The Little Australia crowd will overturn one of our greatest economic reforms
|
For generations our leaders have done the right thing by Australia on population. They strongly supported high immigration, and did so despite great reluctance from voters for it. From Ben Chifley through to John Howard, they resisted the narrow-minded temptations of Little Australia. The postwar political consensus that gave us high immigration was the first great economic reform of the modern era, one that created the demographic platform for a high-growth economy once it was opened to competition in the 1980s. It’s a reform that continues to generate prosperity to this day. And Kevin Rudd followed the same path, maintaining high levels of immigration and committing himself to the idea of a Big Australia. Is he the last of a proud tradition? Perhaps Julia Gillard — who reminds me much more of John Howard than Kevin Rudd ever did — will, like her Liberal predecessor, talk the talk of anti-immigration but quietly oversee a continuation of former policies. Perhaps Tony Abbott is merely being opportunistic and will adopt his mentor’s approach of a strong immigration program if elected. But the bipartisan consensus on high immigration has been broken, and there’s no clear path back to it. John Howard as Prime Minister never faced pressure from Labor to curtail immigration, not even when One Nation was pushing the issue from the Right, or when Howard was providing a back door for temporary migrants on student visas to jump the queue and obtain permanent residency. But the Liberals under Abbott and his loathsome innumerate of an Immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, have abandoned their policy in Government and embraced Little Australia. Labor has seemingly decidedly it has no choice but to follow them -– though not with reluctance, but with apparent relish, complete with attacks on Kevin Rudd for “hurtling toward a Big Australia”. Either our politicians are opportunistic hypocrites, or they’ve embarked on one of the biggest economic policy debacles in modern Australian history. As Michael Pascoe explained succinctly last week for Fairfax, cutting immigration is a recipe for higher interest rates in the shorter term as we run out of workers and higher taxes in the longer term as our population ages. The Little Australia brigade have no answer on these issues. For a country that has 5% unemployment amidst a lingering global economic malaise, lower immigration necessarily means fewer workers, higher wages, higher inflation and higher interest rates. Lower immigration means fewer workers per retiree in decades to come and higher taxation on top of higher inflation and interest rates. That’s the mathematical reality that all the talk about “sustainability” and “Australia is full” stickers on utes can’t hide. That’s not to say there isn’t some dissembling on both sides of the debate. Let’s be clear about the motives of the business community: it wants a larger pool of workers not just to fill skill shortages, but to undermine unions and keep wage pressures down. Business instinctively dislikes the idea of lower immigration because fewer workers mean having to pay their employees more to hang onto them, and having to invest more in training. Except, as we saw during the boom years before the GFC, even historically high rates of immigration and hundreds of thousands of temporary workers couldn’t prevent skill shortages and low rates of unemployment. If business thinks high immigration means it won’t have to reward staff well and invest in their development, they’re kidding themselves. But the economic argument isn’t the only rationale for maintaining high immigration. There’s a strong moral case. Nearly all Australians are the children or descendants of immigrants. To demand a slashing of immigration is a staggering example of inter-generational opportunism on our part, in effect denying to future immigrants and their children the advantages that we ourselves have accrued as the result of the generosity of generations past. The Little Australia advocates want to preserve Australia in amber, to prevent it from ever changing, because change is threatening. Gillard and Abbott like to say they’re not afraid of the future, but their professed stances on immigration reflect exactly that sort of fear. It’s the same sort of thinking that reflexively opposes real economic reform because it leads to restructuring and job losses in some industries and growth in others. The mindset that sees only risk, not opportunity. The best contribution to the population debate so far came on Wednesday from the unfairly maligned Ken Henry. Henry, as reported yesterday by the AFR, told a business lunch that he felt the key first step in addressing issues around regional population imbalances was to address the range of areas where economic growth is being constrained, often at a local level, by interventions that prevent markets from operating effectively. Henry correctly nominated water, where a national market is slowly developing despite of the best efforts of the states, in addition to the more frequently nominated areas of infrastructure. But it also applies to housing, where approval processes are an important constraint on the market responding to high demand. By pricing externalities, such reforms can help address the sort of sustainability issues that Little Australia advocates frequently hide behind. Infrastructure provision becomes easier when there are genuine price signals for its use. Carbon emissions can be reduced when polluters and their customers start paying for them. A better mix of public and private transport is achieved when motorists have to pay for the congestion they cause. Industry becomes more efficient at using water when it is priced appropriately and in recognition of the need for environmental flows. But the Little Australia mindset resists difficult and complex reform because it fears change, while incessantly demanding that governments do something to address existing problems. And the surrender to small-mindedness comes at a time when Australia should be exploiting the poor economic management of other developed countries to pick the eyes out of their skill bases. Across Europe and the anglosphere, there are millions of highly skilled, well-educated men and women whose potential isn’t being used, and won’t be used for years to come, until Western economies return to strong growth, if they ever do. We should be encouraging these people to make new homes in Australia, where we’ll put their talents to use and reward them well. The craven retreat from immigration by Tony Abbot and Julia Gillard is a policy disaster of the first order. And it’s one for which generations of Australians will pay. |
|
|
|
50 Comments
Well said!
