Pericles,

Big business should be entitled to put its views to government like anyone else. We simply believe in "one person, one vote", not "one dollar, one vote". Even if you are correct about what would maximise GDP, there are other things that matter in life besides money. Big business has inordinate influence on the US government. You might take a look at those links I posted earlier to graphs in the State of Working America report to see how brilliantly that has worked out for ordinary people, even in narrow economic terms.

You also like to portray us as a few disgruntled activists on the fringes, but the vast majority of the population agrees with us, not you, about mass migration. They are quite capable of seeing that it has no advantages for them or their families in economic terms and that the resultant high population growth is damaging to their quality of life in a number of ways. Kevin Rudd's popularity tanked when he made that statement about believing in a Big Australia, when "the focus groups went ballistic". See this poll that was conducted at about the same time and the video of Ross Gittins, the Economics Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html

Not so. That is pure revisionism, Divergence.

>>Kevin Rudd's popularity tanked when he made that statement about believing in a Big Australia<<

His poll numbers tanked when he proposed the proposed Resource Super Profits Tax, at the same time that the Senate rejected his Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

And politicians of integrity are supposed to lead, rather than slavishly follow the polls. Gillard's backflip was merely par for the course for a government that lacks any skerrick of integrity or ethical foundation.

I admire Ross Gittins - I can see two of his books on my bookshelf, even as I write - and I think he is absolutely correct when he says on the video that you posted:

- that Australia as a whole has been anti-immigration "since the days of the White Australia policy, going back to a previous century". What we are seeing today is the same old fortress Australia stance, that blithely ignores the massive benefits the country has reaped from the increase in its population. I categorize it as classic dog-in-the-manger.

- that the recent debate on population "got mixed up with boat people", which has allowed the fear-mongers and rabble-rousers to further muddy the waters.

- that we need a proper debate on the subject. Gittins quotes "scientists saying we can't carry all that many" and economists saying "of course we can", and suggests - correctly in my view - that we should bring the topic into the open for detailed examination.

Unfortunately, we are fundamentally incapable as a nation of looking further than the end of our noses - or in Ludwig's case, the end of his beach. So the chances of an intelligent debate, free of xenophobia or Greenie scaremongering, are, regrettably, precisely nil.

@ Pericles

Hear hear.

Pericles "we should bring the topic into the open for detailed examination.....an intelligent debate, free of xenophobia or Greenie scaremongering"

i.e. not a debate or "open" examination at all, just *your* agenda only (Mr Status Quo).

Just look at these threads on OLO. Nice "open debate", eh?

Hanson tried to open the debate, got a million voters.
What's happened since? Nothing. Business as usual.

Pericles, the quality of your comments is really tumbling. And that’s from an already very low level!

What is so hard for you to understand about this statement?:

<< You make the assertion that I want to cut big business out of the loop, which of course is utter nonsense! Big business, small business and in-between business have all the right in the world to lobby vigorously for what they want. >>

Why have you then come back and said again that I want to cut big business out of the loop?

It would be wonderful if we could just have a sensible debate. But instead I get a constant stream of false assertions about my views. Your previous post to which I politely responded last time was full of this stuff. You assert that I hold positions and views when you either don’t know my exact views or do know full well that I don’t hold those positions!

This is of extremely poor form. Any drongo can do that if he’s got no qualms about verballing, defamation and the complete destruction of his/her own credibility!

So again, I will say: I do not want to cut big business out of the loop, as if I hadn’t already said it crystal clearly!

You have a great deal of criticism for government. I would have thought that you’d agree that government at all levels is unduly influenced by big business and that the balance needs to be shifted so that the wishes of the ordinary citizen are better catered for and the wishes of the already rich and powerful are a little less pandered to.

But no, it seems that your desire to disagree with Ludwig takes higher priority!

The same thing applies with compulsory versus optional preferential voting. Clearly, OPV is much more democratic and in line with a better quality of governance, and is surely something that you should be supporting.

But hey, ‘that horrible Ludwig character is against CPV, therefore I’m for it!!’

Well, that’s how it’s looking to me!

It is always enjoyable hearing your opinion of my contributions, Ludwig.

>>Pericles, the quality of your comments is really tumbling. And that’s from an already very low level!<<

They invariably appear immediately after I have caught you out on some inconsistency or other, as in this case.

>>Why have you then come back and said again that I want to cut big business out of the loop?<<

You can protest all you like, but the gist of your complaint has always been that big business has too much influence on government policy, is it not?

>>As I keep saying, and I keep being dismayed by the lack of interest in this: the main problem seems to be the enormous bias inflicted on our government by big business, which drives unending rapid population growth.<<

So what is your remedy for this situation? Presumably it is to find a way to eliminate this "enormous bias", yes?

Exactly how far is "eliminating the bias" away from "cutting them out of the loop"?

I am sure you will have an answer. You always do. But it is likely to be just as convincing as the previous attempts to divert attention away from the imprecision of your thought processes.

And don't kid yourself.

>>Clearly, OPV is much more democratic and in line with a better quality of governance, and is surely something that you should be supporting. But hey, ‘that horrible Ludwig character is against CPV, therefore I’m for it!!’<<

As it happens, I don't consider OPV to be either more or less democratic than the farce we have in place right now. The only point I did make on the topic is that "changing the system changes nothing". And I stand by that, absent any evidence whatsoever that the result from OPV would be somehow more representative of the will of the electorate.

Perhaps you could explain how any increased fairness would come about.