<< …there are other factors which come into play when decisions are made to build new roads, other than migration alone… >>

Of course there are Paul. But you can surely appreciate that our current huge rate of population growth is a huge factor in creating demand for more roads.

<< …can Australia simply act in isolation… >>

We wouldn’t be doing that if we achieved a stable population and a sustainable society. We’d be setting a great example for the rest of the world. And we’d still be giving a lot of international aid, be helping countries to deal with their population and sustainability problems, and exporting food, minerals and all sorts of other stuff.

<< …stagnate our population. >>

You are thinking about this in the wrong way. A stable population does not mean stagnation.

Please Paul; you simply cannot be a real Green if you are going to pander to never-ending population growth, and all the negatives that go with it.

You think the world is overpopulated and you presumably don’t want the global population to get any bigger. Well, why do you think differently about Australia?

You can see that Sydney badly needs better planning as far as population is concerned, but you can’t see that slowing the rate of population growth in Sydney (and the whole country) might just a fundamental part of improved planning.

Anyway, this is off to the side of the main issue.

My point is that as far as the budget is concerned and indeed the overall economy, our population growth rate, which is made up largely by immigration, is a HUGE factor…. yet it is going ENTIRELY unaddressed by Hockey/Abbott... and Bowen/Shorten are not picking them up on this enormous and critical oversight!

<< I have carefully explained, repeatedly, how bushfires, cyclones, earthquakes, disease etc. can threaten (i.e. reduce) our GDP performance. >>

Yes you have Pericles. And I have said that of course they do!!

See this post on this very thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6365#188311

I said in that post:

>> Fires, cyclones, illnesses, car accidents, droughts, obesity, and a thousand other bad things, have a negative effect on productivity. Of course as a result of these, GDP would be lower than it would otherwise be. <<

So why then does economic activity that is spurred by these things get added to GDP ?? ?? ??

Come on Pericles, you need to concede that you are just completely off the mark with this particular subissue!

<< What you are effectively saying is that the "pre-existing population" should not in any way share their good fortune with anyone else… >>

No I’m not. You’re getting worked up again. And when you do that you make silly polarised statements like this. At net zero immigration, our immigration program would still be quite significant. And of course established citizens will continue to pay for the up-front for the needs of these new residents.

<< The short-sightedness of your vision for fortress Australia… >>

Pericles, we were having a polite conversation. Seems like you just can’t do that for very long, eh?

You know full well that net zero immigration does not equate to anything like a ‘fortress Australia’ mentality. Shame on you for asserting that I hold this sort of view when you know full well that I don’t.

You live in Sydney, right in the guts of the place. Well, how can you not see the issues with population pressure and continued rapid population growth? It affects Sydney more than anywhere else in the country. How can you not see that a somewhat lower rate of immigration would be a damn good idea, at least until we got the budget back into order?

And how can continue to uphold such a fundamentally flawed economic indicator as GDP??

Your views defy all logic!! !! !!

Poor "old" Individual wrote, "where is the evidence?", regarding Tax'Em Tony's doubling of the deficit.

Individual, I told you where it is in my first post. I again told you where it is in my 2nd post on page 7.

Now for the third time I'll tell you where it is .... refer to my 2nd post on page 7, and refer to my opening post.

There ya go Individual. That's where it is. No need to thank me. I'm so happy that I had this chance to direct you towards the empirical "facts", for the third time in this thread. Please try to actually read those facts this time. Believe it or not, education is good for you Individual.

This is just such a total beat-up, typical of welded-on socialist hypocrites.

Evidence refuting Nhoj's indictment, quoted directly from the ABC Fact Check article quoted (and linked) by Nhoj in his opening defamatory posting are:

1. "Governor Glenn Stevens told the Standing Committee on Economics in February 2013 that the RBA would have preferred that Mr Swan had not depleted the bank's capital by withdrawing $500 million in dividends ahead of schedule to pay down the government deficit."

(My question: How much in total did Swan and Gillard rip from the RBA?)

2. "The MYEFO said that over the forward estimates a $54.3 billion deterioration in the projected combined deficit since the PEFO was caused by "parameter and other variations" changes.

These included:

. changes to the parameters for determining tax receipts, which will result in the government receiving $37.8 billion less over the forward estimates than forecast in the PEFO;
. a change to the terms of trade methodology, reducing economic growth forecasts, causing a $2 billion hit to the bottom line over the forward estimates;
. a change in the projected unemployment rate, leading to higher benefits payments totaling $3.7 billion extra

Mr Bowen accurately quotes the MYEFO in stating that the economic assumptions have changed, with a resulting negative effect on the budget deficit."

(Former Treasurer Bowen here concurs that the former PEFO forecasts were IN ERROR - to the tune of $43.5 billion.)

(Mostly reduced revenue, not increased spending.)

3. "He (Treasurer Hockey) suggested Labor was to blame for the need for changed assumptions. "The methodology that they [Treasury] have used in MYEFO actually confirms the fact that Labor left the legacy of increasing deficits to $123 billion..."

4. "It remains to be seen how the two sets of forecasts stand the test of time,"

5. " but as of today, Mr Bowen's claim checks out."

(Mr Bowen's claim: that the forecast deficit has doubled. Good boy, he can count. Does he actually explain why? No on your Nelly!)

Beat up, to cover Labor's ineptitude.

Round and round we go, Ludwig.

>>So why then does economic activity that is spurred by these things get added to GDP<<

It doesn't. No matter how many times you say it.

It does not get added to GDP.

It does not increase GDP, as you have argued.

Compare this statement of yours...

>>Fires, cyclones, illnesses, car accidents, droughts, obesity, and a thousand other bad things, have a negative effect on productivity. Of course as a result of these, GDP would be lower than it would otherwise be<<

...with this one:

>>[there is] increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol<<

One of these must be wrong. Yet you are the author of both, are you not?

And you have the sheer chutzpah to tell me...

>>Your views defy all logic!! !! !!<<

If you cannot see that your two statements are entirely contradictory, then you are certainly the wrong person to talk about logic.

Saltpetre:

(1) $500 million is a mere pittance. The 4 year deficit is $123 BILLION. So you *FAIL*, as you have not shown that the deficit has not doubled under the coalition.

(2) You've just repeated what's previously been said by me .. "the economic assumptions have changed under the coalition". That's one of the reasons why the coalition has more than DOUBLED the deficit. Thanks for that. So you *FAIL* again, as you have not shown that the deficit has not doubled under the coalition.

(3) Hockey's merely playing politics and "blaming Labor". DUH!! Hockey did NOT deny that under the coalition the deficit has more than DOUBLED. So you *FAIL* once more, as you have not shown that the deficit has not doubled under the coalition.

(4) True. And you *FAIL* again, as this doesn't prove that the deficit has not doubled under the coalition.

(5) True. And you *FAIL* as usual, as this "fact" doesn't prove that the deficit has not doubled under the coalition.

RESULT = Saltpetre has been unable to prove that the deficit has not doubled under the coalition.

FINAL RESULT = Australia's deficit has more than DOUBLED under the coalition.