Cheryl,

We get it. Nobody loves you and your only hope of salvation is to bring more desperate people here so you can increase your CHANCES. You have a vested interest in endless immigration. Based on the level of intellect you display here, no one will EVER find time for you. You, like the people smugglers and the migration agents and the property developers and certain politicians make a business out of stealing the rights of Australian citizens and giving them to strangers because you can make some kind of selective Malcolm Fraseresque benefit or profit from it.

You are a very selfish person masquerading as a humanitarian.

The reality is that Australians take a whole day to see a doctor now. The waiting rooms are full of people who cannot even speak english. Despite government propaganda our living standards are plummeting.

It is not selfish to fight for a decent living standard nor is it selfish to thus fight for an end to immigration.

If Immigrants paid $300,000 HECS style fees equivalent to my kids at University for the equivalent upgrade in their life potential just by coming here, then they would be more welcome. As it is they are just bludging on the infrastructure Australians have worked so hard for and paid so much for over our lifetimes. Further we are having to pay over & over for it so others can come here and use it.

It cannot continue. The tax burden on Australians is about to skyrocket with megalomaniac state premiers like Barry O'Greiner going to sharply raise OUR taxes to pay for their PERSONAL immigration benefits. There will be a revolt already seen in the backlash to NSW education cuts.

So pull your head in and listen to the MAJORITY of your peers. Immigration is like dividing 1 by a very big number. The more you divide into it the less each person gets. This is also called the Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics(2LT). And Australians far and wide are getting P'd off.

ITM immigrants must pay $300,000 HECS to raise their living-standards. Just like any other Australian.

Actually KEAP, you and your bearded gnomes on the Khmer Rouge inner suburban far left don't get it because you don't use the ABS, Workforce data or look at government agency websites re immigration data.

That's just plain embarrassing. Time and time again re the anti-pops outrageous claims re population, food, energy have been simply contradicted by government or UN data - not youtube videos! My interest in the anti-pops is psychological: they have the profile you'd find in a sociopath.

Let me pop another balloon for you. International students (who pay full fees) are not only included in the Census but also as migrants (although temporary). There are more than half a million of them who pay their way, buy cars, and yes, even buy food. Your food KAEP, which you had hoped would go to your blonde blue eyed children.

Look in the mirror Cheryl.

Don't you get it!

YOU'RE the sociopath.

You HATE your fellow Australians so much.

You WANT a whole new batch of foreigners to play with. Because no one likes you.

ITM migrants must pay $300,000 HECS fees to come to Australia to upgrade their lives same as any other Australian who wishes to upgrade their lives.

That to a normal human being is JUSTICE. Only a sociopath could possibly find it aberrant. And I include unloved politicians like Fraser and magic pudding developer billionaires and people smugglers and migration agents as just as sick as you are, Cheryl. But you lot are NOT a majority and that's the real point. You are going to have to confront the truth of the evil you are espousing.

And very soon!

Japan as a "test case", eh, Divergence?

>>A good test case is Japan, where the population is actually shrinking, albeit slowly.<<

The makewealthhistory article is entirely superficial, and larded with wishful thinking. The fact that it says that The Economist "has not yet entered the 21st century" declares its lack of interest in reality.

But I'm glad you still read it.

>>See also this article from the Economist, where they say that per capita GNP in Japan has been growing faster than in the US or Europe<<

Apart from the obvious - that as population shrinks, the per capita GDP will grow in the short term - note the last five words in the headline:

"Japan’s economy works better than pessimists think—at least for the elderly"

I also read some of the observations made as a result of the article, including this one:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/11/lost-decades?zid=306&ah=1b164dbd43b0cb27ba0d4c3b12a5e227

"My colleague calls the demographic issue bad luck; I think he lets the Japanese government off too easy. True, as your population ages by definition you have fewer workers and a greater share of resources channelled toward retirees, and both of these factors lower growth. But it sounds as though Japan could have done some things to ease its burden, including cutting pension benefits or allowing more trade and immigration."

Perhaps you feel comfortable with the idea that as a replacement for growth, we should allow our government to borrow more money, to emulate the Japanese model even more closely. As you probably know, Japan's sovereign debt is presently 236%. And still rising.

Here's what the IMF had to say in their recent report:

http://www.imf.org/external/np/ms/2012/061212.htm

"Addressing Japan’s fiscal vulnerabilities will require sustained adjustment and bold efforts to raise long-term growth".

The inescapable conclusion is that the combination of events and policies in Japan has caused financial weakness. So be very careful what you wish for.

It also should not need to be highlighted that there are very few similarities between our two economies, at any level whatsoever. Using them as any kind of example to Australia is effectively shooting your theory in the foot.

You're not helping The Cause either, Shockadelic.

>>If you take 100,000 people who were not living here, then bring them into Australia, that is "artificial"<<

Our immigration policies have been extremely consistent for most of my lifetime. I'd categorize this - letting a number somewhere less than 1% of our population in through the doors each year - as our natural state. So I'm using the word artificial in its "opposite of natural" meaning.

Perhaps you'd let us know which of the two main categories you feel we should reduce or eliminate: workers with the skills and qualifications we need, or close relatives of existing Australian citizens?

Or alternatively, perhaps you'd like to tell us which of the ten million immigrants that have arrived here since 1950, you would like to send back?

>>No person can migrate without the government's permission.<<

I assume you are only referring to inbound migration. How do you feel about the other way around?

Would you apply that "not without government permission" rule to those young Australian graduates who want to further their careers overseas? If not, why not?

Or perhaps you would only allow them to go to countries with whom we had a reciprocal import/export arrangement? What countries might they be?

And these are lovely words, Ludwig.

>>Keeping population growth and the ultimate size of the population down, erring on the side of caution, striving to make sure that the demand for our basic resources can be comfortably met in an ongoing manner... this is what we need to keep restrictions to a minimum and the level personal freedoms to the maximum.<<

They might pass at a political rally. But behind the words are (presumably) actions. What would those actions be?

What policies, that are different from today's, would you like to see? Better yet, given we already have a process in place, what would be your plan for 2012-13? You've seen the government's numbers, and their rationale.

What would yours be?

And why?

Dear KEAP,

I may be the devil incarnate and Lord of the Flies all rolled in to one (you'd like that) but neither you or any of the anti-pops have given any proof about future carrying capacity of Australia, future ore finds, new oil and gas finds or actually anything above the level of a youtube presentation.

You have been so fixated with consumption you are blind to any other intellectual or programatic pursuits re how economies function or even, for that matter, how economic policy is formulated.

Nor have you bothered to read more widely about the ageing population, mortality rates of the port war generation between 2030 and 2050 or any studies on international population growth rates. Your posts have been the intellectual equivalent of an itch.

Even the anti-pops uberleader Michael-in-Adelaide has vacated the field knowing that when these anti-population parties hit the hustings at the next election, they will torn to shreds. You can't even muster anything that resembles a coherent debate.

You really need to read more widely on economics. You propound arguments that are not only wrong but a few are dangerously wrong to civil society.