I wrote:

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

You replied:

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

Not so!

You might get better efficiency within a particular business or development, but at what cost to the environment and the integrity of our whole economic system?

Without government regulation, you’d have an absolute piecemeal approach, with everyone doing their own thing in their own way and not coordinating. They’d be out to get what they can in the short term without any thought for the longer term. They wouldn’t have the choice to consider the longer term. If they did, someone else would simply jump in in front of them and exploit those resources or that market niche more aggressively.

In short, a lack of or a much looser level of government regulation would in the bigger picture mean a much less efficient business regime and economic system than our current system with its often somewhat overburdensome red tape.

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

Tree-clearing regulations, erosion control, weed management and the like. This is the area I was involved with for 12 years with the Queensland government.

By striving to develop a much better balance between tree cover and cleared grazing and agricultural land, by preventing clearing on sloping and highly erodible soils, by requiring significant weeds to be addressed, etc, the government was striving to preserve the productivity of the land, reduce the amount of environmental damage and reduce the number of things that would deplete productivity in the future and cost huge money to repair, or which would just be unrecoverable.

By doing this, the government was actually creating economic value, compared to what would have happened in the absence of this sort of regulatory regime. Or you could say that it was preserving economic value, and quality of life value and quality of environment value, rather than creating these things, if you like.

How’s that for a good example, Pericles?

Your "for instance" is interesting, Ludwig. Did it have any direct bearing on economic prosperity, though - what commercial benefit was achieved, and by whom?

On the broader theme, though, I came across an intriguing book called "City: A Guidebook for the Urban Age" by P D Smith (you may recall his 2003 biography of Einstein?) some of the contents of which might quite upset you.

He notes that in 2008, according to UN statistics, the world became over 50% urban - i.e. more people now live in cities than outside. This is likely, on present trends, to reach 75% by as early as 2050. That's an awful lot of extra people choosing to live in cities - all in the next forty years. Wow.

The Economist commented on this as follows:

"Migrants to cities are attracted by plentiful jobs, access to hospitals and education, and the ability to escape the enervating boredom of a peasant's agricultural life"

You might think the last part (which of course coincides with my own view) a touch judgemental, but the follow-up is less so.

"Those factors are more than enough to make up for the squalor, disease and spectacular poverty that those same migrants must often first endure when they become urban dwellers."

I am fairly certain that this trade-off applies to the more seasoned city-dwellers also. They may bitch and moan about the traffic jams and pathetic public transport, and cry into their beer at the ghastly pollution etc., but they know that their kids would not take kindly to being transplanted to Lesser WoopWoop public, and have a little private fear that the creaking, understaffed health system "out there" would let them down at a critical moment...

Life in the city is not totally blissful, of course. It is indeed crowded and noisy. But at least it is a constant source of intellectual and cultural nourishment.

<< Did it have any direct bearing on economic prosperity, though - what commercial benefit was achieved, and by whom? >>

Pericles, I think I explained that in my last post.

The bearing on economic prosperity is by way of preventing the degradation of agricultural lands from soil loss, the spread of weeds and other things. Not only do these things have a direct effect on productivity, but they require a lot of expense to fix up, which of course affects the economic bottom line after productivity. ie: income minus expenses.

The longer term commercial benefit would be realised by graziers, cane-growers and other primary producers, and would flow on to benefit country towns and the whole state economy.

Then there was the environmental / productivity balance motivation of the legislation, in which the desire was to preserve ecological values as well as sustainable productivity.

The tree-clearing legislation and other regulations regarding the productivity and environmental aspects of rural management are clearly a whole lot better than nothing or than the previous haphazard virtual free-for-all situation.

I did hundreds of property assessments all over north and central Queensland. I had long and detailed conversations with the landholders in just about every instance.

The feeling was pretty universal that the government was right to tighten the whole business up. Even the most anti-authoritarian landholders, who decried interference in their business on their land, blamed other landholders, past and present, for stuffing it up, rather than blaming the government for doing something about it.

It is quite amazing that the whole legislation wasn’t skittled. I reckon it could easily have been if Agforce or an otherwise united effort from landholders had mounted a major challenge against it. That didn’t happen despite some pretty awful vegetation mapping in some areas, on which the legislation was largely based.

The reason it wasn’t skittled is that landholders could generally see the merit in it, even if it did limit some of them in their desires to clear trees and increase productivity.

