Comments on Mark Beeson "Thinking big in Beijing", 21/07/2015
Well, it seems very scary to think about it, particularly given the environmental problems such as air, water, soil and food pollutions so serious that cause many to die of pollutions, or as the consequences of pollutions.
However, the future may be much brighter in China, because the Chinese have realised the prices they have paid and are taking measures to rectify their mistakes including pollutions. Yes, it will take time to achieve and complete their goals, but nevertheless they have embarked on that road and are doing things in that direction.
Once pollutions are no longer a problem in China, who knows the so called megalopolis may or may not work.
Certainly, when the skyscrapers first appeared in large cities in America, its population was probably less than or about one tenth of China's current population. American large cities may have tens of million of population.
Now let's move to China with, let's say, ten times of Then America's population, maybe China will create proportionately greater cities, as long as it does not encounter serious dis-economy of scale when it scales up.
Of course, we are not used to that yet and in many countries it won't happen and won't have to happen. But some countries are different and so large, like China and India. Even in some countries, although their population may not as that large, the population density can be equally high. They, the Chinese or the Indians, may create a new way of living for human beings.
If the Americans created the currently prevailing large cities landscape in the past, China may pioneer a new horizon for the future of megalopolis cities.
PS: I went back to see what comments Mark Beeson's post had got on the day, 22/07/2015, following my initial comments and found the comments by Tony Xiao very interesting. What Xiao argued implies that Mark Beeson may have got the fact wrong based on incorrect understanding what is meant by the Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei project. Here is what Xiao had to say:
"The main thusts of the project is first to cap the populaion of Beijing at 23 million by 2020, second to raise the economic development of Hebei, third to move government non-core business and industry out of the Capital and fourth to coordinate the development of Northern ChinaAll the the major centres of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will be linked by rail, air and road transport hubs and two major express ring roads (7th ring road) one 1250 kms and one 940 kms long encompassing Beijing,Tianjin and Hebei cities are already under construction.Some of the 130 million urban population of Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei will need to relocate but most will wake up in their own beds once the project is realised. The price tag is estimated at 42 Trillion RMB.No-one is packing more people into a smaller space. The space is the same and so too the 130 million already there.A similar smaller scale proposal is being considerd for the Pearl River Delta."
I subsequently made further comments as follows:
Tony, what you are saying is that Mark Beeson got the fact wrong, based on a incorrect understanding of what it is meant by linking the few major cities together? In another word as you said, people will wake up after the completion of the proposed project in virtually the same beds and in the same locations, perhaps with relatively minor or few changes to where they live?
That would have been a huge oversight by Mark Beeson. I would rather suggest that is the result of misunderstanding due to a loss in translation/interpretation of Chinese to English.
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population. Show all posts
2015-06-25
Housing market in Australia: bubbles or not and burst or not?
Comments on Gavin Wood and Rachel Ong "The real reasons negative gearing on housing should be phased out", 23/06/2015
I think some of the comments so far have well reasoned arguments against the remove of negative gearing, given housing investment is investment after all and investment should be allowed to deduct costs given investment in real estate is part of that investor's activity.
Another point is concerned with ABS finance statistics. Is that net or gross financing/Borrowing? Compared to owner home purchase, investors new borrowing is likely to contain a significant refinancing. If using net borrowing, the share of investment borrowing may be lower than the current indicator, although I have no idea how the financial statistics is done by ABS.
Thirdly, one of the commentators has listed a number of reasons, though no quantification of the contributions of each one. For example, how much is the effects of foreign buyers of Australian properties? Without knowing those individual effects, the discussion of this article is to a large degree hypothetical, unfortunately.
Further, there are strong implications for whether housing bubbles will burst or how rapid and to what degree any burst will occur. My own feel is that the are bubbles in Australian housing, but they can be sustained much more easily than in many other countries because of the following factors:
The external factors means that the Australian housing market cannot be simply judged by Australian income alone. Australian housing may be bubbling based on Australian income levels, but that indicator in not particularly helpful unfortunately. In another word, Australian housing bubbles can be sustained by external factors.
I think some of the comments so far have well reasoned arguments against the remove of negative gearing, given housing investment is investment after all and investment should be allowed to deduct costs given investment in real estate is part of that investor's activity.
Another point is concerned with ABS finance statistics. Is that net or gross financing/Borrowing? Compared to owner home purchase, investors new borrowing is likely to contain a significant refinancing. If using net borrowing, the share of investment borrowing may be lower than the current indicator, although I have no idea how the financial statistics is done by ABS.
Thirdly, one of the commentators has listed a number of reasons, though no quantification of the contributions of each one. For example, how much is the effects of foreign buyers of Australian properties? Without knowing those individual effects, the discussion of this article is to a large degree hypothetical, unfortunately.
Further, there are strong implications for whether housing bubbles will burst or how rapid and to what degree any burst will occur. My own feel is that the are bubbles in Australian housing, but they can be sustained much more easily than in many other countries because of the following factors:
- Australia is located in Asia where there billions of population and population density is very high and land expensive
- Australia is large in land and small in population
- The policy allowing foreign investment in real estate invites foreign investments particularly from Asia where there are billions of population and they are growing very rapidly in income and they have scarce and extremely expensive land
The external factors means that the Australian housing market cannot be simply judged by Australian income alone. Australian housing may be bubbling based on Australian income levels, but that indicator in not particularly helpful unfortunately. In another word, Australian housing bubbles can be sustained by external factors.
2014-03-13
Rely more on productivity rather than population growth for economic growth
Comment on David Gruen "Asia’s economic challenges and policy choices", 12/03/2014, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2014/03/11/asias-economic-challenges-and-policy-choices/
Gruen states that “Much of Northeast Asia is facing a period of demographic ageing. China, Japan and South Korea are already rapidly ageing societies, which in China’s case is a direct consequence of its one-child policy. This will detract from future growth, yet Northeast Asia has been unwilling or unable to adopt more open immigration policies like those that enabled Australia and the United States to partially replace ageing working age populations.”
Many Asian countries have very different conditions to Australia’s, so they are unlikely to embrace open immigration programs as Australia or some other countries do.
Further, while there is an issue in terms of inter-generational balance and/or transfer, growth relies on population growth is likely to mask the importance of productivity growth.
Even though sometimes demographic dividends may contribute to economic growth and possibly productivity growth, it is by no means a certainty that a growing world population is naturally optimal to the welfare of the people of the world as a whole.
China adopted the one child family planning policy in the belief that it was, rightly or wrongly, good for the country. Of course, its one child policy has not necessarily been the best family planning policy, even if one accepted that it is desirable to limit population growth. China now seems to be changing its one child policy, albeit very slowly.
It is important to carefully consider how population growth may or may not contribute to productivity growth and based on that to make informed discussion on the role of population growth in economic growth.
Gruen states that “Much of Northeast Asia is facing a period of demographic ageing. China, Japan and South Korea are already rapidly ageing societies, which in China’s case is a direct consequence of its one-child policy. This will detract from future growth, yet Northeast Asia has been unwilling or unable to adopt more open immigration policies like those that enabled Australia and the United States to partially replace ageing working age populations.”
Many Asian countries have very different conditions to Australia’s, so they are unlikely to embrace open immigration programs as Australia or some other countries do.
Further, while there is an issue in terms of inter-generational balance and/or transfer, growth relies on population growth is likely to mask the importance of productivity growth.
Even though sometimes demographic dividends may contribute to economic growth and possibly productivity growth, it is by no means a certainty that a growing world population is naturally optimal to the welfare of the people of the world as a whole.
China adopted the one child family planning policy in the belief that it was, rightly or wrongly, good for the country. Of course, its one child policy has not necessarily been the best family planning policy, even if one accepted that it is desirable to limit population growth. China now seems to be changing its one child policy, albeit very slowly.
It is important to carefully consider how population growth may or may not contribute to productivity growth and based on that to make informed discussion on the role of population growth in economic growth.
