase for you:

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met_y=sp_pop_grow&idim=country:AUS&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+increase+australia

You could have checked these yourself, you know, it's not that difficult.

So, rather than call it "my assertion", let's start calling it "the reality". Both statistics, population and per-capita GDP, have risen over the past thirty years. There hasn't been a single year when the population has increased and per-capita GDP has not.

I am not implying that the one leads to the other. I am simply pointing out that Australian history does not support the opposite assertion: that Australia's population growth causes a drop in per-capita GDP.

>>What is your motivation to support domestic population growth?<<

I don't "support domestic population growth", as you put it. In the same way that I don't "support" criminal behaviour, or urban decay, or online gambling. What I do object to is excessive government interference in the way we run our lives. And telling people how many children they may or may not have is interference of the most fundamental nature.

But you are clearly of a different mindset.

>>Domestic and foreign policy should both address [global population control]<<

You see, I find that attitude quite scary.

Pericles,

If you look at the figures in, say, the CIA World Fact Book, you will find no correlation between population size, density, or growth rate and GNP per capita among developed countries (i.e., scattering of datapoints). There is a negative correlation between population growth rate and GNP per capita among the poor countries. So it is hard to see how you could claim that there is a correlation in Australia and not other developed countries. Mining and agriculture, which furnish a lot of our wealth, employ relatively few people, so it could be argued that population growth dilutes the average person's share of the wealth from resource extraction. In Alaska, another resource rich place, the state actually pays dividends to the citizens rather than taxing them.

In any case, it is quite possible for GNP per capita to rise while the average citizen is no better off. Wages in the US have been more or less stagnant since 1973 for the bottom 90% of the population, with all of the benefits of growth going to the folk at the top. More people also mean more pressure on the environment and amenity. Australian ranks near the bottom of the developed world in international comparisons of environmental management, and our own government's Measuring Australia's Progress reports have shown progressive environmental deterioration.

http://epi.yale.edu/Countries

I doubt if anyone here is proposing any limitations on Australians' freedom to have children, as they are collectively making the right choices. What foreigners do is a matter for them. The Australian fertility rate is slightly below replacement level and has been since 1976. Without net immigration, we would get perhaps another million people before the growth ended. We could then stabilise or let the population slowly decline to whatever level we considered optimum. How is it any less a violation of people's freedom if the government forces unwanted population growth on them through mass migration? Or forces them to subsidise large families through the tax system, apart from heavily means tested welfare payments, when the extra people will be of no benefit to them or their children?

@Pericles: I am simply pointing out that Australian history does not support the opposite assertion: that Australia's population growth causes a drop in per-capita GDP.

You seem to be a little confused about who is asserting what. It is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship between population growth and GDP. Some people who want to see the population grow in Australia use "out per capita growth depends on it" as a justification. This is what is being refuted. It isn't difficult to do as the evidence is beyond weak - as the graph demonstrates if there is any relationship it is the reverse of what the people who want population growth claim. But don't get tripped up into thinking we are arguing there is a negative relationship. We don't care that it's negative.

Your nick implies a liking for philosophy. In philosophical terms, the argument being made by the people who promote population growth is "population growth _implies_ per capita growth". Ie A implies B. It is not at all uncommon for people to believe arguing against "A implies B" means you must be arguing for "A implies not B", ie "population growth _implies_ no per capita growth". This is what you are doing here. It is wrong, as in a 1+1=3 type of wrongness.

@Pericles: To then select only those examples that support your theory

No, we didn't do that. For the most part we don't have a theory. As I said, it is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship - hence no theory. That is the default state of the world - there are almost an infinite number of things with no relationship to each other, so asserting there is no relationship is not "having a theory". You are one the who seemed to be asserting there is a direct and positive relationship. But you seem to have backing away from that now. Good. Game over. We have won that round. Lets move other to the other arguments why population growth in Australia may or may not be a good idea.

@Pericles: Domestic and foreign policy should both address [global population control]. You see, I find that attitude quite scary.

Then I suggest you go hide in a box and pretend our scary world doesn't exist.