Wow…all that, and I’ve only responded to your first paragraph!

More later ( :>)

We are drifting a little from the point, I suspect Ludwig.

>>The longer term commercial benefit would be realised by graziers, cane-growers and other primary producers, and would flow on to benefit country towns and the whole state economy.<<

We started the discussion considering the role of the government in "town planning", and whether it was a good use of taxpayers' money to fund a city-to-country exodus. Your example seems tightly focussed on one aspect of government interference, the creation of regulations governing "Tree-clearing regulations, erosion control, weed management and the like". Regulations that, it would appear, have the backing of those whom it would affect...

>>The reason it wasn’t skittled is that landholders could generally see the merit in it<<

So, you conducted "hundreds of property assessments all over north and central Queensland" - using taxpayers' money - to arrive at the same conclusion as the landowners. Or are you suggesting that the landholders were too stupid to work it out for themselves?

The difference between this example and the forced-exodus scenario is that the population has already worked out for itself that it prefers city life. I know for a fact that I wouldn't exchange my proximity to Cate Blanchett's Sydney Theatre Company for Lesser WoopWoop's Amateur Dramatic Society. Or condemn myself to seeing Opera Australia visit once a year to perform HMS Pinafore, instead of travelling the ten minutes needed to see their impeccable Salome, or the ability to catch the Sydney Symphony, Simone Young and Christine Brewer's Wagner celebration, at the Opera House

http://www.sydneyoperahouse.com/whatson/wagner_under_the_sails.aspx

It simply doesn't enter the equation. In the same way that even those living an hour out of town are unwilling to give up their ability to visit Luna Park of a weekend, or go to a show at The Star, or...

http://www.weekendnotes.com/sydney/

Life's too short to spend it in the wilderness.

Further to your previous post Pericles….

I reckon there is a balance point, or an optimum position between a big city and woop woop. In Australia, this is in population centres of around 100 000 or perhaps 150 000 people. Above this, the negative factors take precedence, below it, the services, variety of entertainment and variety of goods are not so great.

This would make my centres of Townsville and Cairns pretty close to ideal... but just a little overcooked perhaps. The traffic is pretty awful, and traffic lights are multiplying like flies!

But of course, neither the state nor federal governments care about this. Both just want to grow these north Queensland centres as fast as they possibly can, with no end in sight.

Yes there is an urbanisation, or citification if you like, of the world’s population happening at a pretty rapid rate.

But in Australia, this need not be the case. Indeed, this comes back to the core of our disagreement: I would advocate a strong level of governance, aimed at achieving the best quality of life in our cities and certainly NOT just leaving it up to the whims of chance with minimum planning or regulation.

Anyway, Cairns and Townsville are certainly the places to be, especially in winter. MUUUUUCH better than Sydney!! ( :>)

An interesting choice of population numbers, Ludwig.

>>I reckon there is a balance point, or an optimum position between a big city and woop woop. In Australia, this is in population centres of around 100 000 or perhaps 150 000 people.<<

In that bracket, you have Albury/Wodonga, Launceston, Toowoomba, Darwin and Cairns. Perhaps you might indicate, for the record, where in those fine cities one might find the "variety of entertainment" you believe is available.

Here's a quick "What's On" guide:

http://www.alburywodongaaustralia.com.au/events.asp

I'm sure that Dr Piffle and the Burlap Band will be very entertaining on Friday this week. But if you can't hold out for them, there's always the Wodonga Junior Olympics tomorrow. "Are you the record holder for Wii Sports in your household? Then come along and see how your skills stack up against the other kids."

http://www.visitlauncestontamar.com.au/pages/events/

http://www.toowoombaholidays.com.au/events/

http://www.informationcentres.com.au/information/darwin/darwin-events-calendar/whats-on-in-darwin.html

http://tools.cairns.com.au/events/index.php?category_id=5

I would of course - and I do - visit Cairns for a break. Love the reef. But to live there would - for me personally, I must stress - be death on a stick. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the lifestyle offered is in any way inferior, simply because I couldn't stand it myself. But I am happy to use it as evidence as to why people wouldn't necessarily automatically choose it over city life.

The mere fact that you are proposing bribery, with taxpayers' money, as the only way to prise the citydweller out of his comfort zone, should tell you something, surely?