2012-12-03
Australia should never become an America in population or military
Comments on Cassanddra Wilkinson "Less welfare, more immigrants and an Australian century", 3/12/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/less-welfare-more-immigrants-and-an-australian-century/
While the idea to reform the welfare state and encourage citizens to work should be done as an urgency, there are few signs that the politicians are willing to take real steps and there are influential interest groups that will oppose to reforms in that regard. Secondly, the American historical example will not and should not be followed by Australia because there are fast differences between the two countries and the timing cannot be any more different too. Australia has struggled to cope with its won natural environment, mainly the dry climate and the lack of rain water. As a dry continent, its soil is poor. The struggle with the Murray Darling Basin water plan is an example of water scarcity in Australia. It is an indication that Australia will struggle more to sustain a large population. In timingwise, now there is no need to become a populous nation to enjoy wealth and freedom. In terms of military and defence, Australia seldom has been under threat of invasions by other nations. Of course interest groups will argue that Australia needs a stronger and larger military force to defend itself. But the question is to defend from who? Its all imaginary.
So forget steretypes and old style thinking, folks. The world is increasingly becoming one. There will not be serious threat to Australia's security in the next hundred years. And, don't ever think that Australia needs a larger population to survive!
While the idea to reform the welfare state and encourage citizens to work should be done as an urgency, there are few signs that the politicians are willing to take real steps and there are influential interest groups that will oppose to reforms in that regard. Secondly, the American historical example will not and should not be followed by Australia because there are fast differences between the two countries and the timing cannot be any more different too. Australia has struggled to cope with its won natural environment, mainly the dry climate and the lack of rain water. As a dry continent, its soil is poor. The struggle with the Murray Darling Basin water plan is an example of water scarcity in Australia. It is an indication that Australia will struggle more to sustain a large population. In timingwise, now there is no need to become a populous nation to enjoy wealth and freedom. In terms of military and defence, Australia seldom has been under threat of invasions by other nations. Of course interest groups will argue that Australia needs a stronger and larger military force to defend itself. But the question is to defend from who? Its all imaginary.
So forget steretypes and old style thinking, folks. The world is increasingly becoming one. There will not be serious threat to Australia's security in the next hundred years. And, don't ever think that Australia needs a larger population to survive!
2011-05-16
Chris Evans empty claims
Comments on Chris Evans “Industry backs our skills plan”, 16/05/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/budgets/industry-backs-our-skills-plan/story-fn8gf1nz-1226056357593
Chris Evans is selectively using opinions to back up his claims.
One does not need Evans' post to know that business has always supported for higher immigration, because higher immigration benefits businesses in two ways:
1. It depresses wages as labour supply increases
2. It increases domestic market demand for goods and services
Of course the bottom line is to increase business profits.
However, if one looks from the welfare of Australians' point of view, the picture can be different. Real wages and productivity may not grow as rapidly with higher immigration. So wouldn't be their welfare and well being, as per capita income is diluted and infrastructure becomes inadequate, such as traffic congestions, worsening housing market.
Further, by increasing labour supply through immigration, government can hide its inadequacy and shortcomings in training and education of our own labour.
So political rhetoric, particularly selective use of opinions by politicians is harmful to our society and our collective welfare.
Chris Evans is selectively using opinions to back up his claims.
One does not need Evans' post to know that business has always supported for higher immigration, because higher immigration benefits businesses in two ways:
1. It depresses wages as labour supply increases
2. It increases domestic market demand for goods and services
Of course the bottom line is to increase business profits.
However, if one looks from the welfare of Australians' point of view, the picture can be different. Real wages and productivity may not grow as rapidly with higher immigration. So wouldn't be their welfare and well being, as per capita income is diluted and infrastructure becomes inadequate, such as traffic congestions, worsening housing market.
Further, by increasing labour supply through immigration, government can hide its inadequacy and shortcomings in training and education of our own labour.
So political rhetoric, particularly selective use of opinions by politicians is harmful to our society and our collective welfare.
2011-03-29
Population growth definitely not essential for our large capital cities
Comments on “Population growth 'essential for capital cities'” reported by Jennifer Hewett, National affairs correspondent from The Australian, 29/03/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/population-growth-essential-for-capital-cities/story-e6frg9if-1226029658946
There is nothing essential at all in that, namely "Population growth 'essential for capital cities'"!
It defies common sense, logic and facts in Australian largest cities, leaving aside small capital cities such as Darwin, Canberra and possibly Hobart.
Why can’t a constant population be good or better than a growing population for capital cities, given that it is per capita output or the productivity that matter to people’s living standard, and there are already significant infrastructure problems that cause traffic jam, poor and expensive housing and living conditions in our large capital cities like Sydney?
If the Urban Taskforce Australia a special interest group tied to some businesses that just want to pursue more and extra profits with little regard to living conditions of the average Australians?
Or is it a government agency?
If the latter, it needs to consider whether its methodologies are correct or not.
To me it is a poor and biased report with a wrong focus. Clearly, it has ignored the views and suffering of the residents in large capital cities.
It is interesting that why there is so little opportunity in Australia for the public to participate in public forums to air their views for this issue or to debate those special interest groups or even public agencies.
It is a pity and it is disappointing only those minorities representing businesses that have the opportunity to lobby and influence the government or bureaucrats!
There is nothing essential at all in that, namely "Population growth 'essential for capital cities'"!
It defies common sense, logic and facts in Australian largest cities, leaving aside small capital cities such as Darwin, Canberra and possibly Hobart.
Why can’t a constant population be good or better than a growing population for capital cities, given that it is per capita output or the productivity that matter to people’s living standard, and there are already significant infrastructure problems that cause traffic jam, poor and expensive housing and living conditions in our large capital cities like Sydney?
If the Urban Taskforce Australia a special interest group tied to some businesses that just want to pursue more and extra profits with little regard to living conditions of the average Australians?
Or is it a government agency?
If the latter, it needs to consider whether its methodologies are correct or not.
To me it is a poor and biased report with a wrong focus. Clearly, it has ignored the views and suffering of the residents in large capital cities.
It is interesting that why there is so little opportunity in Australia for the public to participate in public forums to air their views for this issue or to debate those special interest groups or even public agencies.
It is a pity and it is disappointing only those minorities representing businesses that have the opportunity to lobby and influence the government or bureaucrats!
2010-12-23
Johns population argument misses important points
Comments on Gary Johns “We do not need sustainable population policy”, 23/12/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/we-do-not-need-sustainable-population-policy/story-e6frg6zo-1225975159449
While Gary Johns has the experience as a federal government minister and has many excellent views, it appears that Gary John might need to learn some basics as well as new ideas in terms of sustainable population and immigration.
For example, the use of the contrast of Bill Gates and Thomas Malthus are just hyper because they are two extremes and are far from what most people's talks on sustainability.
Further, while he talked about many points and they may be useful, he missed one important point in terms of immigration in terms of economic growth, that is, does it improve the productivity and pay of Australian labours, besides its benefits to businesses owners?
This point should be one of the key criteria to assess the benefits and costs of immigration, higher, lower or as usual.
Any talks ignoring this point miss the biggest interest and concerns of the Australian public.
PS: the argument in terms of the costs per head of defending the country is seriously either out of date, or irrelevant, or ignorance of Australia's history. How many times we faced a serious invasion by others? On the other hand, we have fought quite a number of wars overseas at our own decisions. Alliance with the US has greatly diminished Johns’ unhelpful argument. Besides, to be able to defend the country on our own without the assistance of others, we would need a much larger population, perhaps a few times of the current size. Is that realistic, or necessary for that matter?
Another important point that I also missed in the comments above is that how Australia can prepare and foster the skilled human resources it needs, as opposed to acting as a pirate and relying on immigration. Relying on immigration is simply irresponsible and immoral!
While Gary Johns has the experience as a federal government minister and has many excellent views, it appears that Gary John might need to learn some basics as well as new ideas in terms of sustainable population and immigration.
For example, the use of the contrast of Bill Gates and Thomas Malthus are just hyper because they are two extremes and are far from what most people's talks on sustainability.
Further, while he talked about many points and they may be useful, he missed one important point in terms of immigration in terms of economic growth, that is, does it improve the productivity and pay of Australian labours, besides its benefits to businesses owners?
This point should be one of the key criteria to assess the benefits and costs of immigration, higher, lower or as usual.
Any talks ignoring this point miss the biggest interest and concerns of the Australian public.
PS: the argument in terms of the costs per head of defending the country is seriously either out of date, or irrelevant, or ignorance of Australia's history. How many times we faced a serious invasion by others? On the other hand, we have fought quite a number of wars overseas at our own decisions. Alliance with the US has greatly diminished Johns’ unhelpful argument. Besides, to be able to defend the country on our own without the assistance of others, we would need a much larger population, perhaps a few times of the current size. Is that realistic, or necessary for that matter?
Another important point that I also missed in the comments above is that how Australia can prepare and foster the skilled human resources it needs, as opposed to acting as a pirate and relying on immigration. Relying on immigration is simply irresponsible and immoral!
2010-09-25
Treasury needs a better framework
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Briefing spells out the reform agenda needed”, 25/09/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/briefing-spells-out-the-reform-agenda-needed/story-e6frg6so-1225929105339
The point on NBN is well made, although the problem is whether the government will heed that at all.
The point on population is confusing: why is 36 million inevitable? Is that driven by gross growth in GDP headline, or based on productivity growth, or welfare maximising for all Australians?
It appears unclear what framework Treasury has or uses to make that statement. That is unsatisfactory.
While it is understandable for businesses to argue for a big Australia or for higher immigration because it will be in businesses' interests if there is more labour supply.
But that is not necessarily in the interests of Australians as a whole.
Australians need better information and be informed correctly.
To do that, we need a well specified framework to model the effects, both on businesses and on labour, as well as other people.
The point on NBN is well made, although the problem is whether the government will heed that at all.
The point on population is confusing: why is 36 million inevitable? Is that driven by gross growth in GDP headline, or based on productivity growth, or welfare maximising for all Australians?
It appears unclear what framework Treasury has or uses to make that statement. That is unsatisfactory.
While it is understandable for businesses to argue for a big Australia or for higher immigration because it will be in businesses' interests if there is more labour supply.
But that is not necessarily in the interests of Australians as a whole.
Australians need better information and be informed correctly.
To do that, we need a well specified framework to model the effects, both on businesses and on labour, as well as other people.
2010-08-20
A poor argument on population by Norberg
Comments on Johan Norberg “Populate or live in boredom”, 20/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/populate-or-live-in-boredom/story-fn59niix-1225907494898
A rather poor argument with the bottle half-empty at the best.
It is a bad mix of micro and macro issues. Can population ever increase on the earth without hitting big problems of environment sustainability and degradation?
It is a blind and poor application of scale economies without taking into account of diseconomies of scale, say those associated with the largest cities in the world. Can the size of cities ever increase without running into big problems of congestions and too little space for comfortable living?
Overall it is an argument without analysis or with poor analysis. There is no or little serious intellectual thinking involved.
A rather poor argument with the bottle half-empty at the best.
It is a bad mix of micro and macro issues. Can population ever increase on the earth without hitting big problems of environment sustainability and degradation?
It is a blind and poor application of scale economies without taking into account of diseconomies of scale, say those associated with the largest cities in the world. Can the size of cities ever increase without running into big problems of congestions and too little space for comfortable living?
Overall it is an argument without analysis or with poor analysis. There is no or little serious intellectual thinking involved.
2010-08-12
Dick Smith's population myth
This is an edited version with changes of a correspondence to Dick Smith Population website, 12/08/2010, see http://dicksmithpopulation.com.au/
Dear Sir/madam
A couple of points/issues to make/raise with you.
Dear Sir/madam
A couple of points/issues to make/raise with you.
- First, about the big award. I was greatly encouraged when I first read some news reports on it and then looked for what exactly how it would work. Then I was equally greatly discouraged and also disappointed by the condition that it is for young Australians under 30, for I am not qualified for that age category.
- To me, while it is understandable to broom young next generation leaders, the most important thing is to get the job done, that is, to get the best ideas on optimal population growth and put them into practice and achieve the results, I would assume. But the conditions of the award do not allow that to happen, not necessarily at the least.
- That is non optimal - an inherent contradiction to the basic purpose of that cause of population.
- Second, I looked the blog page and didn’t find how people can contribute to blogs that presumably can enrich ideas and exchange of ideas. Hope someone can do something about it.
