Hi Pericles,

Thanks for the invite--I note the Philips beat me to it--but I'd already scribbled a few notes so here goes:

I think the point Philips was making was that the raw cost to OZ was billions of (budgetary) dollars. A point you parried and poo-pooed at the time.However, I gather that since you have now discovered your error you're doing your level best to redeem something of your case by represent it in net terms, à la, pumping billions into the support of the illegal immigration industry serves to stimulate the economy.

This is rather like the "argument" pushed by Alan Austin that it didn't matter if the the school halls built under the GFC stimulus was shoddy, the payment thereof served to stimulate the economy.Now I am no economist (as you well know, and which I suspect is why you are taking this approach!) but it seems to me --in a common sense sort of way-- that providing funding for 1000 research scientists must in the long run be better for the economy/society than funding 1000 immigration lawyers --but you might see things differently!

And I would suggest that even getting close to measuring the real cost/benefits of such would require nothing less than a Tianhe-2 supercomputer (and mine is offline at the moment), not the back of the envelope stuff you're fond of.

And not only are we in a poor position to measure the net LONG TERM costs/benefits. I'd suggest we can't even begin to imagine them.
I note that a number of recent (unpopular with lefties) studies are showing societies that take in large numbers of ethnically diverse migrants incur costs through becoming less cohesive and trustful (what dollar value do you give this?) and I imagine there are almost certain to be others...

SM,

".....The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

Not involved, not qualified, no expertise in assessing asylum claims.

Therefore, the article is a compilation of the doctor's observations (a few extreme examples) and her opinion.

Thanks, SM

Dear SM,

Try this on for some food for thought:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-tosolve-the-boat-problem-without-cruelty-20130722-2qeof.html

P,

What sanctimonious twaddle! Who do you know with a Phd in asylum seeker assessment or even a basic BA?

The doctor is a smart highly qualified individual who has spent a number of years working for international SOS in crisis areas, and combined with a sound medical assessment of medical condition incl trauma is almost certainly far more capable of determining the credibility of the asylum seekers claims than a bureaucrat with a clip board and a tick list of questions that the "asylum seekers" have long rehearsed.

Foxy,

Your link to the "solution" as espoused by Paul Komesaroff and Suresh Sundram which simply involves world peace, reconciliation and a group hug, while a worthwhile ambition is in the left wing tradition supremely useless.

You may well have convinced yourself of this, Philip S, but you'd be wrong.

>>Pericles - I am convinced now that you really do know I am right but just want to play silly little childish games<<

And wrong not for the first time, I suspect.

But you obviously either i) did not bother to read what I wrote, or ii) haven't the faintest idea how an economy functions. Possibly both, of course. Simply reiterating what you wrote before, as you did, could fit either scenario.

And thanks for underlining the point, SPQR.

>>I think the point Philips was making was that the raw cost to OZ was billions of (budgetary) dollars<<

Exactly. My point was that the billions of dollars quoted was not the cost to the taxpayer, in that it doesn't represent the net impact. Neither you nor I nor he is in a position to assess that. But what we both know is that simply bandying large numbers about is merely pot-stirring, which is why I issued the challenge.

Significantly, all Philip S has done is go back and repeat the big number, ignoring everything else.

But hey, it's what he does. Marks for consistency, if not for accuracy.

only 'dozens' of fishing boats prepared to take asylum seekers to Australia
Suseonline,
I don't know how many there are. I have been on a beach in Indonesia & spoke with a malayan (fisherman) who told me he is doing three trips a year with no more than 3 passengers. He actually told me he couldn't be bothered taking people here if only he could ends meet. I had the distinct impression that he would have been quite happy to receive $5000, and not have to do a trip. Now that would be finitely cheaper an option than processing just one immigrant.
The problem is not the fishermen. The problem is the agenda to invade Australia before those who support this intake grow a brain.