Perhaps Little Australia as a catchcry reflects their intellect as well as their ideals
I disagree on 2 grounds.
The world’s population is too big and Australia shouldn’t contribute to even bigger population growth.
Keane’s economic argument leads to an infinite regress: increasing Australia’s population increases demand for labour and other resources which needs to be met by further increasing the population. It is possible to grow the economy without growing the population by increasing productivity.
The demographic and other imbalances can be met by restructuring the economy which would be no more painful than the pain of increasing the population.
Nice read Bernard, but mostly ordinary. This especially:
“But it also applies to housing, where approval processes are an important constraint on the market responding to high demand.
By pricing externalities, such reforms can help address the sort of sustainability issues that Little Australia advocates frequently hide behind. Infrastructure provision becomes easier when there are genuine price signals for its use. Carbon emissions can be reduced when polluters and their customers start paying for them. A better mix of public and private transport is achieved when motorists have to pay for the congestion they cause. Industry becomes more efficient at using water when it is priced appropriately and in recognition of the need for environmental flows.”
Housing has been a growing problem for decades. As has transport infrastructure. The recent attempt at carbon pricing was such a disaster that it initiated the downfall of the elected PM.
Successive failures from governments at all levels has left the Australian populace disillusioned with the ability of leaders to handle a growing population, aside from existing infrastructure issues.
But you say “we can do it”. Only someone so utterly ensnared by the bureaucracy would believe such rubbish. You can tell that you’re a former public servant.
Yes Bernard - good to have you on board the reality wagon! Small Australia will leave our nation as a kind of giant retirement home.
And as I’ve argued elsewhere, ‘sustainability’ has a history as a figleaf for the xenophobes since overt racism became unfashionable. Certainly there are some who truly fear for ecological sustainability, but low or no immigration will not address this effectively - it will only weaken Australia’s capacity to transform its economy and society for the reasons you and others have stated.
I wonder to what degree Gillard and Abbott are going to really shrink Australia by reducing immigration and/or cutting reproduction incentives, or whether it is just rhetoric for cheap votes. It will still be massively damaging even if it is just empty words, as it will legitimise a dreadful position in future debate.
Well Bernard, a rather slanted, ghoul-like approach and only white english speakers? Perhaps you should try for a little more balance.
“And the surrender to small-mindedness comes at a time when Australia should be exploiting the poor economic management of other developed countries to pick the eyes out of their skill bases. Across Europe and the anglosphere, there are millions of highly skilled, well-educated men and women whose potential isn’t being used, and won’t be used for years to come, until Western economies return to strong growth, if they ever do. We should be encouraging these people to make new homes in Australia, where we’ll put their talents to use and reward them well.”