Because in the real world, we humans are now more interconnected than a colony of ants. Just like the ants if you broke down our social structures we would all die in short order. If the man in South Africa doesn't mine the diamonds to give to the man in Japan to make the drill bit the man in the Saudi Arabia uses to drill the for oil the man in Brisbane uses to produce diesel the man in Biloela uses the farm food, then you die. There is no fat on the land left for you to survive on, even if you knew how. We eat all that ages ago - just ask the Aborigines in central Australia. We now depend on each other to make what we need to survive.

And just like those ants, sometimes the colony has to make collective decisions on what is best for the colony. Decisions on things like "how many individuals can we safely support", or for that matter "which side of the road should we drive on". There is no escape from this because if our "colony" does not seek to protect and adapt in a changing world it will die. If it dies you die. As I said, if this scares you the best you can do is retreat into the rabbit hole Peter Hume or Jardine K. Jardine live in.

It didn't used to be like this. Millennia ago when we lived in small autonomous groups band of 100 or so people could choose their own destinies, if they so wished. Subsequent population growth has taken the choice of living like this away from us.

Blimey, I never thought it would be this difficult to get one simple point across.

I understand why you have called yourself Divergence. Once again, we diverge from the point.

>>There is a negative correlation between population growth rate and GNP per capita among the poor countries. So it is hard to see how you could claim that there is a correlation in Australia and not other developed countries<<

Actually, I'm not entirely sure that sentence makes sense. But one thing needs to be said, and that is, for the absolute last time, I am not claiming a correlation.

Not. Any.

Once more into the breach...

The article we are all supposed to be discussing refers, in its footnotes claims, to "A Sustainable Population Strategy for Australia", which claims that:

"Population growth increases the size of the economy. It does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita"

I am simply pointing out that the history of Australia, at least since 1980, demonstrates the opposite trend. While the population has grown over that period, per-capita GDP has also grown. So the sentence could be more accurately rewritten as follows:

"Population growth has increased the size of our economy. It has also made Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita".

I make no comment, observation, claim or assertion as to cause and effect. I have merely pointed out a glaring disconnect in the reference material used by our sainted author.

And where on earth did this come from, rstuart?

>>It is sufficient for us to assert there is no relationship between population growth and GDP.<<

Who is the "us" of whom you speak?

Because I could draw your attention to a number of folk, including the author of the article we are discussing, who clearly assert the opposite.

I don't know about you, but I am now completely confused as to who is arguing what, and with whom.

But do me a great favour, and stop inventing stuff that you think I mean, and start reading the words I have written.

Pericles, I've already given examples of low pop growth nations increasing GDP per capita faster that fast pop growth nations. Japan's pop is decreasing and the GDP per capita is increasing.

http://tinyurl.com/3wf47y3
http://tinyurl.com/3pxlkza

Other contributors get it, why do you still labor under the misapprehension that growth in GDP per capita requires population growth?

"I am simply pointing out that Australian history does not support the opposite assertion: that Australia's population growth causes a drop in per-capita GDP."

I didn't say that. I wrote that on prima facie evidence (based on comparisons between similar economies), higher population growth rates correlate with slower growth in GDP per capita. That's not a drop, it's inhibited growth (i.e slower growth rate) and it is empirically demonstrable.

Perhaps you are not dishonest after all, it may simply be that you lack comprehension?

"And telling people how many children they may or may not have is interference of the most fundamental nature."

There is a difference between telling people how many children to have and having policies that provide incentives to breed.

"You see, I find that attitude quite scary." What? The concept of governments governing?

In your latest comment you wrote "But one thing needs to be said, and that is, for the absolute last time, I am not claiming a correlation."

Is that right? Well why did you write this...

"Population growth increases the size of the economy. It does not make Australian residents significantly better off as measured by GDP per capita" (quoting the article)

Oh, really?

http://www.indexmundi.com/australia/gdp_per_capita_(ppp).html

But it does, doesn't it. Factually speaking, that is."

and this in reference to the same quoted extract...

"I am simply pointing out that the history of Australia, at least since 1980, demonstrates the opposite trend."

I expect more verbose sophistry to explain how you didn't really mean what you wrote. Not related to Tony Abbott are you?

How can we take you seriously?