“Ludwig, if you worked in the building industry, you would want a job.”

Yes Yabby, so you might advocate the continuation of high population growth.

But if you didn’t work in the building industry (or even if you did) and you had a family and were worried about your kids or your grandkids’ future, and/or you had some feeling for environmental health and/or some notion of the craziness of continuously increasing the demand on our finite and potentially renewable resource base, blah, blah, then you’d probably be strongly against the continuous growth spiral.

Harking back to a comment of yours from an earlier post;

“Apart from some property developers etc, big business today thinks globally, so if a business plan works in Australia, it can be implemented in other countries. They don't need more Australians to grow their businesses.

CSL, BHP, Computershare, News Corp, Westfield, Brambles, Leighton, and a host of others, all have global models and don't wait for populations to grow, to increase their businesses, so the Australian population is not really an issue for them.”

They don’t wait for populations to grow, but they do plan on the basis that populations will grow and they do strongly promote that growth accordingly.

Your point seems to run against the grain of your general trend here Yabby. If big companies didn’t desire high pop growth or weren’t too fussed about it, then it should be very easy indeed for politicians to jump off the runaway train of constant growth and onto the sustainability bandwagon! But you’re saying that it isn’t gunna happen.

Well, even if a lot of big businesses did come onside with an end to expansionism, you’d be right if we continue to have pollies like Costello in powerful decision-making positions!

Ludwig, I'm trying to explain to you what drives this whole thing,
for I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, blaming it all
on big business. I read a great deal of financial stuff and
population is just hardly mentioned, unless its a real estate
developer.

Next point is big business has hardly any votes, the mass public do,
so that is what politicians focus on.

Just read this very thread and see what people want from a treasurer.
They want life on a plate and they want more for themselves. Human
self interest is the driver of growth, that is my point. You blame
big business, I am telling you its nearly everybody in the community.

Not too many think like you think or I think.

Until that changes, politicians won't try to sell it to the public,
for there are no votes in it, certainly not enough to swing an
election.

Now if the media made it a big issue, like they have with climate
change, then politicians would jump on the bandwagon.

Politics today is ruthlessly pragmatic, if they are not they lose.

Just look what happened when Latham stood against Howard and he
tried to be visionary and protect forests in Tasmania. Howard
saw his chance, jumped into bed with the timber workers who would
lose their jobs, they voted liberal and that helped him win the
elections.

So I'm telling you that nothing will change, unless the voting
public are behind it and will change their vote for it. To do
that, you have to show that it is in their self interest, for humans
act out of self interest by nature. Thats the reality of it

A poster summed up Peter Costello quite well
on the 'newmatilda.com,' website:

"I am so sick of people heaping praise on Costello
as the world's greatest treasurer because he ran
budget surpluses. The truth is he overtaxed us!
And what he took from us wage-earners he gave to the
rich and called it a tax concession."

And from the same website:

"Ultimately, it is difficult to separate Costello's
legacy from that of John Howard. Costello shared
his leader's hard-line pursuit of industrial relations
deregulation, the ultimate result of which was Workchoices
and the electoral defeat for his party in 2007. The
conservative side of politics would do well to remember
this particular aspect of the Howard-Costello legacy
when eulogising his contribution...But it is unlikely
they will."

“…I think that you are barking up the wrong tree, blaming it all on big business.”

No no, I’m certainly not blaming it all on big business. The blame needs to be shared around between the big vested interest corporations or industries, the apathetic or narrowly focussed general populace and the politicians that not only run with what the vested interest lobby wants, but go out of their way to push that horribly biased message on the general public… a la Costello.

The third group is the worst. And Costello was one of the worst amongst them…although Rudd is even worserer!

“…big business has hardly any votes…”

Yes but they have enormous favour-buying power from politicians and vote-buying power by way of getting their message out to the community to a vastly greater extent than any opposing message.

“Human self interest is the driver of growth…”

Yes, to a fair extent. But if the community received a balanced message on good and bad aspects of continuous growth, as well as a clear differentiation between the bad expansionist type of growth and the good technological advance / improved efficiency / alternative energy sources type of growth, then they’d be supporting the first type of growth to a far lesser extent…for SURE!

Worrying about your kids or grandkids or your own future is a large part of many peoples’ self-interest. Voting against continuous expansionism and in favour of real innovative per-capita-increasing growth would also be totally in line with peoples’ self-interest, if there was such a party for which they could vote! So self-interest doesn’t have to be a driver of expansionist growth.

“…nothing will change, unless the voting public are behind it and will change their vote for it.”

Agreed! But I keep saying that the public WOULD jump behind it if there was a concerted effort to present the right message and a political party with that philosophy for which they could vote!

“…you have to show that it is in their self interest…”

Yes. And I don’t think that would be too hard to achieve.

Yabby
Sorry for the delayed response.

I agree partly with what you say - many hands wanting a piece of the pie.

However our pensioners were looked after much better in the past when we were not quite so obsessed with growth economics. It really is about prioritising how the pie is divided.

I am always amazed how our more conservative governments including Labor, continue to fund business in the form of corporate welfare - whether it be car dealers, car manufacturers or logging companies - and then grandstand on principles of 'free-market' economies. The Coalition was worse.

The public aren't stupid. Most people acknowledge our most vulnerable get a raw deal in the modern world - carers, disabled and the elderly whether it be in due to poor pensions or understaffed nursing homes.

To use your reasoning Yabby, I would bet attention to this sector is a vote winner not a loser particularly with an ageing population.

Dear Pelly,

Spot on!

I visit my mum regularly - in an "assisted -living,"
facility - and often listen to the conversations of people
there and the issues that concern them.

Politicians had better pay attention to these voters.
Their votes do count.