Comments on: Putting the pop into population: Swan’s on the job

By: AR

AR — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:30:37 +0000

Sorry, Hermitage strikes again - “..then” being 1969.

By: AR

AR — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 08:28:17 +0000

Like the previous Treasury guestimate, this piece of fluff is a valuable as anything else from experts without the slightest undertstanding of the real world. In general terms, 2049 is TWO generations hence - compare what you were doing/thinking/expecting then.
As if the remnant Boomers won’t be getting antsy enough in the next decade, their fecund offspring will be asking, “WTF were YOU thinking, if anything, for the last 20yrs to leave us this steaming pile…???”.
Without wanting to go all mad Mark Steyn, ” bigger, but younger, courtesy of both immigration and a slightly higher domestic fertility rate.” ignores the ethnic elephant in the stats.

By: allen brown

allen brown — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:53:43 +0000

D J Hunwick’s got it right. We won’t reach that projected population, because the ecology will collapse long before that (cf Murray-Darling salinity and water shortage problems).
We don’t need more young people to support us in our old age, as long as we look after ourselves and keep our health as long as possible. I’m 70, and still working.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 07:52:18 +0000

True, but I agree with Keane that the Rudd Government is preparing to campaign for re election on being fiscally conservative, which is either ironic in view of its big stimulus or truer than they mean since they have just implented good ole Keynesianism. And, of course, the Libs are setting them up beautifully for it by making such a fuss of wasteful government spending. Labor has to include cuts to some middle class welfare either in a budget next year or in its election platform and the embarrassment of the Libs will be complete.

On this analysis I don’t see how it makes any difference whether the ‘fiscal conservative’ measures are included in a budget or an election platform. So I don’t see why the Coalition is convinced that Rudd is keen to go to an election before having to bring down the 2010 budget. This would matter only if you were Howard who sought to win elections with budget prolifigacy.

By: D. John Hunwick

D. John Hunwick — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 05:45:04 +0000

I can’t recall disagreeing with Bernard Keane before but on this issue I wonder where his understanding of ecologically sustainable development or ecological footprint has gone? People like Tim Flannery (and many others) have been pointing out for years, that if Australia wants the present lifestyle then this country could only do it by reducing its population to about 10- 12 million. If Bernard is so keen to endorse an increase in population (solely it seems for ecopnomic reasons) he has blundered in not considering the other two factors of society and the environment. Australia’s ecological footprint is what - 28 times above the average needed for a sustainable planet? It is the government’s refusal to even start a discussion on a Population Policy for Australia that allows erroneous descisions relating to the long term sustainabilty to go unchecked. At 65 I want to work longer, especially if it means delaying the pension and buiulding a better society for my children and grandchildren - after all, these people that I know personaly will be around to pick up the mess of an Australia with an increasing population rathre than a sustainable one.