When it comes to immigration, the view that I’ve held is that we want more dwelling construction to accommodate our booming population. We want it for two reasons: firstly, I don’t think we were building enough for population reasons, and you would have to think that we needed to step that up. I think that’s now happening. As an open and welcoming society, we want to provide accommodation at a reasonable price for immigrants and, of course, for macro-economic management reasons in the cycle it will be handy to have that source of demand growing not contracting in the next couple of years.
We have the highest population growth in the developed world, and one of the highest growth rates in the world, period. Long term, this is going to cause immense problems. But politicians, economists and businesspeople aren't concerned with the long term.
We have the highest population growth in the developed world, and one of the highest growth rates in the world, period. Long term, this is going to cause immense problems. But politicians, economists and businesspeople aren't concerned with the long term.
Well, yes, the electoral cycle is what it is, and it does encourage, I suppose you could say, a short-termist approach to policy decisions, but we are a welcoming and open country, we've got vast tracts of land, a considerable amount of land in fact, and we really ought to try to leverage our natural advantages as a nation. And land is one of them, and for the benefit of the public, I think most Australians would probably agree that immigration has benefited our nation enormously, and it's important to keep that in mind. That's the first thing.
Now secondly, are the wives and girlfriends of Australia generating enough babies, are they even maternally instinctive enough, to cover any shortfall in population growth if you were to curb immigration? I mean, it's important to understand, that if — and I'm talking hypothetically here — if policy-makers decided to reduce immigration, that will have economic consequences. You're going to see a whole range of problems emerge — rising unemployment amongst them — because immigration adds more to the demand than it contributes to the supply.
So keeping those points in mind, if policy-makers decided that they wanted to reduce the immigration intake, are the wives and girlfriends of Australia horizontally inclined enough to keep churning out babies at the rate we'd need them?
Glenn you and I will have to disagree a bit on this. Yours is a far more optimistic position than mine I think.
Our current immigration is far far greater than what is necessary to ensure population growth. In fact at the moment I think we still have an excess of births of deaths. Even if immigration were cut to zero, the population would continue growing for a while. But even when deaths exceed births, we would only need immigration at a much smaller rate than current to ensure growth or stability.
You also need resources other than space to support people. Reliable rainfall for example. And I am concerned about diminishing fossil fuel reserves, which our current way of life is completely dependent on. The population Australia can ultimately support is probably much lower than similar sized land masses in other continents. And no matter how great the number of people Australia can support, an extremely high growth rate of 1.5%+ will probably cause us to overshoot that figure.
But ultimately Australia's population cannot and will not grow forever. When it does stop growing, the transition will be easier if the growth rate prior to that transition was lower. And in the meantime if people choose to have fewer kids, I would trust their judgement on this.
Well, yes, the electoral cycle is what it is, and it does encourage, I suppose you could say, a short-termist approach to policy decisions, but we are a welcoming and open country, we've got vast tracts of land, a considerable amount of land in fact, and we really ought to try to leverage our natural advantages as a nation. And land is one of them, and for the benefit of the public, I think most Australians would probably agree that immigration has benefited our nation enormously, and it's important to keep that in mind. That's the first thing.
Now secondly, are the wives and girlfriends of Australia generating enough babies, are they even maternally instinctive enough, to cover any shortfall in population growth if you were to curb immigration? I mean, it's important to understand, that if — and I'm talking hypothetically here — if policy-makers decided to reduce immigration, that will have economic consequences. You're going to see a whole range of problems emerge — rising unemployment amongst them — because immigration adds more to the demand than it contributes to the supply.
So keeping those points in mind, if policy-makers decided that they wanted to reduce the immigration intake, are the wives and girlfriends of Australia horizontally inclined enough to keep churning out babies at the rate we'd need them?
“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks…will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered…. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.” . . . “Paper is poverty. It is the ghost of money and not money itself.”- Thomas Jefferson,
“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” – Thomas Jefferson
Ah yes George Best. Last year I was doing a presentation to a Sheikh immediately prior to him signing the cheque for a substantial investment in our company, so I was pretty tense and it was the first time I had met him. Our MD opened proceedings and knowing that the Sheikh liked soccer started with what George Best said when asked what he done with his money, he replied that "he spent it on fast women, fast cars and booze and the rest was wasted", pregnant pause all around and then the Sheikh laughed, he signed up as well.
Back on Ali, I think history will judge him as being way ahead of his times in the whole African American and Christian Moslem struggle thing, his intellect was light years ahead of Parkinson and his decisions in life highlighted some major flaws with Christianity.
Definition of a doom and gloomer from 1993 The last camp is made up of the doom-and-gloomers. Their slogan is "it's the end of the world as we know it". Right now they are convinced that debt is the evil responsible for all our economic woes and must be eliminated at all cost. Many doom-and-gloomers believe that unprecedented debt levels mean that we are on the precipice of a worse crisis than the Great Depression. The doom-and-gloomers hang on the latest series of negative economic data.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy