Everald, happy octogenarianism!!

So, what about Australia’s ever-growing population?

How does that factor into your desire for a balanced economy?

It seems as though it doesn’t at all!

Surely as we come off the end of the mining boom and struggle to find a better national mix of economic income, it is going to be enormously important that the demand for everything that economic income provides is also reined in.

As I keep saying; we can’t just deal with the supply side of the equation, we’ve got to address the demand side as well. And currently the demand side is in runaway mode – it is very rapidly increasing with no end in sight, due primarily to our absurdly high immigration rate.

And people such as yourself and Ross Elliot (who has an article up today on OLO to which I have just responded) and so many others who try to analyse our economic future and national wellbeing just completely ignore this factor!

This I find just staggering and bewildering!

what complete and uttter..

pause

i recall, anna blight..went to china..with clive
together..they got a ONE contract..with china,..for 65 billion

of that qld govt gets cents in the dollar..
when,,JUST THAT ONE CONTRACT,,could have cleared..AL STATE DEBT*..then standing at the same ammasing number..

so here is the deal..we got clive[anna got clive
65 BILLION DOLLARS..qld gets HOW MUCH

lost how much..just by clive's one deal
sure govts CAN survive without minning..but if govt DID the mining..,we wouldnt have so much mopney trying to corrupt polies

I wanted to start a thread..WHERE ARE THEY NOW?
you know..where EVERY public servant past/present..is
and where our pm/minesters etc..are getting their fix from NOW

how many ex pm's stayed in oz
so many questions..but yes to a different question

CAN AUSTRALIA SURVIVE WITHOUT THE CLIVE PALMERS?
reaping the cream..off things they FORCED govt to do

Ludwig - yes, our growing population is good, but planning for it could always be improved.

As for the article's main themes it usually works out that countries exploiting resources do not get a manufacturing base as well.. there are exceptions, notably the US and that's mostly because its big enough for both, but that's the general rule - referred to as the Dutch Disease.

Another point is that the economic well being of a country is only loosely connected, if at all, with the exploitable resources it has. Think of Finland, with nothing much but a bunch of lakes and forests and is in darkness fo six months of the year, achieving one of the highest per-capita incomes in the world. Then think of Nigeria which has vast resources, including lots of oil, but has been an economic basket case for most of its existence.

You may counter with New Zealand which doesn't have resources but has a per capita income below that of Australia. Sure, but in that case the difference is more likely due to NZ not getting rid of the industry and agriculture protectionism to the same degree Australia has..

I'm all in favour of the mining industry but Australia might do just as well without it..

re; "This means that 'fly in fly out' strategies for employment must be given as limited a life as is possible as it is socially destructive to mining families and disruptive to any sense of community in rural areas where mines are established. The rule must be that, if you want to operate a mine, you must create a good society around it, preferably in cooperation with other mines and industries."

That hardly makes sense for areas where no one wants to live. Who would want to raise a family, long term, near the geographical centre of WA.

Mining towns built in remote locations disappear or hang on by subsidy when the the ore body is depleted. There are already several places in Australia where that has happened or will.

At the rate at which each iron ore body in WA is being depleted housing development at each mine site is nonsensical. No WA iron ore mine will have along life.

Mines should arrange sensible fly in fly out rosters, pay for the the time and cost of travel and pay wages that allow people to buy homes in locations where people want to live. For WA ore mines that might mean along the coast between Bunbury and Perth.

If a proposed mine is not an economical proposition under such an arrangement it should not proceed.

Its as Foyle says.. FIFO is the only possibility for getting workers to those sites in the first place.. try to get them to settle there and they just won't go..

The author says.....So, what should we do about creating a balanced economy in which mining is a stable cornerstone?

Good luck, I say,as any hope we had of developing alternate industries was taken away when labor took an axe to IR laws.

When the likes of Myer look to close several stores on Sundays, citing wage costs, you know we have a huge problem.

Most other industries are gone and I doubt they will ever return as nobody can trust governments anymore.

