That's not difficult Ludwig.

>>Could you please clarify your position re: addressing supply but not addressing demand, even when demand is rapidly increasing and seriously stressing the supply capability of one or more basic resources, services or basic forms of infrastructure. Thanks.<<

You are using the "when did you stop beating your wife" technique here, I notice. So my answer is to reframe you question.

a) demand is not "rapidly increasing". It is slow, steady, and entirely manageable. And predictable, of course, which provides a solid base from which to plan future supply.
b) demand is not "seriously stressing the supply capability". Supply is keeping pace with the gently increasing demand. Indeed, in the case of water supply - which you led with earlier, if you recall, as an example of impending doom - sensible planning will prevent the issue from getting out of hand.

Hope this helps.

Now, in return, could you explain how you would set about "managing demand"? If indeed that is what you have in mind - your protestation that I had verballed you on the subject is confusing.

And on the same lines, could you suggest how maintaining a static population level - which I seem to recall is one of your mantra - will increase our economic wellbeing.

Thirdly, could you suggest a more useful measure than GDP per head, since the concept seems to give you such a headache?

Incidentally, Ludwig...

>> I’ve got no issue with all those poor sad misguided half-mad millions of Australians who choose to live in cities!<<

That's 90% of the population.

Who is out of step, do you think?

What?

I said I’ve got no issue with it! They can live in that sort of environment if they choose.

[Although I do recall us discussing this ages ago, where I questioned just how much of a choice it really is for a lot of people, and where they would choose to live if they really did have a free choice. Many if not most would choose a sea-change or tree-change, as is evident from the very considerable transmigration movement in recent decades from southern cities to leafier less-crowded surroundings]

Them city-dwellers; they’re all half mad like you Peri!!

If they lived in a wonderful place like I do, with a good balance of trees and birds and non-intensively humanised environs, then they'd all be perfectly sane like me!! ( :>)

More later. Have a great day!

Sounds awful, Ludwig.

>>If they lived in a wonderful place like I do, with a good balance of trees and birds and non-intensively humanised environs<<

I prefer people, myself.

Which could, when you think about it, go a long way to explaining why you and I differ so much on the topic of population.

<< I prefer people, myself. Which could… go a long way to explaining why you and I differ so much on the topic of population. >>

Pericles, I prefer people, plants, birds and urban, rural and natural environments in a harmonious mosaic, with the natural environment predominating…. which could indeed go a long way to explaining why you and I differ so much on the topic of population.

<< So my answer is to reframe you question. >>

Sorry but I still don’t know what I said, that you accused me of verballing you over, which is not true. The main point that I made is that you would ONLY address the supply side of the equation and leave the demand side completely alone. You haven’t addressed it.

<< …demand is not "rapidly increasing" >>

We have profound disagreement here.

<< …demand is not "seriously stressing the supply capability" >>

More profound disagreement.

<< Supply is keeping pace with…. demand >>

At best, the supply of infrastructure and services is just about keeping up. But it is most definitely not getting ahead in terms of improvements in quality.

<< …in the case of water supply… sensible planning will prevent the issue from getting out of hand. >>

Only if that planning takes into account the demand side of the equation as well as the supply side. Look at SEQ. They basically need a new major dam. The Traveston site was the best choice. But what an almighty stir it caused. And as a result, it got knocked on the head.

It would be very difficult indeed to increase water provision in SEQ to the level where it both catered for the rapidly increasing demand and provided a big safety margin for dry times.

And you know what I’m going to say next….. The MOST fundamental thing that needs to be done in SEQ, as it concerns water and all manner of other quality-of-life issues, is to significantly reduce the influx of people. Premier Beatty realised this. Bligh likewise. Newman, apparently not at all!

I will address your requests soon.

<< …could you explain how you would set about "managing demand"? >>

If I’ve said it once I’ve said it a thousand times on OLO, not least in our numerous long exchanges, Pericles.

Greatly reduce immigration! Head towards net zero immigration. And get rid of the despicable baby bribe!

Then we could possibly implement incentives to get people to move to places where water supplies, services and infrastructure are more up to the task of supporting them than in SEQ or Sydney, for example.

<< …your protestation that I had verballed you on the subject is confusing. >>

Really?

You wrote:

<< Your answer to everything is that our population should remain at the same level, or somehow reduce itself… >>

Well… you know that this is not true. It is pretty damn close to verballing me to assert that this is my position.

Firstly, we need to greatly reduce the rate of population growth. But even with net zero immigration, our population would continue to grow for a long time, and would slowly reach a point of no growth some 4 decades down the track, given the age distribution of the population and if the current birthrate remains about the same. That is; the real birthrate, not the increased birthrate due to that bloodyawfulbabybonus!

I have never said anything about reducing the population of Australia.

<< …could you suggest how maintaining a static population level… will increase our economic wellbeing. >>

Achieving a considerably lower rate of pop growth and then reaching a stable population will be a whole lot better economically and quality-of-life wise than allowing the population to burgeon to the point where basic resource provision can’t keep up, we can’t afford to keep infrastructure and services up to scratch and the environment becomes severely degraded…. which is a point that is lurking somewhere in the near future.

Surely that’s obvious.

continued