The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The critical election issue: population > Comments

The critical election issue: population : Comments

By Jenny Goldie, published 12/8/2013

With one or two notable exceptions, our political parties are not acknowledging that population lies at the heart of most issues.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All
The organised anti population and anti immigration advocates such as Sustainable Populaton Australia and Stable Population Party neither offer empirical evidence for their claims nor explain how they will implement thier "philosophy"?

In fact, their arguments for population are simply an "academic veneer" to mask their deep white nativist beliefs.

Divergence, thanks for the heads up, CIS who you link to, like Dr. Bob Birrell (Australia's best demographer according to FM Senator Bob Carr and patron of Sustainable Population Australia) of CPUR at Monash University, have something in common, John Tanton.

'Hobnobbing with extremists: CIS Executive Director Mark Krikorian posed in 2007 with Kyle Bristow, then a student leader at Michigan State University who ranted publicly about "Judeo-Bolshevism." ........ Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) to suggest a link between Washington Mutual's commitment to opening its ranks to Latinos and its demise spoke volumes about the nature of CIS and its prolific research.

Although the think tank bills itself as an "independent" organization with a "pro-immigrant" if "low-immigration" vision, the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked.' (much like CPUR)' http://www.splcenter.org/publications/the-nativist-lobby-three-faces-of-intolerance/cis-the-independent-think-tank

The fulcrum is John Tanton's journal The Social Contract Press TSCP to whom Dr. Bob Birrell has contributed over many years: http://www.thesocialcontract.com as has aspiring SPA Senator candidate Mark O'Connor.

If you read through some of the articles in TSCP it's hilarious, right on par with Thetan theory from Scientology.

I also have a question for Jenny Goldie, what was the 'semi bawdy' song that Labor MP Kelvin Thompson was singing with Phil Cafaro of Progressives for Immigration Reform (also part of the Tanton network) at the 2011 population meeting in Washington? I'm not insinuating it was sexual in nature, possibly something else?

Word of warning to Australian political parties and policy makers, although your own parties maybe the last resort of ageing white people in Australia preferring a 1950s vision, you make the GOP Republicans look very moderate indeed:

http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-immigration-reform-suicide-for-republicans/
Posted by Andras Smith, Saturday, 17 August 2013 8:54:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith "ageing white people in Australia preferring a 1950s vision"

White Australia didn't end in the 1950s.

Most Australians alive today grew up in White Australia, whether in country towns or those parts of our cities the NSW premier lamented were still "monocultural" *today*.

I bet you support those Tibetans nostalgic for a Tibetan-dominated Tibet.
And Palestinians who remember the good old days of an Arab-dominated Palestine.

But White people? Dominating a nation they themselves created? How dare they!

The kinship instinct runs deep (that's why there are ethnic ghettos).
Your utopian fantasy is brittle and weak and based on nothing truly meaningful.
Your persistence with it will only result in more people harmed when it all falls apart.

And the only 1950s I'm interested in has a rockabilly/exotica soundtrack, striptease and beefcake, loud heavy motorcycles and skintight leopard print slacks.
Dig it, daddy-o!
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 18 August 2013 1:33:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<Population reduction will only occur through the intervention of natural disasters.>

Hi dmisso.

I've read research from the Rand Organisation which would suggest that human motivation is more economic than cultural. Family planning programs are successful wherever they are properly implemented. The problem lies with the logistics of providing them, not their public acceptance. For me, population is more human rights than problem humans.

Hi Andras,

My motivation is to see Australia prosper, as I am sure your's is. But tell me why you think population growth is so good for us? I find Mark O'Connor's concerns about infrastructure costs quite compelling, and they seem to be supported by the national infrastructure backlog and recent increases in public sector debt.

I am interested to hear your own views and what real examples have formed your opinions.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 18 August 2013 9:15:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can help with the infrastructure figs Fester.

Dr Jane O'Sullivan, a Queensland SPP Senate Candidate, wrote that Australia's infrastructure spend is currently 25 per cent of GDP or about $200K spend per person. She said this was due to high population growth.

She based her statement on Lester Thurow's 1986 article 'Why the Ultimate Size of the World's Population Doesn't Matter' in MIT's Technology Review. You won't find the title of the article publicized much by the SPP for obvious reasons. Thurow estimated that it required 12.5 per cent of GDP to expand capacity at 1 per cent per year.

Dr Sullivan said, "Australian estimates would suggest that figure is right in our ball-park too… So, if we're currently growing at two per cent per year, then 25 per cent of our GDP is currently being used to expand capacity to accommodate the people who are not yet here (or will have to be spent eventually to catch up). This means that the GDP available per capita to serve current residents is 25 per cent less than the advertised per capita GDP."

What Lester actually said was:

"If the United States had a four percent population growth rate, one half of its entire GDP would have to be devoted to investing in those new Americans."

For the record, the United States recently registered its lowest population growth rate since the Great Depression at 0.73 percent. Population growth has slowed dramatically across the developed world just as demographers predicted it would.

Dr Sullivan's quote of four percent population growth is based on a Thurow hypothetical and has no relevance in the States or here. It is not, nor ever will be $200K per person, which is ridiculous.

Australia's spend on infrastructure, as a percentage of GDP, was 10.5 per cent in 2012 as per:
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/2012/files/stats_002.pdf
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 18 August 2013 10:33:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Malcolm,

From your info, and assuming a 50 year life for infrastructure, Australia would have a per capita public infrastructure value of a bit under $100k. This is far more encouraging than the $250k+ figure that I have heard. It would also suggest that the failure of government to control debt during a time of increasing revenue may be more a matter of incompetence.
Posted by Fester, Sunday, 18 August 2013 2:56:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Question for the SPP - re your Senate prefs in NSW (I'll look at the other states later).

Why why have you preferences Pauline Hanson and One Nation above The Greens?

You've also preferences The Australian Motor Enthusiasts Party before The Greens?

Please explain.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 18 August 2013 3:49:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. Page 10
  10. 11
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy