Good thinking, chaps.

If you can't play the ball, play the man. Much more satisfying than having to deal with reality.

>>Everyone should stop trying to "debate" with Pericles. He is a "true believer", and immigration is an article of faith to people like him<<

News to me. The "true believer" thing, that is. I just like asking questions. It's not my fault others are unable to sustain a logical sequence of thoughts.

>>And people like Pericles, who claim to want sensible debate, will never, ever want to agree with the Nutzis about anything.<<

Pretty childish, that "Nutzis" schtick. Would be impressive in a school playground filled with nine year-olds, but otherwise is merely a substitute for actually using one's brain.

>>It gives some insight into Pericles stand on this issue if you remember that he prefers foreigners to locals.<<

I take all people as I find them, KarlX.

Including you.

>>Perhaps when he first arrived Australia and timidly ventured out on to Bondi beach, some bronzed Aussie dashing by kicked sand in his face and hes been out for vengeance ever since.<<

Uh-oh. That school playground again.

>>And there are so many other things about his arguments that just don’t add up.<<

You'd like to think so, Ludwig. Only you haven't found any yet. You've invented a few, but you haven't actually identified any contradictions yet.

And many thanks for - once again - pointing out the bleedin' obvious, Wm Trevor.

>>since there has been nothing but 'additional people a year on top of our own population growth' for at least six decades, shouldn't this mean that our standard of living is negative for each of the preceding six decades?<<

Unfortunately facts and logic don't tend to get much of a look in here these days.

Oh, slight error in my calcs, but the general principle is what I was trying to illustrate.

>>since there has been nothing but 'additional people a year on top of our own population growth' for at least six decades, shouldn't this mean that our standard of living is negative for each of the preceding six decades?<<
"
Unfortunately facts and logic don't tend to get much of a look in here these days.
"

Ah but therein lies the rub, the focus on that particular aspect does not make an argument that we are in better shape - far from it when you consider how much we've sold to get here. No one's denying we haven't had improvements in quality of life, what I'm suggesting is that these improvements aren't because of population growth, they are in spite of it - we've simply had the resources to do it.

This is now all changing very rapidly and as mentioned, most of our productive assets are now foreign owned and we continue to not value-add to our raw materials - i.e. decreasing productive industry here.

These changes will affect people in different ways depending on their situation, but the underlying principles of growth through endless population growth are inherently flawed and if we were to actually measure prosperity rather than GDP, the picture would reflect that.

It is bizarre how we are selling down assets and yet claiming we are doing well because of growth in GDP (which includes government spending by the way)

In any case, ultimately, one must make up one's own mind.

I wrote:

>> And there are so many other things about his arguments that just don’t add up. <<

Pericles, you wrote:

<< You'd like to think so, Ludwig. Only you haven't found any yet. You've invented a few, but you haven't actually identified any contradictions yet. >>

Oh this is just irresistible!

I have pointed out a whole bunch of things on this very thread and heaps more in our numerous previous discussions on this subject. In fact, the contradictions just keep coming at a great rate!

For example:

1. You actually like the Japanese economy and their way of life, having lived there for a while. But you also criticised it strongly as an example of a post-growth economy. And the last thing you would want to see in Australia is a post-growth economy!

2. You are hypercritical of government for the level of ‘interference’ in our lives in just about every way… except for their facilitation of very high immigration, and all the very strong negative factors that go with it, which really does amount to enormous negative and totally unnecessary interference in our lives.

These are such fundamental contradictions that I need not go any further.

I just can’t fathom your arguments. It seems to me that the only plausible answers are;

either that you are playing devil’s advocate just for the sake of a good stoush on OLO… or…

you started off with this argument on OLO five or so years ago and you won’t be seen to be backing down no matter what.

The West needs to increase their population to survive the Easts uncontrolled reliance on the west for resources, As the East fail to develop modern farming techniques.

Wm Trevor,

Living standards were much lower in the 1950s and 60s, as were expectations of govenment and unemployment. Furthermore, fewer isn't always better. There is an optimum population for each society, dependent on the level of technology, resource base, culture, etc. If the population is far below the optimum, then the benefits of the extra people can outweigh the extra pressure on the environment, the dilution of natural capital, the infrastructure costs, etc. Just think of a little band of pioneers in a big wilderness. They have enormous natural capital per person, but are too few to make effective use of it.

This doesn't mean that because population growth was beneficial at some time in the past that it therefore always will be. It is good that your bones were growing when you were 8 years old and still growing when you were 12, but you have a very serious problem if they are still growing in the same way when you are 40. The 2006 Productivity Commission report that I linked to earlier makes it clear that we have already passed the optimum. They found very modest per capita benefits, mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves, while wages are depressed for the bulk of the population. If we still were below the optimum, then it would be possible to show big economic benefits from more people.

For some evidence that improvement in living standards (at least in the past few decades) has been in spite of high population growth, not because of it, look up the statistics on the CIA World Factbook or elsewhere for the very low population growth countries on the Competitiveness Index top 10.

An exclusive focus on the economy, however, ignores negatives such as crowding and congestion, skyrocketing housing and utility costs, extra pressure on the environment, etc. See, for example, the Executive Summary Immigration Dept.'s 2010 Long-Term Physical Implications of Immigration report

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/physical-implications-migration-report-1.pdf

For the infrastructure costs, see Jane O'Sullivan's paper in the Feb. 2012 Economic Affairs or this paper on the UK by economist Ralph Musgrave

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/6869/1/MPRA_paper_6869.pdf

"The West needs to increase their population to survive the Easts uncontrolled reliance on the west for resources, As the East fail to develop modern farming techniques."

by that argument Dallas, the west should stop populating and preserve as much farmland as possible and further have a moratorium on the use of farmland for any other use than growing food.

As it stands, Australia is populating over much of it's farmland, selling off large amounts to China, Qatar and other countries - often for mineral extraction - to pay for our 3rd world population growth - if you fail to understand the cost of population growth, you'll never understand why your suggestion doesn't work. There are readily available and humane ways to encourage population stabilisation and even degrowth - and this is far more human than continuing to act as a relief valve for the dispossessed who avoid year after year tackling population growth..

For what it's worth, India could have readily accommodated 500 million but even now is growing at 18 million a year, China have perhaps stopped some 400 million births with their one-child policy but are still growing at 8 million a year. China is engaging in globally staggering land grabs. Some 30-40 million current reside in refugee camps globally.

We make our wealth go far further if we tie foreign aid with family planning, contraception and education of women as well as encouraging prosperity through smaller family sizes. In so doing we assist countries in moving to better quality of life and the freedom to stay where they are - that after all is the preference of most economic/ecological refugees.

Note that India has some 88% usable fertile land (well did have), China around 24%, Australia less than 10%: http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html.