We are better off!?
Really!?
Back in 1973, two and a half times the average family income would buy a house on a traditional quarter acre!
Now its somewhere north of seven times; or, roughly triple!
And the quarter acre, 1,000m, has shrunk to around 600m.
Back in the late fifties/early sixties, we were the third most prosperous nation on earth and a creditor one at that.
Just prior to the GFC, we had tumbled to around number thirty, with record growing foreign debt, already well over a trillion?
The gap between the haves and the have nots, has never ever been wider, with well over 40% living below or just above the poverty line; and, its a demographic that appears to be growing exponentially?
The "we", as alluded to, appears to be a still shrinking, self serving, selfish, I'm all right jack, demographic?
Like baby Boomers, with two or more investment houses, paid for by tenants and negative gearing, {or middle class welfare,] and set up for a lazy lay about retirement, living in a gated community; or, a very high class prison of their own making?
If we put our baby boomer blinkers on, well may we claim, we have never been better off, or better fed!
[And adopting the advice of the club of Rome, has already been trialled in places like drought and famine ravaged Ethiopia!]
It must be like living in a bubble ,surely?
And the Greeks, the Spanish, the Irish and the disfranchised Yanks etc/etc, all now know what happens to bubbles!
Rhrosty.

Don, you seem to be implying that those who are against population growth are against all growth.

It is just the opposite. We (and I think I can speak for most of those on OLO who oppose continuous population growth) want an end to population growth, or at least a considerable lowering of the growth rate, so that economic growth can translate into real quality-of-life improvements, instead of battling to duplicate services, infrastructure and everything else for ever-more people.

You wrote:

<< Economic growth is not a goal in itself. Rather it is the means to good social ends. In particular, it should be the outcome of policies whose aim is to improve the living standards of the Australian people. >>

Yes, but let’s add a couple more things; not just good social ends and living standards but also a good quality of environment, and most importantly, it needs to achieve these things in an ongoing sustainable manner.

<< Don't attack economic growth… >>

Too right, we shouldn’t be attacking economic growth. That is; REAL economic growth that will achieve the right goals and do so without significant negative factors.

And if we can stop population growth, we will have a MUCH better chance of achieving real economic growth.

Rhrosty
Loathe as I am to correct your learned dissertations, we are not number 30 in terms of per capita wealth.. we are still top 10. Maybe you should take a closer look at your source on that one. My recollection is that in fact we've moved up recently because of the mining boom, although just where we are in the rankings escapes me..

As for the bit about housing, that may be right although remember that the average house now is much better than the average house of decades ago and the price may include things like swimming pools, air conditioning and landscaping. In fact, the real increase has been in the price of land for geographical reasons..

A few reality checks Mr Aitkin.

--Concern about global warming does not equate to being anti-growth as you imply. This is pure poppycock. Not all, not even most, people who recognise the dangers of global warming are Greenies. What is more, most Greenies are not so much environmentalists as recycled Stalinists and their acolytes.

--Economic growth is good but there is an important qualifier. The benefits must be spread across society. It doesn’t help if the economy as a whole grows while an actual majority find themselves getting worse off as has happened in the US over the past decade or so. Once that happens you lose the consensus that makes growth possible in the first place.

"Concern about global warming does not equate to being anti-growth as you imply"

This is a loaded statement; most of the 'growth' associated with AGW and in particular renewables is totally non-productive and also a vast opportunity cost.

Literally $billions has been been spent subsidising renewables which are a scam; distortions of resources occur as well as cost cascading through the economy and community.

Apart from this I would query that most who believe in AGW are not 'greenies'; if they are not 'greenies' then I would submit they have a vested interest, financial, ideological, in AGW. Everyone else who supports AGW I would classify as suckers.

cohenite,

You're always accusing me of wanting to live a misguided "natural" existence.....as if anyone who questions "rampant" growth wants to take us all back to caves.

What about the notion that economies don't have to be "on the boil" constantly - that it's possible to achieve a simmer and still have a decent lifestyle without so much despoiling of the environment - a form of moderation, if you will?