'Ludwig's most recent post indicates that he is in favour of continued per capita income growth based on technological progress as distinct from growth based purely on increased population or exploitation of finite resources.

Our respective positions, though still distinct, are probably not as far apart as we initially thought. I don't advocate population growth or increased immigration for their own sake (although I'm not 'anti' them either; and I'm especially conscious that if those who were already living in Australia when my ancestors arrived here between 1838 and 1882 had sought to prevent their arrival, then I would not have had the privilege of growing up and living in this country; and so I am hesitant to deny that privilege to others who seek what my ancestors were granted).

And although I don't see anything wrong (and indeed a good deal to be gained) from digging up and selling minerals and energy to China, Japan and other countries - especially when they are willing to pay prices as high as they currently are - I also readily concede that aspects of our long-established patterns of economic growth may be environmentally unsustainable. My training as an economist leads me to the conclusion that the best way of dealing with this is to attach prices to the use of water, the emission of greenhouse gases and so forth which reflect their scarcity or environmental impact.

But I'm again approaching my word and per diem limits so any further thoughts on that subject will have to await another day.

Thank you Mr. Eslake for clarifying your position.

I suggest your article should have read "Economic factors affecting the housing market and everything else"

I hope there are many people watching this discussion as I am sure it is crucial in determining the future direction of our country, regardless of what the incumbent Government is being persuaded to do by the vested interests.

I see by your comments you are painfully aware of the situation and, like myself and other concerned people, are not in a direct position to influence immediate changes. However, this does not preclude people with good intentions, education, skills, communication and influence from setting out a future view or economic plan which can be used as guidelines for a more equitable outcome.

From my perspective I see very few highly influential and wealthy people with the ear or control of the Government decision makers. Such people obviously have little regard for any form of life other than themselves. Maybe we have to build an alternative economic scenario which includes the existing stakeholders and massages their polish and ego, while preserving what is left of our choices and environment. How do we do this? Surely with our knowledge base we can do better than Smith, Keynes and Malthus. Their philosophy has brought us to this point, now we should be able to progress.

Who do I talk to and where do we go from here?

Saul,

I support your right to voice any opinion you may care to entertain about the relationship between house prices, immigration and appropriate policy responses given a desire to achieve housing affordability for average Australians. It is the essence of the democratic process that you are afforded this right.

I do, however, contend that your employment colours the impartiality of your opinion. I further contend that your income (which defies mortal standards whatever the exact figure) far removes your own experience of home ownership from that of ordinary Australians. Accordingly, I suspect anyone reading this thread will find your willingness to trade off their ability to own their own home for the sake of ‘diversity’ absolutely galling.

In light of those circumstances, I believe you are unlikely to advocate policy options that give sufficient weight to the concerns of working and middle-class Australians. Even more worryingly, you are unlikely to advocate policy options that could be highly effective in helping to restore housing affordability because they conflict with the interests of your employer and your continued employment.

You state that you are neither for increased immigration or against it, yet one of the principal messages of your commentary was that rising immigration had been a key driver of accelerating house prices over the last 10 years. Why therefore do you fail to suggest the obvious solution of curtailing our immigration intake? It is the essence of the democratic process that I am afforded the right to articulate these concerns. I do not believe you have deigned to answer them.

(continued)

(continued)

This isn’t about me, its about the weight your readers should attach to your opinions. Why does Eslake obsess about my identity? Why does Eslake demand to know where I work? What do you think the implications would be for my future if he discovered either? The only person not debating the issue here is Saul Eslake.

Shorbe asks whether we have democracy in this country. I believe we do, but the quality of that democracy is jeopardised by the way in which public debate is stage-managed by powerful, self-interested individuals and institutions. The absence of full and frank discussion on issues of fundamental national importance demonstrates the truth of that statement, immigration being an excellent case in point.

I say again, if you want to talk to anyone, talk amongst yourselves. Public dishonesty only reaches the extent it does because individuals are not vigilant in monitoring the behaviour of those with power. There is no real sense of loyalty left in our elected officials and business leaders, we can no longer trust them to act in our interests if presented with the option of lining their own pockets.

I think Saul raises a relevant issue: Why do posters who refuse to reveal even their true names, let alone their potential and actual conflicts of interest, think that it is relevant to question the bonafides of someone who is prepared to be completely transparent? And why the obsession with Saul anyway, it's not as though he runs the country, or even the bank?

I'm happy to hold the wager for both parties on whether Saul will submit an article here again, although if Saul was "venal", as Insider asserts, it would be a stupid investment for Insider to make.

I'd also like to point out that it is only a small minority of authors who are prepared to enter into the forum discussions on their articles, and I think that the ones who do deserve some respect. Certainly it is their arguments that ought to be addressed rather than who pays their salary and they should be free from personal abuse.

“Why do posters who refuse to reveal even their true names, let alone their potential and actual conflicts of interest, think that it is relevant to question the bonafides of someone who is prepared to be completely transparent?”

Firstly, I desperately desire to be able to speak on this forum under my own full name. But I can’t as a government employee. I have been told that I can’t even espouse views that are totally in line with those of my employer, for the fear offending a client with whom my department might be dealing!! This is fundamentally against the principle of freedom of speech…and is downright bloody disgusting.

Graham I wonder how many posters on this forum are in a similar position, both in the public service and private enterprise arenas?

Secondly, how do we know that Saul is willing to be completely transparent? He certainly seems to be. But we’ve got to consider his position and his probable inability to say certain things that he might like to say as a private person. Who knows?

It is reasonable for anyone to be suspicious and to want to check ‘bonafides’.

I agree that Saul deserves considerable respect for posting articles on this forum and for entertaining subsequent debate. He should not be open to personal abuse as a result of that effort.