I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that Bernard Keane, for all his contributons that seem to show awareness of environmentlal issues, does not really understand ecologically sustainable development. In a sentence it means living a lifestyle that is in accord with the natural ecology of the earth so that future human populations AND the earth can continue for hundreds of years if not millenia. I am not narrow-minded in wanting a “small Australia”. I want that position NOW so that the country can organise itself into an ecologically sustainable situation BEFORE it continues population growth on the scale envisaged by Rudd. If we cannot do it with the populaiton we have now then I can’t see us doing it before some ecological tipping point has been surpassed and the whole population on earth, no matter where they live, will be in deep strife. My understanding is that the world’s present total life style has already exceeded its renewable capacity, and if everyone wanted to live at my level, we would need 3-5 more earths to do it.
Finally, I find it outrageously offensive that “the surrender to small-mindedness comes at a time when Australia should be exploiting the poor economic management of other developed countries to pick the eyes out of their skill bases”. If Australia can’t educate its own youth, employ its elderly citizens who are willking to work, and have to rob other countries of their talented people who should stay there and pay back something of what they have already recived then we have no sense of neighborliness or morality.
Does economic growth equal increased benefits for each individual Australian. A larger economy due to more people does not make it better for each person. We should be measuring economic growth per capita. (Along with wealth distribution.)
This article is just the “growth is sacred and must not be stopped or slowed” argument under another name. Eerily reminiscent of Chris Berg’s (from the IPA) favourite topic.
Create a fictional group and relish in making snide, cheap assertions about their reasons for holding an opposing viewpoint.
In Chris Berg’s case, it’s feral greenies who want to take us back to the caves.
In this case, it’s the “Little Australia” brigade, who are conservative, insular, xenophobic, shut-the-gate types.
The trouble is, the underlying arguments in both cases are utterly incapable of being substantiated beyond the short to medium term.
Dick Smith, who would fit the ‘Little Australia’ category, said about 70,000 migrants per year would be OK. The Rudd ‘Big Australia’ seemed to aim at around 250,000 migrants per year. If we adjust each number a bit and say Little = 100,000 and Big=200,000, what is the economic, moral and social difference in the outcomes - all other things being equal?
I’m glad to agree with you BK but I have a question. It is the second I have noticed you expressing loathing of Scott Morrison and branding him innumerate. I have only had the opportunity to hear him in person once, and to speak briefly to him. He struck me as being well in command of the figures for e.g. refugees world wide and other relevant data though I can’t recall specifically any great validation of his analytical abilities or capacity to use the figures. So…
What’s the evidence?
My own inclination would be to trust Abbott and co to go along with the business line in favour of high skilled immigration. Abbott’s religion wouldn’t put him off that at all and he doesn’t seem to have a White Australia bone in his body for all the talk of the Anglosphere (which includes educated Indians and Overseas Chinese).
It would be interesting to try and quantify the benefits to existing Australians and their children and grandchildren if we restricted the numbers of permanent residents to a figure as close to the present population as possible. We would all have a bigger share of the benefits from our resources wouldn’t we? Temporary visas could look after the expansion of the workforce needed to expand our mining activities and we could look to Nauru, not only for a Pacific Solution to keep out those we don’t need to help with mining, but for examples of how to live the life of rentiers on abundant natural resources - though in our case much more diversified and unlikely to run out in the next 100 years whatever the terms of trade might do when Africa and Russia come on line properly.
Abbott does and goes what and where his church bosses tell him. Simple as that. He dare not stray from the path mapped out by Rome and interpreted by Pell. There are plenty of devotees in the Opposition marching to the same tune and the club is called? Yes correct Opus Dei. Controversies about Opus Dei have centered around criticisms of its alleged secretiveness,its recruiting methods, the alleged strict rules governing members, the practice by celibate members of mortification of the flesh, its alleged elitism and misogyny, the alleged right-leaning politics of most of its members, and the alleged participation by some in authoritarian or extreme right-wing governments. That description doesn’t come from The Da Vinci Code, which was somewhat over the top in some of its criticism, not all but some. Abbott would have become a member during his seminary years and that would have set in concrete his future attitudes and beliefs. Of course he is not one of the celibate members, however as he showed when Health Minister his judgement is strongly influenced by his catholic religion. He may have a degree of tolerance towards Pacific Islanders, Chinese and Indians, how does he stand on Islam?