In our quest to be a global player, we forgot that to be a competitive player, you must have a competitive cost base for which to trade with.

No chance, as those days are gone.

Everard, the small miners have as much right to be there as the large ones and it is the latter who are creating the oversupply.
I don't think you know a lot about the manufacturing industry either. Not only is the high dollar forcing them out of business, the drain of good tradesmen to the mining sector also is a major contributing factor.

Curmy. I suggest you take a trip to the U.S. and have a look at the state of their manufacturing industry. (I have just returned). In another ten years or perhaps even less, they will not have a motor car industry. Most of the smaller cars are imports and with the price of gasoline now over a dollar, this trend will only increase. Our motor industry is heading the same way in spite of the propping up by various governments.

Under One God:
There was a time, when we still had a illuminating light on the hill, your rational argument would have found majority agreement?
A time when we were the third most prosperous nation on the planet and a creditor one at that!
A time when the gold standard held sway; and, which if still in place, would have virtually prevented the recent GFC.
Look, we likely have, to our immediate north, a hydrocarbon bonanza to rival or even eclipse the entire known Middle East reserves?
Moreover, if we used these reserves, to replace fully imported fossil fuel, we would see an immediate reduction by at least 38%, carbon production?
So, what did we do?
Why, declare a huge new marine park to virtually lock away all these potential reserves, which when fully exploited. I believe, would likely earn us around a trillion dollars plus per; meaning, we could retire this nations entire debt, avoid the New Great depression currently threatening the rest of the world; and, put enough cash/capital into our economy, to seamlessly transition to a low or carbon neutral economy, which somebody needs to pay for.
DTE basic common sense, gave us the aforementioned economy!
And unfathomable rank stupidity, gave us what we have now, and a completely self-made Clive, who was born in the log cabin he built with his own hands? Or Iron ore mining moguls Twiggy or Gina.
Both of who seem to have a problem with tax!?
If we the people but exploited our own resources, as evoked?
Nobody, rich or poor, would need to ever pay tax!
And the entrepreneurs would be free to go for it, with everything they have?
Only, in a truly rationalised economy, they would find both energy and capital, completely quarantined from their often mindless mercantile mechanizations? And mining would forever remain a contractual occupation only? And regardless of market conditions, contractual imperatives, would guarantee expected bankable returns! After all, 50% of something is one hell of a lot better than 100% of bugger all, or bankruptcy!
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty, pardon my ignorance, but what's this hydrocarbon bonanza you refer to.

Hello Ludwig. I have written several articles on population in my newsletter Everald @Large over recent years so I can assure you that I have not forgotten about population. The world is grossly overpopulated but Australia is significantly underpopulated, with eighty percent of our population in capital cities - where they should not be. We need population in rural and regional Australia and this is a goal that I constantly promote. Everald

"Enormous opportunities abound in providing food security for the whole world, commencing with our neighbours in Asia, but we have not looked seriously at the enormous possibilities of this.... We can use mining as the economic power base from which we launch our stable prosperity to new heights."
Sorry Everard, but these two statements are mutually contradictory, at least as far as coal seam gas is concerned. The mining of CSG risks the water supply upon which Australian agriculture depends.
The coal seam gas industry has conceded that extraction will inevitably contaminate aquifers. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association told a Sydney public meeting that good management could minimise the risks of water contamination, but never eliminate them.
"Drilling will, to varying degrees, impact on adjoining aquifers" said the spokesman, Ross Dunn. "The extent of impact and whether the impact can be managed is the question."(SMH Aug 3/11)
In other words they don’t know what drilling through the aquifers will do, and they don’t know if they can fix resulting problems.
The risks of water catchment pollution from other mining activities (coal, gold, rare earths) is also well documented.
We cannot allow short-term greed for mining royalties put at risk the enormous opportunities providing food security opens up for Australia now and into the future. Particularly when mining coal seam gas is already acknowledged to be capable of lasting only one generation. Food production is indefinitely sustainable- if our greatest natural resource, our clean water sources, is protected.