I wrote:

>> …as for services, which make up an enormous 65% of GDP, a large part of it is again just duplication for ever-more people, without creating improvements for the pre-existing citizenry. <<

Pericles, you replied:

<< Such a massive misapprehension of the workings of an economy is truly breathtaking. Except of course, to me. I'm used to it by now. >>

Wow! Would you be so kind as to explain where the ‘massive misapprehension’ is here?

Surely you can appreciate that a large population increase requires a large duplication of all the basics – housing, roads, supermarkets, doctors… just to give them what the established population already has.

So all of this, which amounts to a very large amount of economic activity is really NEUTRAL…. and should not be added to GDP which indicates that it is ALL totally positive and advancing our economy!

So….. where’s the misapprehension?

No, Ludwig, I'm not too keen on our current immigration program, but I can see some benefit in taking-in a small quota of suitable genuine refugees.

Perhaps 20,000 per year, for maybe the next 10 years, but subject to annual review of our intake capacity - per budget constraints.
Of course the world refugee situation is really rife right now, and the selection of who, and from where, is exceedingly complex.

My inclination would be for suitable representatives of our immigration department to consult with current local refugee groups, like the Sudanese, Tamil, Myanmar and Congolese communities in Oz, as well as the UNHCR, with a view to sending envoys to relevant refugee centres to review and select suitable refugee families for permanent visas.
No easy task, I'm afraid, but in the current situation I think it must be done, and with some urgency.

I have made my position clear on other threads, regarding the overall worldwide refugee situation, and I see the only solution being to tackle the causes of this situation at its roots, in the countries concerned, by a massive international effort, diplomatically and developmentally, and, if necessary, by a very substantial UN peacekeeping deployment.

Our ability to relocate refugees within our own shores can only be token, but, undertaken appropriately, I believe it can be a win-win.

I am dismayed by our offshore processing and detention arrangements, and I believe these need to be closed post haste - either by the issuing of temporary protection visas or the return of unsuitable applicants to appropriate overseas international refugee centres.

Some of our recent refugee intake appear to be settling in well, and are shaping up to be really worthwhile contributors to our society.
These should be our beacon to where and how we can do the most good, both for our own society and for some most worthy refugee families.

Perhaps our governments could establish agricultural and/or horticultural facilities in rural and regional centres to accommodate some refugee families, at least as an interim, and could establish a public appeal towards such development?
Agricultural schools?

Saltpetre, we are of one accord re: our refugee intake.

20 000 per annum? Yes, but only within an immigration program that is heading towards net zero.

The causes of refugeeism need to be tackled at the roots, and our intake, even at 100 000 pa, would be only a token effort.

We should be considering the win-win aspect of our intake. As there are very needy refugees all over the world, we should be choosing the ones that are the most compatible with Australian society and the most likely to assist us rather than hinder us in achieving a truly sustainable high-quality-of-life society.

And yes, let’s get the detention centres shut down.

Of course the way to do that is to STOP the boats….which the current government is well on track to doing. However, those now in the centres need to be processed, and given the practice of document-destruction and the high propensity for non-refugee economic migrants to use the people-smuggling onshore-asylum-seeking method, their refugee determination or non-determination is difficult. This needs to be done properly. So the detention centres need to stay open until this is done.

I don’t like the idea of issuing TPVs or of otherwise letting applicants move freely in our society before their refugee claims have been fully assessed. The story with this in other countries is that some people would go underground and become very hard for the authorities to track. This would also create a considerably pull factor for more arrivals.

And by the way; in keeping with the main discussion on this thread, I will note that all of the very large amount of economic activity and government expenditure involved in dealing with onshore asylum seekers since Rudd’s amazing re-opening up of the whole issue in 2007, which has amounted to a huge economic expense, has been added to our GDP, has it not?

Perhaps Pericles could confirm or counter this.

You really should do some homework on this Ludwig. I have given you plenty of references that you can easily follow up on your own without my having to hold your hand every time. You keep making the same basic errors.

>>So all of this, which amounts to a very large amount of economic activity is really NEUTRAL…. and should not be added to GDP which indicates that it is ALL totally positive and advancing our economy! So….. where’s the misapprehension?<<

Your misapprehension is, as always, around the basis of GDP calculation. It counts all economic activity. Not just the parts that Ludwig considers to be "totally positive". That is because GDP is a measure of our... guess what? Economic activity. All of it. Even the bits you feel are "bad", or "neutral". It cannot be any other way, because this is the design point of the GDP calculation.

