Perhaps Spikey could comment on the story "We can't afford to keep Sydney running: Rees" in the Sydney Morning Herald of 2 October at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/sydney-bursting-at-seams-rees/2008/10/01/1222651172311.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

"SYDNEY has grossly under-estimated the population explosion that
will squeeze its resources over the next 20 years, but the
cash-strapped Premier admits it is 'pointless/ to promise the
billions of dollars in extra spending the city will need."

"Nathan Rees yesterday signalled deep cuts in the capital spending
program and a radical departure from the $140 billion infrastructure
strategy of the former premier, Morris Iemma.

"On the same day that it emerged Sydney will need almost 900,000
extra homes by 2031 - a third more than estimated three years ago ...

"Population growth in such areas will be a big test for the city's
future infrastructure needs. A soaring immigration rate means Sydney
will need to squeeze in a third more houses and flats by 2031 than
was estimated only three years ago. The city's flagging
infrastructure is already struggling to cope with population
pressures. But falling tax revenue had left the Government little
choice but to slash spending, Mr Rees said."

...

(See also "Crunch time for Sydney: Rees" at http://candobetter.org/node/832)

Somehow, it seems to me that when all those population growth pushers were hysterically beating the drum for yet more population in recent years they weren't giving us the complete picture.

Now, Spikey, please tell us where you think all of this was accounted for in those Productivity Commission Reports that you have quoted in support of immigration?

It seems to me that those charged with investigating the likely consequences of immigration were either stupid or were intentionally misleading the Australian public.

My own gut feeling is the latter, and they do it in order to allow a greedy selfish minority to profit whilst the society as a whole becomes more impoverished and less sustainable.

Daggett

Good to see you still beavering away on your fixation while I've had a well-earned rest.

"Intuition and common sense would tell us that increasing numbers of people beyond the optimum level which Australia has long ago exceeded...'" you declare.

The problem with 'intuition' and 'commonsense' is that other rational people keep producing other contradictory versions of 'intuition' and 'commonsense'.

The NSW Premier's comments should be seen in the context of the audience he was playing to. A bid and special pleading for more funding from the Commonwealth at the expense of the other States. Of course he's going to pull the population card.

You ask me to revise my opinion about "those Productivity Commission Reports that you have quoted in support of immigration?" Shall I do the same with the ones you and Divergence too quoted from the same source?

So lacking hard empirical evidence for your closed position, you now resort to abuse: "It seems to me that those charged with investigating the likely consequences of immigration were either stupid or were intentionally misleading the Australian public."

While all those experts are either 'stupid' or liars, you ask us to rely on your 'own gut feeling' to complement your 'intuition' and your version of 'commonsense'.

Could you please offer us a clear summation of what you declare to be the "optimum level which Australia has long ago exceeded"? That is, please move beyond cliche and generality to a specific population figure that matches your notion of sustainability.

Spikey,

I note that you come up with ever more creative ways to avoid acknowledging the evidence.

Whilst I consider it legitimate to point out that the case against immigration is consistent with common sense and intuition, my case clearly does not rely on that alone and for you to imply that it does is dishonest.

I note that you have not acknowledged Divergence's data on the increase in the real cost of housing since 1970, which has correlated remarkably with the increase in population, nor Crispin Hull's article on the relationship between housing shortages and increased immigration.

---

No, I can't give a precise figure for what the optimum population would have been, but I would suggest that it would have been somewhere before the point where (relatively) natural means of supplying water became insufficient to meet the needs of our population. The newspapers in Queensland, Victoria and NSW are full of stories about how water rates and other Government charges are being increased in order to pay for desalination plants, dams, recycling and various water grids.

That is one clear example of the (counter-intuitive) "dis-economies of scale" caused by population growth which I referred to above. Clearly water rates would have been lower if population numbers had remained within what could have been supplied by natural means, then our rates would be lower.

Another dis-economy of scale is the increased cost of transport. Cramming more people into cities necessitates massive costs in providing additional transport infrastructure to relieve congestion. Consequently, when I last lived in Sydney in 2004 it cost many residents easily well over $100 per week in tolls alone in order just to commute to and from work and Brisbane is now headed in the same direction.

---

Sorry, if my attitude towards the greedy selfish growth pushers seems abusive to you, but at least they are only words.

I am far more concerned with the actual harm that these people are causing to existing residents, and to our natural environment including endangered species such as koalas, the Tasmanian Devil, the grey nurse shark etc.

At the risk of attracting the unhelpful participation of Lord High Dymo (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47345 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28653 ) into this discussion with his accusations of myself being a 'sock puppet' for daggett, I will post the following on behalf of daggett, to illustrate his point about the costs of water infrastructure and its relationship to population growth:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/27/2200487.htm
"Sydney water bills to rise $200"

Water bills for Sydney households are set to rise by around $200 a year, with almost half the additional revenue being used to pay for the desalination plant.

The Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal (IPART) has released a draft report, which is proposing increases to water bills for the average household of $203 a year by 2012.

Water bills would rise by $95 a year for the average household from July 1.

The tribunal says the price rise is needed to pay for major capital works.

It says $92 dollars of the increase will go towards the desalination plant, which is being built at Kurnell.

The money will also be used to pay for water recycling schemes in western Sydney.

The increases are $32 a year less than those proposed by Sydney Water.

Sydney Water managing director Kerry Schott has defended the need to increase water bills to pay for the desalination plant.

"We're in a sort of new phase without water supply and demand," she said. "The days of dams and treat water are gone."

...

James Sinnamon et al: << At the risk of attracting the unhelpful participation of Lord High Dymo (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47345 http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=28653 ) into this discussion with his accusations of myself being a 'sock puppet' for daggett, I will post the following on behalf of daggett... >>

Come on, James.

Stop trying to pick fights. Surely you can argue your case under the same constraints as everybody else?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#47460

Daggett

I presume you and Divergence will soon be arguing that, just as the increase in the price of housing is due to immigration, the massive decline in the cost of housing in the US and UK are due to immigration.

Your intuition and commonsense would tell you that immigration causes prices to rise and to fall, eh?

The same intuition and commonsense that doesn't allow you to be able to give a figure for an optimum population for Australia but allows you to know we're past the optimum? Does it tell you in what year we passed the unknown optimum?

The same intuition and commonsense that causes global warming and causes the price of water to rise?