Hi,
Every line in the article was true.We are committing suicide by steadily increasing the population. Immigration is bad, and it will have done its damage well before the average drone wakes up to the fact.

simon
[url=http://mls.fastrealestate.net]MLS[/url]

Eric,
There has to be one, I guess I'm it.
As a pile of popular truism goes it was a good collection. As a meaningful logically constructed argument weeeell!
Economics is at best informed guesses (assumptions) based on economic flavour dogma of the time.
Modelling conclusions are therefore defined by those assumptions. If some of those assumptions are wrong, over/understated the modelling will reflect those errors (GIGO).
To the above contextual restraints add that current circumstances (that Economics professors who admit the discipline’s flaws and claim we are in uncharted waters) one is entitled ask how meaningful is this article given it’s reliance on one source.

I would also add that your conversation with the Member of Greenway is a red herring as written means nothing. Its inclusion makes me wonder if what this article is simply a personal wheelbarrow (opinion). This is especially so given you offer no analysis of your own of the issue or of the source etc.
The article has the same level of

Let’s be clear where I stand on the topic, I tend to think we have too many people in the world given our current Science and its distribution along with the means to implement it.
In essence I see the debate in terms of upgrading the steerage passengers to first class on the Mary Celeste.

We need sensible population humane debate/practices world wide including in Aus rather than dubiously founded jingoistic mishmash of selfish, fears, prejudicial agendas from our leaders.

Eric I think more research, objective thought is required.

Thanks for all your comments. I think you make some very good points. With respect to Louise Markus’ comment, I probably should have said “She and other politicians only care about whether they will get re-elected.” It is true that politicians have found that they can avoid an issue because it is not an election factor, and still win the election. One such issue is euthanasia. Possibly another is immigration. This is especially true in Australia where people vote for the party rather than the individual.

On the issue of leadership in government, I still believe government representatives should follow the will of the people. When I hear commentators saying government should show “leadership” on destruction of ecosystems or renewable energy, I have mixed feelings. I’d like to see the government set aside more land for wilderness and I’d like to see the government fund (like $500 million) renewable energy through taxes on fossil fuels, but I don’t think the average voter agrees with me. If some government showed “leadership” on those issues, then they might also show “leadership” and cut education and health spending in half.

On the relationship between big business and government, I don’t think it makes sense to sit around the house crying “Those no-good bastards cheated.”

One thing business does very well, is get out and sell. They are used to selling their products and they are used to dealing with the media, so they make sure that they get out and sell the issues that they are in favour of. High immigration is one of those. They should be admired for pursuing those issues. Some of their fronts have even published on Online Opinion, so who am I to take a superior stance. If they are doing it in some illegal way then they should face justice, the same as anybody else.

If business thinks the best policy for Australia is high immigration, they should get out and sell it. We should expect nothing less. If they sell immigration as being good for the average Aussie, though, that is just a lie.

Obviously if we want to change government policy on immigration, we need to oppose the candidates and parties that support high immigration. As pointed out, that is just about everybody. Even the Greens don’t say net zero immigration. As pointed out, most parties are worried about being tarred as racists if they oppose immigration, because the famous racist Pauline Hanson opposed immigration from Asia (I don’t think she opposed immigration from Europe).

One thing we can do with respect to business is vote with our wallets. Gerry Harvey is a very vocal supporter of high immigration. It makes me shop elsewhere. Richard Pratt from Visy is the same, although it is harder to boycott Visy products, because they only carry the stuff you buy. If you are aware of others who favour high immigration rates, publicise it. Maybe there will be a backlash.

Divergence – Thanks for the graph from Club Troppo. I read in the SMH that in the 8 Bush years the US economy has grown 18 percent, the median salary in the US has dropped 1.1% and the top one percent’s salaries have increased by 300%. There was no source, though, so it may be wrong. David Rothkpf’s book “Superclass” had something similar, but I can’t find it quickly. Sorry.

Examinator – Fourth dot point top of the article “these results are consistent with research both in Australia and overseas (page 161).” Check Paul Krugman, this year's Nobel Prize winner for Economics. Please list your sources, economically modelled or otherwise, showing the opposite of my claims

Examinator.

Surely cold hard logic says that we have limited resources, particularly water, so we should be very mindful of how we husband them. We live in a system where we are reaching the limit to the population which we can sustain. You don't need to be a Rhodes Scholar to draw that conclusion. If you can't see that then there is no hope for you.

David

Claus writes, "If the economic case only benefits the capital owners and makes the average citizen worse off economically [...] why is it being done?"

Because a society is about more than money.

As anyone who's ever worked high hours and never seen their family knows, it's possible to be financially better off and worse off in every way that really matters.

A multitude of cultures benefits the country in non-economic ways. Diversity gives resilience, strength, new ideas for progress both social and technological, and so on.

Back in 2004 Claus was playing the same tune [http://tinyurl.com/clauspopulation ], telling us that in 200 years there'll be 46 billion people in the world - when the people who actually study the matter (WHO and the UN) tell us that it'll top out around 9-10 billion around 2050. So he's long been worried about population, but not had a good grasp of where it's going.

In 2004 he said,

"If there are any concerns about the 2 billion people living in serious poverty on our planet, these concerns can be sorted out with economics and technology."

It's unclear why "economics and technology" can magically solve all their problems if they stay in their home countries, but can't solve their problems if they come to live here. Apparently, the economics which in 2006 he thought was brilliant and could solve everything is in 2008 hopeless.

In 2006 he wrote against nuclear power [http://tinyurl.com/clausnukes ], and slipped in a whinge about the migrants then, too.

"If Australia reduced net immigration from 120,000 to 20,000 over the next 12 years that would mean 1.2 million less people living in Australia. Without the additional demand for electricity, presumably we would not need those two nuclear power plants."

So... "don't let in so many foreigners or we'll have nukes!"?

The theme running through all three pieces is, "they shouldn't come here." Sorry, mate, we had a politician who said that, she ended up in prison, wheedled her way out of prison but not into the Senate. Most Australians recognise that unless you're Aboriginal, you're a migrant.