Ludwig a truth needs to be examined here.
As we all have opinions and views, as we all think we are right.
What do we do if a conflict of those views takes place?
I often. hopefully not ever with you, get in to forward gear at what I see as biased or out right silly views.
IF your question was*should this country stop growth*, population/economy are in my view linked, are you able to agree the result would be a massive NO!
If the question was should we CONTROL not limit Migration, surely the same result would NOT come?
Ludwig I like a great number of Australians think we and the world should limit population.
But going it alone,stopping the policy,s that ALL SIDES take on behalf of majority of voters is not going to happen.
12 months in to this upcoming government, you will see both sides want a big country.

There is a key distinction here, Ludwig, that you appear to be missing entirely.

>>You are agreeing with me that population growth is likely to make the situation so bad that the government is forced to act…. and yet you have for some years now totally poo-pooed me on this forum for wanting to stop population growth!<<

There is absolutely no logical connection between the first and second statements here.

The first was restating a real-life issue, which is that governments invariably act later than would be ideal. Not so late, however, that everything grinds to a halt (even in Sydney, the trains still run. Occasionally, even on time), as demonstrated by the fact that we have had a continuous improvement in our economic position, practically every year in living memory. And certainly for the past consecutive twenty years.

Your second - completely separate - observation is also true of course. Mainly because you have never given anything except an emotional, wishful-thinking reason for stopping our country's growth and development.

>>So then, it would appear that you think the decision to maintain high immigration as recently announced by Gillard is a decision that is not looking to the future.<<

The actual decisions on immigration are made annually, when a quota is discussed, arrived at and agreed - and then met, with surprising accuracy. This quota takes into account the needs of business, as well as families, and is taken extremely seriously. These are operational decisions, and are taken with a clear understanding of existing constraints. Which is more "looking to the present", as opposed to your idea of "looking to the future".

>>Okay, so now all you need to do is admit to yourself that yes, you DO indeed support daft decisions by short-sighted, vested-interest-pressured, self-serving politicians.<<

What, all of them, Ludwig? There are so many, aren't they - I couldn't possibly categorize them into those I support, and those I disagree with.

But you're just being silly. You need to move away from just playing around with words if we are to have anything remotely like a sensible discussion.

Ludwig & Belly;
The discussion you are having will be the major public discussion for
the next twenty to thirty years.

It won't be a discussion about reducing growth, but how stop contraction
and whether immigration makes the economy better or worse.
It may be by that time the pollies & public will have realised that
growth is only possible with increasing energy availability.

As economies contract they will not have the funds to support large
numbers of new immigrants.
You can see this funding problem raising its head already.
It is no coincidence that Wayne Swan is talking about falling revenue.

Bazz, you will be aware, from my past words about you, even rushing in, twice to address Banjo by mistake.
I rather respect you, your work in our hobby is out standing.
You, as do I, and Ludwig, have hobby horses.
Yours is what you see as a calamity, *peak/end of oil*
I KNOWING MANS ABILITY'S think it is an opportunity.
And that only the self interests of big money keeps new fuels from coming much faster.
Ludwig, maybe as my quest for accountability and change in my ALP, has me,blinded himself to a reality that will not just disappear!
Both party,s, and our country feed on growth, you are, without change, 50 years away from any true international attempt to control population growth.

Pericles,

You keep asserting that there are economic benefits from mass migration. The first graph in this link shows Australia's total GDP and GDP per capita in real terms since 1996. As you can see, they parted company in 1998, with total GDP increasing much more quickly. GDP per capita has been stagnant since the end of 2006, despite the gains from the mining boom. This means that all of our much vaunted economic growth since then and a lot of it in the preceding decade is a sham, simply due to having more people, not because the average person is any better off. Why should we care if the pie is growing, if our own slices are no bigger, may even be shrinking, and no longer have a cherry on top?

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/highrise-harry-wants-more-people/

Any economic gains from mass migration are thus wins in a zero-sum game. If you are better off, then some other existing residents are worse off. Note that GDP includes defensive spending (such as on a desalination plant when you have outgrown your natural water supply) and does not consider increases in inequality.

New residents in your community, whether from overseas or elsewhere in Australia, immediately need the full complement of infrastructure. Assuming that infrastructure has an average 50 year lifespan, then 2% population growth, as in Melbourne, doubles the amount that has to be spent in a year to maintain existing standards, but revenue has only increased by 2%. This paper gives an estimate of the costs, which esplains why infrastructure and public services are deteriorating, while the government is taking a bigger share of GDP than in the 1970s, when tertiary education was free and the aged pension wasn't means tested.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0270.2011.02125.x/full

It seems self-evident that demand for new houses (and hence prices) would be low if the population were stable, although there is some effect from decreasing average household size

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/916F96F929978825CA25773700169C65

Thanks Divergence for an interesting post.
Regarding GDP there is a rapidly increasing, about 7% a year, part
of GDP that is a total loss to us as individuals and that is our annual
oil bill. It is $66,000,000 a day, or $24 billion a year.
Soon it will be more than the NBN every year.

There has been criticism of the GDP as being meaningless.
I wouldn't know, but as it counts in money sent out of the country as
dividends and energy charges it does not seem to give a true picture.

I think we have reached the point where any increase has become a
negative and no longer gives any benefit except to the Harrys of this world.