Im not at all sure Australians who are voting Liberal, just because they always do, or are influenced by Abbotts religious affiliation, really know much about this man. Hopefully during the election leadup, much more will be revealed. He has so far successfully shared little, while appearing to have opened up considerably. Someone is guiding him with a good deal of success so far.
At some point population growth has to stop - indefinite increase is simply not an option. So one day we will have to face up to the structural change required. Yes, there will be some pain - the old tried-and-tested formula for prosperity will need to be reworked. I’m a proud ‘Little Australian’ and say we should choose the time where we adjust to a low growth era, and choose it now, rather than having the choice forced on us down the road due to external circumstances.
I’m sorry Bernard, but you’ve never answered the question of where do we draw the line?
Bernard, Australia is only in the economic position it enjoys because of China. Once China sneezes we are in trouble just like the rest. By the way the unemployment rate where I live is 10%.
Bernard, I thought this was brilliant. Thankyou.
As the son of immigrants who grew up with a lot of people of similar background, I am appalled at hearing so many of these people become so, basically, racist by saying “F**k off, we’re full” and such. What heart-breaking hypocrisy.
But that’s my own issue…
More importantly, I struggle with the oft-repeated argument (by so many commenters on this site) that growth isn’t important.
Could you imagine saying that in the 30’s before the massive immigration of the 40’s and 50’s?
Would Australia be a better place if it was the same as the 30’s, even putting aside the wars (impossible though it is)? I’d like to think we’re all a lot better off nowadays, but I could be wrong…
And before I get replies with the counter argument saying the way we’ve lived post-war has polluted the planet etc (unmistakably so!), doesn’t that conveniently ignore the technological and ideological progress we’ve made since then to avoid doing it again?
@ David
I suppose I can follow your reasoning which is that Abbott retains the faith of his early years (said by many to be one of the ways religion can be good for an individual’s sense of purpose and general happiness: well, it takes all sorts) and, not illogically, looks to the leaders of a church which puts a great deal of weight on the authority of leaders, for advice and a sounding board. There is some evidence that he talks to George Pell, but none that I know of that he treats himself as the intellectual or moral inferior of the Cardinal or has a problem about disagreeing with him.
We know that he accepts the No. 1 remaining shibboleth of the Roman Catholic church (and “Roman” is necessary here for precision and not merely because one’s editor might be an old-fashioned Anglican), namely, that a human being with the right to be treated as such in law exists from the moment of conception (and one should add for real pedantic precision that embryonic “human beings” mustn’t be disposed of lightly even though they can’t feel it and might even turn into twins and back again if not interfered with). I doubt if he is a red hot supporter of its No. 2 shibboleth which concerns homosexuality, though it is probably better that Malcolm Turnbull is member of Wentworth than Tony. (Malcolm’s thoroughgoing liberal stances make one wonder if his conversion was a case of “Paris is worth a Mass” when garnering support within the NSW Liberal Party against the Wentworth incumbent. But that is BTW except that I would be pleased to read any reliable Crikey gossip on the subject).
Are there any other Catholic shibboleths left in secular Australia? Is there any evidence of anything seriously deviant from secular Australian values that Abbott would be likely to profess or support apart from the above? His approach to Aboriginal affairs seems to be in the best of Christian missionary traditions - and I contrast that with some missionary ways which weren’t so good.
What is worth noting is his early attachment to Bob Santamaria and the National Civic Council. That is where he probably acquired attitudes which have led to Costello (an old friend) and others criticising his indifference to the requirements 0f a modern competitive economy. There could be perhaps a touch of the Catholic Social Movement’s enthusiasm for the life of the small farmer still hanging on sentimentally. So, if that worries you, vote 1 Gillard for tough modern capitalism.
@ Julius…good read thanks.
@ David
Don’t worry, you’ll find something to be rude about soon! (Which is to say thanks for the courtesy however unlikely it is to be accepted as precedent on Crikey blogs).
Sustainable population growth:
Renewable energy used to desalinate water, high density housing constructed in existing urban areas. Public transport invested in and used to transport extra people, fueled by renewable fuels. We don’t use any extra land, nor create extra pollution and get economic growth. Every property collects rainwater in tanks - we have ample for an increased population with enough left over to water native gardens.
