(This was mistakenly posted to the "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0 My apologies)

CJ Morgan,

As daggett/cacofonix/whatever wrote just now:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=0#47461
"But it takes two to make a fight, doesn't it?

"All you needed to do was to have walked quietly away from this forum, which you still insist is a complete waste of time, or better still, not have bothered to post that first comment accusing me without any substantiation, of being "a tad obsessive", and there could not possibly have possibly been a fight."

---

The above was posted not in order to cause a fight with you, but in spite of that risk in order to post something of use to the discussion -- something you have proven yourself either incapable of doing or unwilling to do on the "9/11 Truth" forum.

Spikey wrote, "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?"

If charges for a basic necessity such as water are going up in real terms in order to pay for more technologically complex means of supplying that need that we would not have needed had our population remained stable, then then I would have thought it was self-evident that we have surpassed a point where population growth improves our quality of life.

No, I have to admit I don't have the expertise to give you the precise figure for an economically optimum population.

Can you tell me why you so urgently need to know a figure more precise than 'a lot less than 21,000,000'?

---

What I do know is that Tim Flannery has calculated that the sustainable population of Australia, taking into account water, soil, ecology etc, is 7,000,000. I hope he is wrong, but others regard that even figure as optimistic.

Do you happen to know of any scientific studies conducted by people who understand the environment that show that we can sustain more than 21,000,000 ?

In regard to the fall in values of UK housing, I would suggest that the falls you talk of are not particularly significant in comparison to the astronomical past cost increases which were clearly caused caused by population growth. Clearly speculation, easy availability of credit, etc have made the situation worse. I imagine that the bust in the speculative bubble has had a lot to do with the recent deflation in the UK.

Whatever, you have not acknowledged the clear relationship between population growth and housing inflation in Australia that has been shown in that article by Crispin Hull.

Are you completely denying, in the face of the laws of supply and demand and what property speculators, themselves, have openly acknowledged and wished for, that immigration driven-population growth has added massively to housing inflation?