Hi again Ludwig,

Re: “the Murdoch media is a huge issue, as it has misled the Australian people and given them a false basis on which to cast their vote and decide whether to support or denounce all manner of government initiatives.”

Correct.

Re: “It really does amount to an enormously undemocratic aspect of our (pseudo)democracy.”

Correct also.

Re: “You apparently have no problem with the current rate of immigration or with it continuing at a high level indefinitely.”

Yes and no, Ludwig. The nations doing best providing jobs, income, wealth, health care, retirement security and quality of life for their citizens are also the countries with positive net migration.

For example, Australia, Canada, the USA, Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Singapore and Hong Kong. These are in the top 25 nations by net intake. So positive migration correlates with economic wellbeing.

Economists claim that an expanding population requires increasing infrastructure and services – as you acknowledge – which in turn provides employment for workers, profits for entrepreneurs and increased net assets for everyone.

In Australia, you have positive growth, high job participation, low taxes, very low net debt, all triple A credit ratings since November 2011, and your median wealth now is the highest the world has ever seen.

Re: “We really do need to make government independent of the sway of the big and powerful end of town. This is a whole lot more important than making Murdoch politically neutral.”

Yes and no, Ludwig. Agree completely about abuse of corporate power. But in a democracy, the people elect representatives who make laws to ensure corporations operate for the greater good.

In some countries, Australia being the most dramatic example, many people have no idea who to elect because they have a distorted understanding of what's going on in the world because a large section of the media is controlled by a criminal organisation which fabricates and lies routinely.

So the beginning of justice, democracy and sound corporate affairs policy must be allowing citizens to have open access to accurate information.

No?

Cheers,

Alan A

Thanks for the detailed response Alan.

<< The nations doing best providing jobs, income, wealth, health care, retirement security and quality of life for their citizens are also the countries with positive net migration…. So positive migration correlates with economic wellbeing. >>

Yes but that doesn’t indicate causality. It could well be that some or all of these countries have a high quality of life despite their immigration intake.

These are the sorts of countries that are attractive to immigrants. As with Australia, they are no doubt highly influenced by the big end of town pushing for high immigration for vested-interest reasons, and like us, their governments kowtow to it!

It also begs the questions; if high immigration does improve economic wellbeing as much as your correlation might suggest, then why haven’t we or some of these countries got a considerably higher intake?

And why aren’t poorer countries pushing to increase their intakes?

Could it be that they can see that one of their fundamental problems, in just about all cases, is population stress and that the last thing they need is to increase that sort of growth further?

In short, high immigration does not improve our quality of life or future wellbeing. It might make the conventional economics look better. But this is based on some highly dodgy measures like GDP, is blind to the importance of balancing supply and demand, and places no value on resources that are not generating income here and now and hence doesn’t work at all well as an indicator of future wellbeing.

<< In Australia, you have positive growth, high job participation, low taxes, very low net debt, all triple A credit ratings since November 2011, and your median wealth now is the highest the world has ever seen. >>

Yes but is this due to high immigration? Why couldn’t we have this with a net zero immigration policy??

continued

<< So the beginning of justice, democracy and sound corporate affairs policy must be allowing citizens to have open access to accurate information. No? >>

Yes. But as a fundamental part of this we need to STOP being told simplistically that growth is good and faster growth is better.

This is one of the most fundamentally inaccurate and corruptive messages that we have heard constantly over the years, from business-people, economists and politicians alike.

This idea, that we have to have rapid growth, of the type that we have always had, and thus be hooked into a ever-upward spiral of bigger demand and bigger supply… which is presented as so obvious that it is beyond questioning… sits right at the core of the misinformation that corrupts our democracy and gravely threatens our future wellbeing.

Neutralising Murdoch (if that could be done) without addressing this broader issue is not likely to get us very far.

Greetings all,

Thanks for this discussion.

@LEGO, re: “He (Rupert Murdoch) knew that creating media which reflected the majority opinion would sell.”

See how you go on this quiz, Lego:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/06/21/wonderful-world-walkley-winners

@Shadow Minister, re “mood of the people”. See how you go on this one:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/07/26/mining-boom-really-over

@Imajulianutter, re: “Abbott refuses to be interviewed by the ABC”, try this:

https://newmatilda.com/2013/08/02/say-hello-tony-abbott-and-friends

@Ludwig, re: “Yes but that [correlation between immigration and economic wellbeing] doesn’t indicate causality. It could well be that some or all of these countries have a high quality of life despite their immigration intake.”

Agree with this.

My point was simply to query the implication that high immigration might have negative consequences for the economy. Doesn’t seem so.

Re: “It also begs the questions; if high immigration does improve economic wellbeing as much as your correlation might suggest, then why haven’t we or some of these countries got a considerably higher intake?”

Good question. Is there research into this that you know of, Ludwig? Would be intriguing to examine.

Re: “And why aren’t poorer countries pushing to increase their intakes? Could it be that they can see that one of their fundamental problems … is population stress and that the last thing they need is to increase that sort of growth further?”

Yes, agree with this also. Some redistribution of the world’s population seems desirable. But surely Australia is one country well-placed to absorb the overpopulation elsewhere.

Re: “In short, high immigration does not improve our quality of life or future wellbeing.”

Not sure this has yet been demonstrated either way, Ludwig.

Do you accept that Australia today has the best-managed economy in the world? If so, is this perhaps an argument for maintaining the status quo?

Re: “Neutralising Murdoch (if that could be done) without addressing this broader issue is not likely to get us very far.”

Correct. Neutralising Murdoch is only the beginning for Australia to grow into a mature, independent, well-informed democracy.

But it is an important first step.

Thanks for your continuing input here, Ludwig. Please respond with anything further you may have.

Cheers,

Alan A

Alan,

The confected figures in NM are a pathetic attempt to paper over Labor's failures. Yes jobs did increase, but unemployment increased faster, and the new jobs were almost exclusively casual. Dudd, Bowen, and Wong tried the same deceit last week with a confected costing of LNP costings and got slapped down by the treasury for fraud.

The result is that Dudd is nearly as low as Juliar when he undermined her, and Abbott is surging ahead as preferred PM.

While your fantasies might be believed by the Labor faithful, the real world is not interested. They find more truth in the Australian.

Sorry, Alan Austin, I don't debate against links. If you want to cross swords with me then draw your sword and let's get at it. I know that you have your hands full at the moment with so many people kicking the crap out of you, but fobbing me off with sneery one liners or demanding I do all the work is not going to cut it with me.

I repeat that you whole argument is simply a Trojan Horse for your real agenda, that the left wing trendies are aghast that they have lost control of the power of the press to people like Murdoch.

You boys blew it, because you used the media to propagate a message which was fundamentally hostile to the very people you depended on to keep your industry solvent. Telling the very people that are buying your media that they are all knuckle dragging Neanderthals who steal aboriginal babies and treat people like that traitor Hicks abominably is a sure way to pee off your customers. And then you wonder why the public tells you and your trendy mates to far cough and they buy Murdoch or listen to Alan Jones?