Unsustainable population growth:
Spreading out further from the edges of our current cities, cutting down more forest so everyone gets a block of land, all the extra people use extra water growing their lawns and together as a nation we get out on saturday morning and all burn few million litres of 2 stroke mowing grass. On weekdays all pull out of our driveways and then onto the brakes as we crawl along at 10km/h, sitting alone in our cars next to each other listening to morning radio as we all burn hundreds of millions of litres of fuel. Population cholsterol choking up our polluted, sprawling cities.
I don’t usually promote anything produced by one of Rupert Murdoch’s minions, but here is an article worth reading, in my opinion: Frank Fenner sees no hope for humans
I supposeKeane et al are also in favour of a “big Sahara” - after all, it’s as big as Australia and even emptier …
@Edwin Coleman
This is one of my major gripes about this argument. I don’t think anyone’s seriously suggesting that we put a million people out at Giles and ask them to sort themselves out for water, food and so on.
The population densities of our capital cities is so low. Sydney sits about 110th on the list of cities by population density, Melbourne and Adelaide about 130th and etc etc). Surely those cities can fit some more people in, once folks realise they don’t all need a wasteful quarter-acre, swimming pool, double garage…
Our country is continually over exposed and abused by an increasingly desperate rightarded press that is fed by the evil of a conservative opposition, mouth piece of the religious right and the filthy rich. Let’s call a spade a spade here. WE have for an opposition at present lead bya bunch of fascists that will piss on any human right and jump into bed with any multnational interest and forsake the national interest to gain control of this great country. The bold face of such evil is obvious to anybody who cares and blind to the fearful, selfishly greedy and let’s not forget the ignorant, without them the fascists, religious fundamentalists (same evil) wouldn’t exist. The little Australians have even smaller intellects, in the Middle East they’re called the Taliban, and here they’re called the Coalition. In Germany early last century the fascists disguised themselves as national socialists, here they march under a National/liberal flag. If you have any doubts read the history books before they start to burn them again, or before they rewrite them under the guise of a black arm band view. Sound familiar, yes it started under Howard and also the great Menzies when a big Australia suited their racist war cry, remember, get bigger or perish, the yellow peril or the reds under the bed. Now it’s boat people, Muslims or progressives. As Hitler did, Abbott too will pervert a Green zeitgeist to sift the population for his kind, stupefied by an even dumber press gallery.
@kristian
it’s true we mostly live wastefully - but why aim for a population of 20 billion living like ants? more is not better
@edwin
Either you’re trolling, or you’re doing the exaggeration thing again… Neither is particularly clever.
It’s not the numbers. It’s the quality of brains that should matter.
@ Phil
Don’t spoil your rant which proceeds on the view that you are one of the enlightened intelligent people with standing to condemn “the ignorant”, and the “even dumber press gallery” by making so many elementary errors. E.g. placing the Taliban in the Middle East or mistaking the Nazis as disguised fascists or getting confused over the meaning of “the little Australians” [it is pretty clear that you want to say it is the pro-immigration Howard and Menzies policies that belong to those of “even smaller intellects”] and, ludicrously, the “black armband view” which you don’t seem to understand is the catchphrase used for the left view of Australia’s history.
@ Phil. Almost everything you say there is correct, but tone down the hyperbole and rhetoric, take out any reference to Nazis, and chill a bit. A good debater knows when to hold back. But I did like the Taliban line…
…anyway, a “Little Australia” election (about to be announced as I type) is just too depressing to think about. I think I’ll sit this one out, take a long holiday and come back to Australia when it’s over.
One good thing: Now that word “sustainable” has become part of the dog-whistle, the word will quickly gain disrepute and fall out of usage. I’m sick to death of hearing that word in every sentence written about public policy.
sophistry by any other name Bernard. Lower material standard of living is the point y0u fat western glutton (metaphorically speaking).
Actually why not compare current Australia to Nazi Germany, the level of propaganda must be similar. The much vaunted low unemployment figures are a joke. NB You are deemed to be employed if you have an hour of work paid or unpaid in the survey period.
