Pericles, it is all a matter of mathematics.
The picture I describe is just starting to become apparent.
A lot will depend on whether we will be able to afford to import oil.

Energy will become very much more expensive and at times unavailable.
The outer suburbs will have the ability and space to grow a significant
percentage of their own food. Likewise the regional towns are already
close to farms and in both the outer suburbs and towns there will be
a return of the weekly market.
This is already starting to happen for other reasons, but as the
supermarket model gradually fails the local market will increase.
The days of the 1500km salad are ending.

High rise buildings will have increasing difficulty in maintaining a
reliable lift service. The nature of work will also change as industry
becomes more local. Many products that we take for granted will be
either unavailable or far too expensive.

The financial industry as it is known now will disappear.
An economy based on credit will be impossible.
I suggest that you read a few books such as Richard Heinberg's The End of Growth.
Another is Jeff Rubin's Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller.
Google those authors and you will find talks on Utube.

Don't ask when this will happen, as it has already started and will,
to reuse a phrase, be a python squeeze.

<< If the jobs are in the city, that's where people will be. And if you somehow manage to force the jobs out of the city into the country, will you not simply be re-creating the same problems that you believe exist in the cities? >>

No Pericles you wouldn’t just be creating the same sorts of problems in smaller centres.

For example, the problems of chronic traffic congestion in peak-hour times in our major cities is not going to be repeated in smaller centres if you manage to get a small number of people to move there instead.

<< …who will provide those financial incentives? >>

The state and federal governments, using tax-payers’ dollars. And local government as well.

Let’s face it; at the moment, a great deal of our tax and rates money is going into duplicating infrastructure and services for ever-more people, as well as going into repairing and upgrading infrastructure that would not need work if it wasn’t being constantly further stressed by population growth.

So if we were to put a relatively small amount of this revenue into incentives to get people to live away from big cities, and away from regional centres that are not coping with current growth pressures, we’d ultimately be able to reduce the level of expense being put into the constant struggle to catch up with the damage wrought by continuous population pressure.

But only if we reduce immigration to net zero and head straight towards a stable population.

I wrote:

>>In fact, it is surely a core duty of government to plan this sort of thing<<

You replied:

<< I fundamentally disagree with that statement. >>

Could you please elaborate. Are you suggesting that it is not a fundamental role of government of manage where people live, how population centres expand, what areas should remain undeveloped or remain agricultural rather than paved over with houses, and to strive to get people to not move into areas with stressed water supplies or congestion problems and do what they can to revitalise small towns that are suffering from population decline?

That's about it, Ludwig.

>>Are you suggesting that it is not a fundamental role of government of manage where people live, how population centres expand, what areas should remain undeveloped or remain agricultural rather than paved over with houses, and to strive to get people to not move into areas with stressed water supplies or congestion problems and do what they can to revitalise small towns that are suffering from population decline?<<

That is precisely what I am saying.

It is only in the last century or so that governments have taken it upon themselves to run permanent interference on the natural development of a nation and its economy.

The problem being that taxation has shifted from having a specific purpose - usually to fund a war - to being itself the justification for having a government. Government itself - and by extension, the public servants who suck upon its teat - has become little more than a gravy-train for people who enjoy meddling in other people's lives.

It is an Alice Through the Looking Glass world. Vast sums of money are spent every day on activities that produce no benefit to the citizenry, but are justified on the basis that it is "government money". It is not. It is money that has been extracted from productive commercial activities, in order to support an entire landscape of unproductive activities.

I exclude, of course, some functions that the population at large supports - Health, for example, and Education. Although even there, the amount of our money spent on "administration" instead of healthcare or classrooms, is scandalous.

Any money that is spent on creating work in Outer WoopWoop, just so that people will move there, is a simple distortion of economic cost-benefits. If it costs a dollar to produce a widget in Alexandria, and a dollar-plus-government-subsidy to produce the same widget in Outer WoopWoop, you are causing damage to the Australian economy.

It would be different if all Government Departments moved to Outer WoopWoop, since they do not create any economic value in the first place.

Why don't they, do you think?

<< That is precisely what I am saying. >>

Hmmmm. We do indeed have a fundamentally different view on this subject then.

Surely as society becomes larger and more complex and encounters all manner of problems with resource provision, infrastructure and services, the planning and regulatory roles of government become very important.

Yes there are inefficiencies all over the place, but that is no reason to jump to the end of the spectrum and denounce these government roles or their bureaucracies.

Push for greater efficiency, but certainly don’t push for less government control.

Crikey, the LAST thing we need is much more of a free-for-all society, where the aggressive and ruthless would come to dominate.

I put it to you Pericles, that the sort of scenario that you seem to desire would be far worse than the current substandard and inefficient government planning and regulatory regime.

<< It would be different if all Government Departments moved to Outer WoopWoop, since they do not create any economic value in the first place. Why don't they, do you think? >>

I’d espouse the movement of some government offices to the towns that need population growth or could handle it without significant problems. That would be a good first step.

And as for government not creating any economic value – not true!

Their creation of economic value, or more broadly; quality of life value, comes via the regulation and planning of all sorts of things so that they (hopefully) won’t fall into decline, become less productive and cost big money (become an economic burden) to repair.

As you suggest, Ludwig, it depends upon your point of view.

>>Surely as society becomes larger and more complex and encounters all manner of problems with resource provision, infrastructure and services, the planning and regulatory roles of government become very important.<<

You say "surely", but I'm not so certain. Trouble is, "the planning and regulatory roles of government" are merely a cover for buck-passing and inactivity. "Planning" is virtually non-existent (NSW transport infrastructure being a case in point). And "regulatory" is simply another word for "controlling". As in "control for control's sake" - the petty bureaucracy that governs the preparation of one cup of coffee in a coffee shop is, frankly, mind-blowing.

And expensive.

One of the reasons is that there is a difference, for example, in the manner in which decisions are made within a government enterprise, and a public company. There is a mass of literature available that explains how, in the best-run companies, decision-making is most efficiently accomplished at the lowest possible level within the organization - by the folk who understand best, the implications and outcomes of any action.

The precise opposite occurs in the Public Service, where even the tiniest of decisions is pushed "up the tree", until someone finally has the courage to authorize the action.

>>Push for greater efficiency, but certainly don’t push for less government control.<<

Sadly, the two are synonymous. Greater efficiency cannot be achieved without a reduction in government control.

Finally...

>>And as for government not creating any economic value – not true! Their creation of economic value, or more broadly; quality of life value, comes via the regulation and planning of all sorts of things so that they (hopefully) won’t fall into decline, become less productive and cost big money (become an economic burden) to repair...<<

Do you perhaps have a "for-instance" from real life that you can share?

Word of advice: don't use NSW Transport. Or NSW Water. Or... the list is quite extensive. But I await your example with interest.

To arrange your immigration cap – we talk of developers, government or home buyers paying for existing infrastructure. When people immigrate to Australia they get to enjoy all the infrastructure provided by the existing residents of Australia over many years. Would it be unfair therefore to ask newcomers to pay $100,000 (it could be financed) towards the capital cost of that infrastructure. That would probably reduce numbers quite a bit. Would a ten year waiting period before being eligible to health and pension welfare also be reasonable and cut down numbers? Interested in your thoughts.