Pericles "The view that draconian, absolutist action is essential to solve every economic and social challenge is essentially self-defeating."

And what do think will happen when our population reaches maximum capacity? State-imposed limits on childbirth? Perhaps we can give the elderly a helping hand in reaching the grave a little sooner than expected.

"Pretending that stopping immigration will solve any one problem..."

The point is that continuing *exacerbates* problems, not that stopping will solve them.

"According to Shockadelic, we have spent the past two hundred odd years building an entirely artificial society here in Australia."

Take a look at those photos of women in bustle dresses and parasols, sweltering at Bondi during the summer heat.
Artificial? Yes, at first, like any colonial settlement.
A genuine native culture eventually developed, one the pro-pops don't even acknowledge exists.

"this would be stated as "Wogs go home", would it not. Thanks for making your position clear."

I made it clear alright. Those already given permission are here to stay. Civilised people keep their word. The issue is *future* immigration, which cannot be infinite.

Australia needs to increase our population to sustain grown in proportion with our neighbours as they bring their own populations under control.

Apologies, Ludwig. I hadn't noticed.

>>Pericles, you ask me questions, but you’ve made no attempt to answer my questions!<<

You mean these "questions"?

>>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?<<

I have covered this ground on multiple previous occasions. If you haven't worked out by now that I don't think there is anything "to do", outside the eminently conservative and thoughtful immigration process we have now, then you never will.

Apparently the best reason you can think of for us to stop growing is because "it has got to happen sooner or later". On this basis, why did you not stop working at the age of thirty? You have to stop sometime, why not then? If we used the same logic on animal husbandry, we would all be eating veal instead of beef. Or you'd be making tea with tepid water, on the basis that you have to turn the kettle off sooner or later...

Daft.

There is no need for policy change. Our requirements are assessed each year, in terms of sustainability, sound and responsible economic management, and a dash of humanity (for separated families). The fact that you disagree with the numbers does not indicate a requirement to change the policy.

>>...doesn’t that sit at stark odds with the comments in your last post, and with the notion that [Japan] is a poor example of a ‘post-growth’ economy or a state with a stable population!<<

On the contrary, I believe Japan is an excellent example of a post-growth economy. And we should observe the problems they face, and learn from the methods they are adopting to address those. Let's face it, no country has had to face the trauma of a declining population before.

Pericles,

Arguing with you is like arguing with runner. Your assertion that current levels of population growth in Australia (probably the highest in the developed world apart from city states such as Singapore) are moderate is absurd, as is your belief that our politicians are governing in the interests of the nation as a whole and not that of their rich mates. If you want to claim that there are big economic benefits for the majority of Australians, where is your evidence that the Productivity Commission report or Prof. Rowthorn are wrong?

Of course there have been previous episodes of declining population. Just do a search on "Black Death effects on living standards". The economic historian Prof. Paolo Malanima has written on real wage movements in Italy from 1250 to 1913. He has this to say:

"In the Italy of 1913 which was undergoing industrialisation, waged labourers’ living conditions were worse than they had been 500 or 600 years previously... Over a long period, an inverse correlation between population and wage rates dominates: at least from the beginning of the series until 1820. Wage rates increase only in times of population decline, such as the golden age for workers between 1350 and 1450, and the 1630-1750 period."

"From the ratio of the cost of the basic requirements for survival - the poverty line - to the average hourly wage, we deduce that in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries workers had to work 500-1000 hours per year simply to survive, whereas in the nineteenth century about 1500 hours were necessary."

http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Articles/Wages_%20Productivity.pdf

For England, you might look at the 1351 Statute of Laborers, which tried to force working people to accept the same low wages that were prevalent before the Black Death.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/statlab.asp

Are you feeling alright Pericles?

That’s a pretty strange post.

<< I don't think there is anything "to do", outside the eminently conservative and thoughtful immigration process we have now >>

Wow! No I hadn’t quite got the idea from all our previous correspondence that your view is quite this extreme!

As Divergence says;

>> Your assertion that current levels of population growth in Australia … are moderate is absurd… <<

Now, you do play some funny games:

<< Apparently the best reason you can think of for us to stop growing is because "it has got to happen sooner or later". >>

Mmmm…. After the hundreds of posts that I’ve written on OLO outlining just what is wrong with high and ongoing population growth, you come out with a daft statement like this! This is just really poor debating.

You seem to have forgotten that other people read this stuff. There are plenty of older OLOers who know you and me pretty well, and know that I have outlined the arguments for a stable population over and over again.

<< On the contrary, I believe Japan is an excellent example of a post-growth economy. >>

Oh you really don’t make sense. You want Australia to have rapidly growing economy and population with no end in sight and completely denounce the idea of us reaching a post-growth economy.

But you… << have every admiration for Japan and the Japanese economy >>

Let’s stop discussing this population stuff Pericles. There seems to be no point.

How about we discuss road safety stuff instead:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14315#246868

Blimey.

>>Your assertion that current levels of population growth in Australia (probably the highest in the developed world apart from city states such as Singapore) are moderate is absurd<<

Absurd, Divergence? We rank 127th in the world for population growth, according to the United Nations, with a percentage growth rate of 1.01%. Lower than the overall average. Behind such third world countries as Ireland, Israel, Singapore and Luxembourg. And only a smidgeon different to the USA's 0.97%. And that's just the percentage. If you work it out on an actual headcount basis, we are little more than a rounding error. A smudge in the margin, almost undetectable to the naked eye.

Mind you, I do appreciate your proposition that the Black Death can do wonders for worker productivity.

>>Of course there have been previous episodes of declining population. Just do a search on "Black Death effects on living standards".<<

Not sure how you incorporate that into an election manifesto, though.

And please, Ludwig. Even you cannot change history:

>>Now, you do play some funny games: << Apparently the best reason you can think of for us to stop growing is because "it has got to happen sooner or later". >><<

Ummmm, I was only reading back to you your own statement. Go take a look.

>>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?<<

My takeaway from that remark was that you 'poppos' want to stop growing, now, because it has got to happen sooner or later.

Did I read that incorrectly?

And yet again with the black-or-white assumptions:

>>Oh you really don’t make sense. You want Australia to have rapidly growing economy and population with no end in sight and completely denounce the idea of us reaching a post-growth economy<<

Try losing the "rapidly" for a start. Then delete the "with no end in sight". And replace "completely denounce the idea of us reaching" with "accept that at some point we will reach".

That would be closer.