The total denial of Australian culture and the massive influx of Asian migrants who think Australians are too lazy to work, when Australians have to be so qualified to the considered for a job, that the job goes to an Asian without comparable qualifications. If Australian youth don’t get base level jobs they will never rise into management and they will the the white trash of Asia
We pick on Afghans and Tamils arriving on leaky boats because skippys feel unwelcome in Bankstown Square and Chadstone when confronted by arab women shrouded in black all encompassing shrouds and face masks. The shop assistants at Chadstone have completed university degrees in marketing, law, arts teaching and they can only get casual work. How are they going to pay off their HECS debt? Don’t we owe Australian youth the chance to earn a decent living so they can own a house, rear children?
Australia must be the only country that isn’t worried about “food security” and “food miles” is a foreign concept.
We blithely follow the level playing field of free trade precepts so that we permit the importation of apples, orange concentrate, milk powder, pork.
Aussie farmers are ploughing their citrus orchards in by the hectare and fleeing dairy production.
Currently the Melbourne fresh milk market is supplied from Cairns unless you buy Devondale. Only Devondale contains no imported milk product
Gavin Moodie says “It is possible to grow the economy without growing the population by increasing productivity.” It has never been done yet however the examples of financial disaster in the world seem to be parallel with shrinking populations. There are plenty of those examples. Let’s not be one of them.
Austria has a gross domestic product per capita of $US39,400 (Australia $US38,800) with an annual population growth of 0.04% (Australia 1.171%).
Source: CIA World Factbook
Bernard .What part of finite don’t you understand?????
Gavin Moodie says Austria is doing well with a population growth rate of .04%. They are uniquely positioned between the old Eastern block countries and Europe (which gives it strength) which gives their banking and business sector a huge leg up. Relying on tourism heavily, they are boosted by millions of foreign tourists who are a Sunday drive away. We would love that here in Oz.
To be fair Gavin look at Portugal .23% Italy .05% Greece .13% Spain .07 (Source http://www.indexmundi.com/
Have you heard of P.I.G.S. Gavin? Is there some parallel with their population growth rate and their current economic state of affairs? Give me growth Gavin. Give me growth!
One day we will work out how we can do it the other way. For the moment ……Give me growth!
Gavin, I must say I am the only one born here of a family of ten that emigrated from England after World War Two. The next generation was 30 and the next is over 20 and counting. Collectively they include many successful businesses, Professionals, workers and many great family units. When I was a kid my best mate was Italian. It would be hard to convince me that immigration is bad for us.
The correlation between population growth and gross domestic product per capita in 225 countries is -0.504. That is a reasonably strong negative correlation between population growth and gross domestic product per capita, meaning that high population growth is reasonably strongly associated with low gross domestic product per capita.
Oh Gavin how figures can lie. When you add the basket case Muslim economies into the equation like Uganda Gambia Congo Chad Madagascar Oman Kuwait Somalia Yemen Afghanistan with population growth rates around 3% you think you prove your point. Be fair.
Kuwait is hardly a ‘basket case’ with a gross domestic product per capita of $54,100, significantly higher than Australia’s. Even Oman at $23,900 is comfortably above the world average of $15,393.
However, even removing the countries which are inconvenient to the population growth = wealth advocates gives a correlation between population growth and gross domestic product per capita of -0.47.
Dear god. The inaccuracies and logical fallacies in this are unbelievable.
Firstly (as the IMF just recently pointed out) Australia doesn’t have 5% unemployment … its more like 15-20% (especially if you add in under employment and the Australian diaspora of 800,000+). Check the ABS sometime.
It is a current account deficit country (ABS, RBA), that depends on borrowing money every day to survive. It’s capital markets are too small for the current population so approx 50% of all mortgages are funded by foreign money.
Its agricultural production has peaked, oil production in terminal decline and, last time I looked, we are not an industrial powerhouse with factories held back by labour shortages. It’s a declining farm and a mine and that’s it. heck even some resources are running out … like coking coal.
In reality increasing population increases our current and capital deficits … actually raising interest rates higher than they need to be! Note the banks warning that their margins are being hit because the money they access overseas is getting more expensive?
