Arjay

You miss the point: It is the cost of providing infrastructure for an increasing population that is impacting on house prices in Australia, not the size of the population. If you are looking for a country where both population size and growth are both factors then try Bangladesh, where you have the unique combination of $1 per day wages and the highest land values in the world.

I also think that you are somewhat exaggerating the impact of government inefficiency on house prices. Jeff Kennet greatly improved the efficiency of government in Victoria, but did this have a big impact on housing costs?

What is true is that there are industries profiting greatly from the increase in Australia's population, and these industries are strong lobbyists for things like high immigration. My concern is that because increasing Australia's population provides no per capita economic benefit, perhaps even a per capita cost, the profits come at the expense of all Australians.

As Dominic Lawson pointed out recently, twentyfive years ago, Thomas Sowell calculated that the entire world population could live comfortably in Texas.

"A quarter of a century ago, I sat down with some statistics on world population and on land area in the United States -- and discovered that the entire population of the world could be housed in the state of Texas, in one-story, single family homes, 4 people to a house, on a lot slightly larger than the lot where I was living at the time, in a typical middle-class neighborhood." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/why_not_everybody.html

Lawson goes on to point out

"The embarrassing truth for the latter-day Malthusians is that the most recent growth in the global population is itself a conclusive demonstration of the fact that increased populations have not led to poverty and pestilence. What we have witnessed, in the developing world, is a stupendous increase in life expectancy - by almost 40 per cent in the second half of the last century." http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/dominic_lawson/article2750473.ece

Yet still we witter on about overpopulation.

Don't we ever learn anything from history?

Another blind man joins the pantomime.

Pericles,perhaps you could set aside the theoretical question of how many people the world can support, and instead address the relevant point of how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for each additional person.

Fester,I do not exaggerate the waste perpetrated by our NSW Govt.Of the $21 billion pa it costs to employ our Public Servants,$7 billion is spent on bureaucrats.This is a cost of over $2000.00 pa for every working person in NSW.In some cases we have one bureaucrat for two workers.

NSW Labor is controlled by the Unions.Our long saga of Train debacles bears witness to this.Not one person has been sacked or reprimanded and the chaos ensues.The Macquarie bank and other interests want to take control of our Ferry Services which are nearly at the point of collapse.Now the Macquarie Bank are not interested in low margin businesses.If private enerprise can make a service work and turn a profit,why can't our Govts?

I say we should slowly elimate our State Govts.A good start would be for The Federal Govt to take control of Health and Education.There should be no more poorly paid Micky Mouse jobs in our Councils.Pay them more and insist on a more professional service.I have yet to hear one rate payer trying to get something done say a positive thing about our Councils.Dealing with them is a nightmare.We need serious reform of all our Govts in terms of efficiency,accountability,and reducing the red tape for us all.

Get Govt waste under control and we will have more money for housing and infrastructure.

Good attempt at a dodge, Fester, but it doesn't work.

>>Another blind man joins the pantomime<<

Ignoring the clumsy jibe for a moment, at least you agree that it is a pantomime that I am joining.

pan·to·mime n. A traditional British Christmas entertainment for children, usually based on nursery tales and featuring stock characters in costume who sing, dance, and perform skits.

There are a few stock characters in this particular "entertainment for children", aren't there? A hero, a villain, a damsel in distress plus the obligatory slapstick comics.

You are presumably Widow Twanky, 'cos Prince Charming, you ain't.

>>perhaps you could set aside the theoretical question of how many people the world can support, and instead address the relevant point of how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for each additional person<<

Are you suggesting that the question of how many people the world can support is irrelevant? Surely not?

And if you look again, you will see that the illustration I provided does in fact answer the question of how much it costs to provide the infrastructure for each additional person.

If the world economy has been improving at a greater rate than the population has increased, as shown in Dominic Lawson's article, then the marginal cost has clearly been lower than the marginal benefit. Simple economics.

I know it is difficult to get away from the popular "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" mentality and look at reality, but it is sometimes a useful exercise.

It helps if you also employ thought processes rather than casual insults when discussing these points. You can't just put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and say "I can't hear you I can't hear you".

Well I suppose you can. But you end up looking quite silly.

Excellent point, Arjay. While population increase remains the agenda, cutting out bureaucratic waste is critical for reducing housing costs. I question the sense of pursuing population growth.You might also like to consider that the economics of population growth engenders substantial corruption.

"If the world economy has been improving at a greater rate than the population has increased, as shown in Dominic Lawson's article, then the marginal cost has clearly been lower than the marginal benefit. Simple economics."

Okay then, does the the principle apply to increasing CO2 and rising temperatures? I always thought that for observational studies, correlation does not imply causation. Is population growth and living standard a special case? I guess that is why you unquestioningly present an article claiming that 6 1/2 billion people could live in Texas. yet seem to demand great rigor for evidence of global warming.

But I must admit to having serious doubts about Dominic Lawsons observational skills. The Productivity Commission found there to be essentially no economic benefit from population growth in Australia, and the fact that huge infrastructure debts are being incurred to cope with increasing populations tends to support this view. Simple economics.