Still carrying on like the proverbial two-bob watch, Ludwig.

>>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!<<

Cobblers.

>>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!<<

Wrong, on both counts. I did not "criticise" the Japanese economy, I merely observed the challenges they face. And I will welcome a "post-growth" Australian economy, as and when it becomes economically feasible. Right now, it is the last thing we need, but eventually we will need to adjust.

What I take issue with is your insistence that, for reasons that you have yet to explain, we have to act now! now! now!

>>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<<

Look more closely, Ludwig. Your argument that my position is somehow contradictory rests solely and entirely on your own view, that immigration is "very high", and that it therefore involves "very strong negative factors".

If you take your personal views out of the equation, my concern over increasing government interference sits perfectly amicably with my attitude towards their present policy. To me, their stance is reasonably well balanced.

I suspect that this "everything is either black or white" disease is preventing you from finding an equally balanced view. For the record, I don't believe we can or should grow in an unlimited fashion. Nor do I advocate anarchy, merely a responsible government with an emphasis on personal freedom, as opposed to one with a desire to control every aspect of our lives.

Probably too subtle for you, I know, but it is important to try.

Pericles

OK, so you don’t have an inherent problem with a no-growth economy, or I should say; a no population growth society where economic growth can continue and can then actually lead to meaningful average per-capita growth.

And you have no problem with Australia achieving this at some point.

So the only thing you take issue with me over in this whole broad subject is that I want us to gear down to zero population growth quickly.

<< What I take issue with is your insistence that, for reasons that you have yet to explain, we have to act now! now! now! >>

For goodness sake, yet again I say that I have COPIOUSLY stated the reasons for acting in the short term. I’m not going to delve into it yet again. I’ll just give you a few key words – water supplies, stressed services and infrastructure, congestion, environmental degradation, quality of life, more restrictions, etc, etc.

Crikey you are odd: you accuse me of raising the population issue too often and then you accuse me of not having explained what is wrong with continuous rapid population growth. Of course, every time I mention it on a new thread, I relate directly to the subject at hand and explain the connection!

It’s a bewildering criticism, just as is your assertion that I see things in a polarised black and white manner. No one is less polarised on OLO than me, and you know it. So how about giving the knowingly false accusations the big flick.

I wrote:

>> 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 <<

You replied:

<< Look more closely, Ludwig. Your argument that my position is somehow contradictory rests solely and entirely on your own view, that immigration is "very high", and that it therefore involves "very strong negative factors". >>

continued

I’m looking very closely….. and I don’t see an answer to my point in your comments. I see an unfounded assertion, and one that I assert is just plain wrong when you say:

<< my concern over increasing government interference sits perfectly amicably with my attitude towards their present policy. To me, their stance is reasonably well balanced. >>

I mean, what is so difficult about the notion that our infrastructure and services are stressed, as is our basic resource supply capability, not least with water, and all the other problems that we are having that are made worse or at least not made any better by rapid population growth?

Surely the thing to do is to at least pull back on population growth for a while until we regain a higher standard in all these areas. And it would be eminently sensible to simply stop population growth forthwith until we are entirely confident that every aspect of our society is up to scratch and can stay up to scratch with a renewed immigration intake.

Why on earth do you want near record high immigration, or as you would call it; moderate immigration, to continue under the current regime of substandard infrastructure, services, etc?

And how do you propose that we change our ways so that we can have this level of population growth without it leading to a lower average quality of life where there would be increasing government-imposed restrictions as well as rising-cost and goods/services-access restrictions upon us?

You can’t! Rapid population growth does indeed sit in absolutely stark contrast to a lower level of government impositions and a higher level of freedom and quality of life.

Not here you haven't, Ludwig.

>>...yet again I say that I have COPIOUSLY stated the reasons for acting in the short term<<

You have somehow convinced yourself that this country has problems with "water supplies, stressed services and infrastructure, congestion, environmental degradation, quality of life, more restrictions, etc, etc." Problem is, these compaints exist only in your mind. By any measure, apart from some localized problems such as NSW's political paralysis in failing to solve our transport challenges, we have in our cities the most envied quality-of-life in the world.

And guess what? "Stabilizing" our population is not going to solve the problem of political incompetence. If anything, it will give governments even more excuses for doing nothing, especially when their revenues start to dry up, as they inevitably will under your stagnation plans.

>>No one is less polarised on OLO than me<<

But still you insist that we are facing problems that can only be resolved by instituting the Ludwig plan. Any other scenario is - by your definition - dangerous and unworkable. Even in this same post, you still insist on calling our present situation one of "rapid population growth", when the growth numbers have been steady for many decades.

I have no idea how you and I can rationalize the discrepancy in our views. I see Australia as providing a growing population with continuing prosperity and comfort, that for many decades to come will still be regarded by the rest of the world as virtually unattainable. Ask Greece. Ask Ireland. Ask Italy. Ask Portugal. Ask Mississippi. Ask Ethiopia.

But then, I'm a glass half-full guy. Maybe things look far more gloomy from where you sit. But surely you're not expecting your empty beaches to be overrun by the madding crowd any time soon, are you?

I'm pretty sure that your depressed outlook for Australia as a whole is rooted in some kind of personal depression, despite all those lovely beaches, and your thoroughly blissful FNQ lifestyle.

As that proverbial barman asked that proverbial horse, why the long face?

Homeless is not a problem here as those with a left bent want less while the nimby no growth envy those who could build a better model, which will put their home in the shade.

"As that proverbial barman asked that proverbial horse, why the long face?"

Was it because he didn't have a drink named after him?