Saul, can I respectfully ask you to respond to concerns raised on this thread.

The main issue is how the housing market, and indeed the economy as a whole, sits with the urgent need to curtail our rate of human expansion and approach a limit in this country.

I’d love to think that the bank that I have been a customer of for decades would be open enough to allow you to entertain frank discussion on this extremely important subject.

It certainly appears as though any acknowledgement of this would not please the ANZ bank, and that you cannot speak freely on this subject. This silence is undoing your credibility.

Although I don't feel under any obligation to respond to comments on articles of mine which are posted on OLO, I'm usually happy to engage with sensible interlocutors. The only reasons I haven't in this case are that, first, I had forgotten that this article had been posted; and second, that I've been more or less continuously 'on the road' over the past two weeks and haven't had time and/or the facilities to monitor comments on this article on a regular basis.

However having now had the chance to read through what various people have written, I'm again happy to respond to some of the things which have been said.

The main view point being pushed by 'Guy V' and 'Ludwig' is the adverse consequences of continued population and economic growth. As 'Cornflower' was generous enough to acknowledge, I am conscious that there are downsides to population growth, including, at present, upward pressure on rents and (as 'Guy V' points out), traffic congestion.

Of course population growth has been slowing over the past few decades. According to the UN, global population growth has slowed from a most recent peak of 2.0% pa during the 1960s to 1.3% pa over the ten years ended 2005; and on the UN's "median variant" projections will slow to just 0.4% pa during the 2040s.

Australia's population growth rate also slowed a most recent peak of 2.2% pa in the late 1960s to 1.1% in 2004, before picking up to 1.3% over the year to September 2006 (largely on the back of increased immigration).

The main factors behind the slowdown in population growth globally and in Australia have been rising living standards and the increasing (though of course far from complete) empowerment of women, which together have led people, of their own volition, to choose to have fewer children.

Ironically, therefore, those who believe that a lower population growth rate should be pursued as an objective in its own right should support measures designed to increase the growth rate of per capita income (as well as female emancipation and empowerment).

(To be continued)

However I get the impression that 'Guy V' and 'Ludwig' also favour the pursuit of lower, and possible even zero or negative, per capita income growth as an objective.

They're perfectly entitled to do that, of course, but I doubt that their view would have majority support, either in Australia or elsewhere. Rather, it would seem to be a widely shared goal among most of the world's population, particularly in developing countries, that per capita income should rise rapidly.

And judging by the widespread opposition in affluent countries like Australia to the idea that people in developing countries should be able to improve their living standards by selling to people in affluent countries like Australia goods and services at prices lower than we can ourselves, there isn't much sympathy for the notion that we should reduce our material living standards in order to allow for increases in the living standards of people much less well off than ourselves.

And I say that in the full understanding that 'GDP' as conventionally measured includes a lot of things that don't add to 'welfare', and omits a lot of things which do.

Some of the very genuine and real problems which 'Guy V' refers to are, I believe, the result of governments failing to plan properly for population growth (and an unwillingness to borrow to fund the provision of appropriate infrastructure) rather than proof that population or economic growth are per se a 'Bad Thing'.

I don't personally argue for increased immigration on the grounds that it boosts economic growth; most of the evidence that I've seen on the question suggests that the impact of immigration on per capita GDP growth is only marginally positive. On balance, though, I think immigration brings net social benefits especially as regards the diversity of the population.

There's more I'd like to say - particularly about the offensive remarks by 'Insider' - but I've now run up against today's quota so it will have to wait another day.

Mr. Eslake,

Thank you for replying to our request. I must point out that I am certainly not in favour of returning to living in a grass hut, far from it. I suggest there must be a critical population level where ongoing technological advancement is possible. I feel that ALL populations stabilize when women are given an education and a "life expectancy". No woman wishes to have children she can not care for. Unfortunately many poor countries have no control over their fertility because it is often in the hands of control freak religious men (exacerbated by the U.S.A. and Australia's foreign aid policy).

Australia reached an unsurpassed level of amenity and quality of life in about 1975 . We have not changed since. I can give you details of how I arrive at this notion if you wish. All that has risen is the population and the length of traffic jams. Mind you I can now send an e-mail but that is about all.

As for the housing problem where this all started; I put it to you that the cost of housing is an artificial construct forced by 120,000 new people coming in to the country EVERY YEAR which provides the impetus. I also suggest that the major banks are terrified their gross wealth (IN DOLLAR VALUE AND GROWTH ONLY) will supposedly fall thus causing, supposedly, a recession which, supposedly, is a bad thing.

I suggest we re-think growth economics and use our obvious skills, education and resources which will give us and our grandchildren a future that does not look like Hong Kong or the Middle East. Think about it, you are in the hot seat, and if we let this opportunity pass the results will be a rapid slide to banal, deporporate mediocrity which most people enjoy on India.

It is interesting to note that if the world population increases at only 0.5 percent per annum for the rest of this century, the population at 2100 will still be about 10 billion. At an increase of 1.0 percent it will be about 15 billion. At 1.5 percent it will approach 25 billion.

Obviously, something needs to be done very soon to slow the rate down.

(continued)

A quick bit on the positives of immigration. Everyone loves Con the fruiterer or Tran who makes the finest bread rolls or Kwan who can make my insufferable computer sing and dance and Helena's halva with the best Turkish coffee. The problem is when we have 12,000 David's in one suburb and 10,000 Ivan's next suburb in abject poverty when they only left their home country because it is such a terrible place. Now we have a big problem! Many want to make a "home away from home" in Australia complete with all the trappings which do not fit here including the imported racial and ethnic rivalries. We have enough trouble with the Irish and the English.

Surely we would be better served to spend our money on educating and supporting people in their own country where the $ value would be far more valuable than here.