"What would yours be?" A Bombay Blue Sapphire gin and tonic, thanks. But that's not important in the face of…

A cause! This reminds me of some of those debating challenges from classes in high school…

"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?"

Phew, I'm safe. But on the face of it, this might seem slightly unfair. Just because your parents were in the right place when you were born shouldn't protect you if you're a dropkick. So our proposed rendition list should be PC and be inclusive – both of people we want to send back and people we just want to send.

So I've tinkered with the sentence so it reads: >>No person can 'remain' without the government's permission.<<

Here are some words that would pass at a political rally in support of this:

"It is required that he shall not be a burden to the State of which he wishes to become a citizen. In this realistic epoch of ours this last condition naturally only means that he must not be a financial burden. If the affairs of the candidate are such that it appears likely he will turn out to be a good taxpayer, that is a very important consideration and will help him to obtain civic rights all the more rapidly. The question of race plays no part at all."

[25 OLO points if you guess the writer before Googleing]

Now I know those are only words – and their author was over-eager in State implementation of population policy – unfortunately, sometimes they lead to actions that speak too loudly.

Pericles,

I have referred to the 2006 Productivity Report, which shows only a very small increase in GDP per capita, mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, while wages are depressed for the bulk of the population. There are many similar studies from around the world. Prof. Robert Rowthorn (Economics, Cambridge) had this to say in the July 2, 2006 Sunday Telegraph (UK):

" 'We recognise the positive contributions immigration makes to the country and the economy,' the Prime Minister's official spokesman said last week. 'If we don't have migration, we don't have the growth from the economy that we all benefit from.'

He was responding to some concerns about the rate of immigration raised by Frank Field, the Labour MP for Birkenhead - but Downing Street's claim that 'if we don't have immigration, we won't have economic growth' has been stated over and over again since Labour took office in 1997.

If you repeat something often enough, you can perhaps make people believe it. What you cannot do is turn it from being false into being true. And the Government's claim about the economic benefits of immigration is false. As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration.

There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative.

Immigration can't solve the pensions crisis, nor solve the problem of an ageing population, as its advocates so often claim. It can, at most, delay the day of reckoning, because, of course, immigrants themselves grow old, and they need pensions. "

Here is a list (in order from top to bottom) of the top 10 countries on the latest World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index. In parentheses, I have the population growth rate, the population in millions, and the rank on the UN Human Development Index (HDI). Where there are 4 numbers, the last is the HDI rank adjusted for inequality (not available for all countries):

Switzerland (0.199%, 7.7 million, 11, 11)
Singapore (2.0%, 5.3 million, 26)
Finland (0.065%, 5.3 million, 22, 15)
Sweden (0.168%, 9.1 million, 10, 5)
Netherlands (0.452%, 16.7 million, 3, 4)
Germany (-0.2%, 81.3 million, 9, 9)
United States (0.9%, 313.8 million, 4, 23)
United Kingdom (0.533%, 63.0 million, 28, 24)
Hong Kong (0.421%, 7.2 million, 13)
Japan (-0.077%, 127.4 million, 12)

Now tell us again, Pericles and Cheryl, how high population growth is so essential for the economy and giving people a decent quality of life.

Even if you were right, we would still be doomed in the long run, because even you recognise that we can't go on growing the population and using up more and more stuff forever. Eventually there will be a day of reckoning, and surely it is better to have it while there is still something worth preserving.

Cheryl, enough with the childish Nazi inferences. It's pathetic.

Pericles "So I'm using the word artificial in its "opposite of natural" meaning."

So was I. It is "natural" for people born in Turkey to live in Turkey. It is "artificial" for them to live in Canada, Japan or Argentina.

"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?"

I think we should stop all of it, as least for a while, and have a proper democratic process for deciding what, if any, future immigration there will be.

"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?"

None. They're already granted legal permission. Most arrived when our population was smaller and we still had unskilled work.
The issue is *future* immigration, the past has beyond our control.

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

The "other way round" government needs to grant permission, genius.
Frankly, I don't care who *leaves* Australia.

"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?"

It already applies at the other end. Again, couldn't care less who leaves.

"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?"

Net reciprocal arrangements are fine by me, if approved democratically (that is, by "the people") in both countries.

And for those arguing the aging population angle: Harsh as it sounds, the next influenza epidemic will solve that problem.

Pericles, you have gone to some considerable trouble to explore the nature of Japan’s economy, with the express purpose of looking for whatever you can find to criticise it and hence criticise the notion of a country having a non-growing GDP, steady state economy and/or stable population.

Now can you provide a similar depth of analysis on the advantages of a country with a rapidly growing economy and population?

Can you demonstrate that it will be to our advantage in the longer term?

Can you show that it will lead to your greatly desired reduction in government impositions in our daily lives?

THIS is what would really count for something.

It begs the question: if you are willing to put the effort into the sort of research that you have just done to counter Divergence’s claims, then why don’t you do the same to counter the all-important point of mine that I keep reminding you about?

I repeat: an increasing population is only going to lead to more restrictions upon us all. That is just patently obvious. So your great desire for less government imposition and your great condemnation of those who push for lower population levels and growth rates, simply do not add up!

Your repeated sidestepping of this point is looking very strongly as though you’ve been trumped here!

continued

Pericles, you asked:

<< What would those actions be? >>

1. reduce the immigration rate to net zero

2. reduce the immigration rate to net zero

3. reduce the immigration rate to net zero


Pericles, this is just about all that we need to do! We can basically have business as usual, although I’d of course like to see be as environmentally friendly and sustainability-oriented as possible. But the overridingly important point is to curtail expansionism, especially expansion in the demand for goods and services and everything else, so that the ability for our resource base to comfortably meet that demand can be assured, ongoingly.

<< …what would be your plan for 2012-13? >>

Cut a large chunk off the immigration take, so that it can be geared down to net zero over about a five year period.

Now, that’s not difficult, is it?

So I ask you Pericles; what would you have us do? What sort of growth rate and for how long? At what point would you do what us ‘poppos’ want to do now. That is; stop growing…because it has got to happen sooner or later?

If you are happy with current policies, then at what point or due to what factors and in what way would you have it change?

.

Well said Shockadelic.