Paddy King

I was a little surprised that the author believes immigration will benefit developed countries, such as many of the countries in the G20.

For example, there is a growing school of thought that developed economies really don’t gain much by increasing their trade.

Such as detailed in the article “The Trade Delusion” by Adair Turner.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/adair-turner-explains-why-more-trade-may-no-longer-mean-more-growth

In his article, Adair Turner says that developed economies gain most by increasing their productivity, and not by increasing their trade.

“Rising productivity does not require relentlessly increasing trade intensity.”

The points he makes in his article are very plausible, but unfortunately for supporters of immigration and overpopulation, the Productivity Commission found that immigration has minimal effect on increasing the country’s productivity.

Indeed, improvements to productivity often mean reducing the workforce, and not increasing it.

So no matter how the situation is looked at, immigration is now a major liability.

Much if not all the over population alrmism and spruiking has nothing to do with science but all to do with beliefs http://www.pop.org/projects/debunk-overpopulation-myth

Prof Ian Goldin of Oxford University published an excellent book 'Exceptional People', based upon research, regarding migration, population and human development http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/director-exceptionalpeople

According to Goldin migration is one of the most effective human development strategies via remittances, community links etc., and as populations stabilise and age, Africa will become the most important source continent.

I suppose SPA/SPP, like mainstream media, would prefer to ignore formal population and immigration research in favour of Dr. Bob Birrell and/or Katherine Betts, the former being 'Australia's best demographer' (according to Paul Ehrlich's mate Bob Carr). Meanwhile even Liberal Party types joke about Birrell, 'he's never seen an immigrant he doesn't like', but he never finds anything negative about Anglo Irish Saxon types?

Andras Smith

All that website does is run a few propaganda videos saying that the world isn’t overpopulated, just the cities.

And if the people in the cities were spread over the countryside, then the world would not be overpopulated.

Like “duh”, I would never have thought of that.

So we could bring in immigrants, and give them a chipping hoe and a few acres of land in the countryside, and tell them to start a farm.

That way we could overcome the overpopulation problem in places such as Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and now Perth.

But unfortunately agriculture in rural areas is shedding jobs as agriculture becomes more mechanised.

And manufacturing in Australia seems to be either shedding jobs or closing up shop entirely.

That leaves what to employ all the immigrants and eliminate the overpopulation of the cities?

Andras Smith, *Human society* "has nothing to do with science"

Science is about chemicals and equations.

Humans are not "scientific".

They are tribal, independent, territorial, exploring, greedy, giving, sensous, repressed, authoritarian, rebellious, creative, destructive, jovial, serious.

Humans are insane.
Human societies are forms of shared madness.
They will never be "scientific".

"never finds anything negative about Anglo Irish Saxon types"

It wouldn't matter if you did.

They aren't coming into the country from elsewhere, they are *born* here.
Unless you're proposing to kill White babies, there's not much you can do about that.

You *can* control who enters the country from *outside*.
That's why there's a debate about it.

The one thing we have plenty of is space!
And what we need is high tech transformation, given that is the only high wages or truly viable future that beckons.
Other than that, one has to completely agree with Dane!
Simple fact is, we are not an economy; but it is the economy stupid!
And a time to thoroughly rejig it, so it works for us, and we are no longer slaves to it, and or, the tiny minority that now does reap any actual benefit!
There is absolutely nothing to fear here; given, as those on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder take a couple of steps up, they only ever force those currently occupying said rungs immediately above, to take a step or two up themselves!
Ditto the rest of the ladder, which then performs like dominoes in reverse!
We are an economy in decline and approaching peak minerals; and indeed, at the end of any of any still salable sovereign wealth.
We can go on as present, with foreign debt mounting and or cleverly disguised as foreign capital, and just continuing to shrink/contract!
All while growing an exponentially mounting foreign debt, and all the burdens it then also creates.
Like a 30% premium, on us alone, on all our foreign purchases, or indeed at the checkout, or payment terminal!
Or worse, double the usual bank fees and charges of comparable countries!
One thing is certain, doing what you've always done, will only ever get you what you've always got!
No need to repeat those, hit the poor hardest actions, that created the great depression!
But rather, just those things that created a postwar period of UNIVERSAL unprecedented prosperity.
Some might argue it was the war, or the then unavoidable social credit, (internal debt raising) it demanded of us and many other nations!
Well then, if internalized debt can do just that, lets have more of it, as opposed to a now unrepayable exponentially expanding foreign debt burden, that can only ever enslave us all!
Rhrosty.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King

You dismiss the cogent arguments that have been put to you by Divergence and Incommunicado. Why? Are you incapable of following a rational line of thought? They have provided substantial evidence that high immigration does not benefit the host country overall in that it leads to overpopulation at considerable environmental cost.

Thus I have to concur with the statement: 'Eroding our safety margins with high population and economic growth is foolish in the extreme and possibly treasonable.'

Your method of argument is similar to those denying climate change. Cherry pick the data and ignore the evidence (even if overwhelming) that you don't like.

You may libel SPA and SPP (who are quite separate thank you) all you like with your mates in the Press Gallery but hopefully they are intelligent enough to weigh up the evidence on both sides and determine that you are nothing more than an apologist for big business and developers who want to drive down wages and trash the countryside in the process.