Each persona added means:
We import more oil and goods and export less food.
We have to borrow more money to fund these purchases and provide the mortgages for all those wonderful houses we keep building over valuable agricultural land.
Our water usage goes up … welcome to water costs 4+ times greater than we pay now.
We strain our already decrepit water, energy, health, transport, etc infrastructure ever more which we don’t have enough money to even keep in good order let alone expand.
Wages are pushed down .. except for the top boys.
And, as Bernard keeps agreeing with, it pushes house prices up (unless its all a speculative boom of course).
Basically we have a fixed income and every person added means we all get less or we borrow more money. And one day we will max out our national credit card. Then we will all get poor (ah la UK, US, Eastern Europe, etc) … or depopulate dramatically.
So I should vote for a policy that makes me poorer in every measurable way? Right.
@ JIMINCHINA & GAVIN MOODIE
Just to pick another nit, I suspect the average of 225 countries is weighted very heavily by the huge GDP growth rate of China and its low population growth rate.
@ JULIUS
I’m using simple rather than weighted averages since we are interested in the performance of each individual country. However, removing China gets us down to 214 countries with a correlation between population growth and gdp per capita of -0.471.
To get a zero correlation between population growth and gdp per capita I had to remove the 105 poorest countries. That is a lot of special cases!
@ Gavin Moodie
It isn’t a great surprise to find that the poorest countries are those with the highest population growth rates. In other words they haven’t got to the state of modernity where education of women, small families, women in the paid workforce etc. all go together. In short the comparisons which include more than 100 countries are not particularly relevant for making judgments on Australia’s best economic interests.
My own inclination is to keep up the quality and youth of our population, ensure that our cities - and potential leisure and retirement places for rich foreigners - are well planned and provided for, and thereby give us time to see how other countries have managed their problems of aging populations, declining birthrates of the core population etc. because anything but clearly demonstrable requirements for handling those problems are going to be hard to sell in our democracy with much-fairies-at-the-bottom-of-the-garden PC fantasies adding to the more hard nosed utilitarian and self-interested arguments.
I’m with you, Jiminchina. I’m cringing with horror every time I hear Julia Gillard on this, and her absurd Minister for Sustainable Sustainability, Tony Burke. And that’s before I’ve had to endure Scott Morrison!
Pauline Hanson has succeeded beyond her wildest dreams. Now that her message is “green” its everywhere. Bob Brown of course, got there before either the Libs or Julia. Make no mistake. “Little Australia” is a deeply impoverished and reactionary place.
@ Julius
I agree that OECD countries would be a better comparison for Australia. A poster claimed that not one country has a strong economy and a low population growth rate. When I gave the example of Austria this was some how considered exceptional, so I looked at all countries.
No one in this discussion including Keane has produced any evidence to demonstrate that population growth is needed for a strong economy. As other posters have pointed out, the relevant measure is not gross domestic product growth but gdp per capita, and this can and indeed is increased by increasing productivity.
“The Economy” is talked about like it’s some force of nature, or a deity we need to appease. “The Market” gets the same treatment.
But it’s not, they’re not. A collective of people make a Society, and that society determines what kind of economy it will have. Here in the Western World (to quote Steely Dan) we’ve developed an economy based on trading commodities and labour, using the medium of Money.
THAT economy might require continual growth (debatable), but it’s not the only option we have.
Build the society you want, and the economics develop to suit. But build the society on the economy and you have failure built in.
That’s great TONE47B, but how do you educate the masses so that the fear and greed driven conservatism that controls the levers of our consumerist society can be exorcized peacefully to the history books?
I don’t think any sort of “re-education program” as such would work - they never have in the past, and are usually pretty unsavoury exercises.
Meaningful change comes about gradually, and is usually driven by necessity, and I think that will be the case with the current unsustainable population problem.
Once it becomes clear that the economic system no longer works, a new model will emerge - but the economy comes from the society, not vice versa.
@ Tone47B
” the economy comes from the society, not vice versa”
Apart from its use as a brain f*rt what can that possibly mean?
Is it saying that causality works only in the direction of “characteristics of society” to “characteristics of the economy”?