So, with that in mind, what you say here makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

>>Surely you can appreciate that a large population increase requires a large duplication of all the basics – housing, roads, supermarkets, doctors… just to give them what the established population already has.<<

It isn't "duplication" Ludwig. It is additional. Additional housing. Additional roads. Additional supermarkets. Additional doctors.

It works like this. You build another supermarket that the new people will use. The "established population" will no doubt continue to buy from their original supermarket, while the new population will buy from the "duplicate" version. This increased turnover is reflected in an increase in GDP.

And because the new arrivals are more productive, GDP per capita will increase as well.

Stick to the beach, Ludwig. Until you can grasp this basic level of understanding, economics will continue to baffle you completely.

<< Your misapprehension is, as always, around the basis of GDP calculation. It counts all economic activity. Not just the parts that Ludwig considers to be "totally positive". That is because GDP is a measure of our... guess what? Economic activity. All of it. Even the bits you feel are "bad", or "neutral". >>

Scuuuze me Pericles, but this is what I keep telling YOU!!

GDP counts ALL economic activity… regardless of its merit. It does not count just the positive bits. YES, GDP is a measure of economic activity, NOT of what is good about our economy.

But guess what. It is taken as a prime indicator of what is good about our economy. The larger the better, end of story, according to our dumb pseudoeconomists and politicians!

<< It isn't "duplication" Ludwig. It is additional. >

Of course it is additional. But it is also duplication! How can duplication not be additional?? More houses, more roads, more shops and businesses of all sorts, all of which is just more of the same for more people. It is duplication. It is so obviously duplication. And it is so obviously +/- neutral in terms of benefits for the pre-existing population.

<< The "established population" will no doubt continue to buy from their original supermarket, while the new population will buy from the "duplicate" version. This increased turnover is reflected in an increase in GDP. >>

Yes!! !!

‘the “duplicate” version’. That’s exactly what it is.

Hey, look at what you’ve written here. It really is close to what I’ve been saying all along. Perhaps you’re finally getting it??

So then, onshore asylum seeking has cost us an enormous amount in since 2007. It is an OBVIOUS drain on our economy. But it has created a wide variety of economic activity… which by the definition of GDP gets included in GDP.

What have got to say about this, Pericles?

BTW, I had a grrreat day at the beach today, in exquisite late autmn weather, here in Cairns ( :>)

I wonder what impact there may be on GDP if the money to rebuild, detain, control borders, 'duplicate' infrastructure (roads, public housing, schools...) has to be borrowed, generating debt?

Surely such borrowings, whether by issuing government bonds, or from Oz banks and superannuation funds, etc, or whether borrowed from overseas, should be reflected as a deduction to GDP?
(Or, 'net' GDP?)
And the interest payable?

Puzzling.

Ludwig, my idea of TPVs is that they be applied/issued to genuine refugees, who also reasonably meet our basic intake criteria, in order to give them temporary asylum (even conditionally) - but leaving the option of later evaluation in respect of permanent residency.

Those who do not qualify as genuine refugees, or who for some reason do not meet even our basic intake criteria, in my way of thinking should be returned to an appropriate overseas international refugee/displaced-persons or UNHCR centre.
Now, I know such centres can be hell on earth, and in need of much greater international humanitarian support, but that is where I believe so much humanitarian effort needs to be focused - as well as, and most importantly, much greater international diplomatic and developmental efforts to correct the underlying causes of displacement, disadvantage and/or terror.

To send anyone back to such refugee centres would be a hard thing to do, but, if their claims are not more compelling than all those other hundreds and thousands, then I do not see that they can or should be afforded special treatment.
Such repatriation would of course be much harder on someone who has endured great hardship to make their way to a refuge country, perhaps over very many miles, and months, maybe even years.
Such factors/circumstances would also therefore have to be taken into account before sending anyone 'back'.

The whole issue is one helluva predicament.

GDP input? I guess Oz' direct expenditure would be.
But what of our foreign aid contributions? A deduction? And, if using borrowed money, would this qualify for a double-deduction from GDP?
(Funny how 'expenditure' and 'GDP' seem to be almost interchangeable?)
Where's revenue fit in?