Sure, people who think that sacrificing to the sun god and otherwise just plucking food from the normally abundant vegetation of their tropical homes are unlikely to work hard at designing, making and exchanging goods. Hunter gatherers will often develop cargo cults. Lack of enthusiasm for education and general illiteracy will limit the development of some of the characteristics of rich productive economies…..
But once people have developed markets and learned to produce and trade goods to make at least some people prosperous from the working of those markets is it not likely that ideas of progress and the value of literacy, art and music will spread and gather such strength that certain ambitions will become important features of those societies?
At the very least people who are happy with sanctimonious twaddle might recognise that you need certain characteristics of an economy to be present before you are going to have plantations with slave labour and all that implies for the way society is run.
So, I suggest that you look at people’s strong drives, most not existing without economic, technological and social context, and consider how the drive to trade and accumulate, for example, will, for example, support a legal framework which protects property rights and contract. And so on and on and on…… Economic activity, not surprisingly since it occupies more than a third of most people’s lives once easy food gathering in the tropics is left behind, is a major shaper of society. True, religion has had some major effects on economic activity but that draws attention to how difficult it is for “society” to design and organise an economy without some binding ideology or supernatural religion which is unlikely to be seen again on a world wide or even large nation scale.
Wow, Julius… “brain fart”? I’ve never had one of those… I’m glad I don’t live inside your head!
I simply re-iterate my original point - “The Economy” is not a thing that exists outside people, so stop talking about it like it’s an independent being we need to adjust our lives around.
The rest of your post is, I assume, a product of your mental flatulence. But just to cut through the fog - I don’t advocate a return to a simple hunter-gatherer society, I love my computer too much. I’m well aware of people’s strong drives, I even have a few myself.
But the thing is, just because our economy is based on 10% of people holding 80% of the wealth (or whatever it is), and just because it’s based on getting as much as you can from other people while giving as little as possible in return… and all the other features of our current world… just because it’s like that now, doesn’t mean it has to stay like that.
That’s my point - that the shape of society determines the shape of the economy.
Keanes arguments:
Para 1 We need immigration because it’s the right thing: Why?
Para 2 High immigration in the 80’2 was a great reform: Why?
Para 3 It’s a tradition: Wow! Great argument!
Para 4 The politicans will say one thing and do another. So What’s new?
Para 5 Bipartisan consensus has ended. Code for public opinion is putting the issue on the map so the public service elites in treasury and big business have lost the agenda
Para 6 Belitttle people with a different opinion by labeling them and then use a bit of simplistic maths to finish them off
Para 7 No they aren’t kiding themselves the gap between the people who run things and the rest is growing faster then ever
Para 8 Just in case people aren’t fooled by Keane’s economic arguments, appeal with a jaded and stupid moral argument. The fact we all originated in Africa then spread like a plague is a great argument for what?
Para 9 And just in case we need another excuse for stuffing Australia we have to think of the next generation. Which ones? The ones that immigrate here as part of Keanes brave new world or the indigenous ones already on the drawing board?
Para 9 Not this one again. The market will fix it. If only Governments would get out of the way.
Para 10 No kidding, but can you get the rabid right of the Liberal Party to agree. They can’t even countanance a carbon price or a decent tax to stop the extortion of the miners.
Para 11 There we go again. Little Australia resists reform. Whilst Big Australia resists paying a well thought out and fair resource rent tax that could pay for the infrastucture we so “deperately” need and whilst Big Carbon resists every attempt to reduce carbon polution.
Para 12 All of theose foreign engineers and doctors are wasting their time in trying to help the poor people of their own countries. Much more useful to have them helping themselves to medicare funded bulk billing to put their kids through private schools
The people in the outer suburbs know in their hearts they are being done over. They just aren’t smart enough to work out who’s doing it. It must be those nasty Boat People. It couldn’t be people like Twiggy “I was a stock broker ” Forest “but now I’m a miner”, or
“God I wish I was back In Souf Eafrika,” Marius Kloppers @ $US10,399,589 per annum.
It coudn’t be them, because they are creating heaps of JOBS. Well they aren’t actually.
But it’s a bloody great story.