2010-08-10
Different meaning of economic growth and population
Comments on Dick Smith “What's the big idea? The answer is not more growth”, 10/08/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/commentary/whats-the-big-idea-the-answer-is-not-more-growth/story-e6frgd0x-1225903163394
Dick Smith has made an interesting point on growth, though that point is a tricky one.
When people talk about growth, some talk about headline GDP growth by how many per cent. Businesses like to talk about that. But that growth includes the effects of population growth in it and does not necessarily mean an improvement in people's wealth or income.
A more meaningful growth is per capita growth without the effect of population growth. It is growth in productivity.
It is this latter growth where population growth including immigration should be considered. But businesses don't like to talk about this growth.
However, Dick Smith is a rare exception in this regard. He is a successful businessman, but has been arguing for constraining or limiting population growth.
Dick's no growth or limit on growth, unfortunately, also ignores this productivity growth.
When efficiency improves and productivity increases, it is possible to have per capita growth without consuming more resources. That is to say, we can have sustainable per capita growth.
We need to be clear about that. Otherwise the argument for a slower population growth will be attacked by unnecessary scare campaign.
In that sense, Dick would be better off to distinguish different growth arguments.
Dick Smith has made an interesting point on growth, though that point is a tricky one.
When people talk about growth, some talk about headline GDP growth by how many per cent. Businesses like to talk about that. But that growth includes the effects of population growth in it and does not necessarily mean an improvement in people's wealth or income.
A more meaningful growth is per capita growth without the effect of population growth. It is growth in productivity.
It is this latter growth where population growth including immigration should be considered. But businesses don't like to talk about this growth.
However, Dick Smith is a rare exception in this regard. He is a successful businessman, but has been arguing for constraining or limiting population growth.
Dick's no growth or limit on growth, unfortunately, also ignores this productivity growth.
When efficiency improves and productivity increases, it is possible to have per capita growth without consuming more resources. That is to say, we can have sustainable per capita growth.
We need to be clear about that. Otherwise the argument for a slower population growth will be attacked by unnecessary scare campaign.
In that sense, Dick would be better off to distinguish different growth arguments.
2010-07-23
The current population debate in Australia needs to be full and honest
Comments on Oliver Marc Hartwich “Europe shows the alternative to growth is decline”, 23/07/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/europe-shows-the-alternative-to-growth-is-decline/story-e6frg6zo-1225895851365
While Oliver Marc Hartwich talks about Europe in the wake of the global financial crisis to say how bad the situations are that attempts to attribute problems to low or no population growth, he does not mention the case in the US. Neither does he mention per capita growth that is the key to living standards.
Are the situations in the US any better than those in Europe?
Further, the current debate on population growth in Australia is far from stagnant or decline in population - it is about how rapid the growth should be.
Such attempt to scare people with stagnant or decline in population is unhelpful to a proper debate and is highly misleading.
While Oliver Marc Hartwich talks about Europe in the wake of the global financial crisis to say how bad the situations are that attempts to attribute problems to low or no population growth, he does not mention the case in the US. Neither does he mention per capita growth that is the key to living standards.
Are the situations in the US any better than those in Europe?
Further, the current debate on population growth in Australia is far from stagnant or decline in population - it is about how rapid the growth should be.
Such attempt to scare people with stagnant or decline in population is unhelpful to a proper debate and is highly misleading.
2010-07-22
Election is the high point of politics
Comments on “Blame it on Tampa”, see Mumble Blog, 22/07/2010, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mumble/index.php/theaustralian/comments/blame_it_on_tampa/
Election is the high point of politics and political parties will use whatever issues that can benefit them to their advantages, as long as it is within a reasonable boundary.
Given that Rudd's big Australia and the illegal boat arrivals had caused alarms in the public, Gillard should take a stance try to neutralise that.
However the two main parties prefer in their population and immigration policies, it would be better left unspoken, especially if it is for a big Australia. It is an issue that you can do it quietly but better not talk about it loudly.
If they discuss it openly, then it is likely that either the voters or businesses will find issues with them, that is not what they would like to see unless it is like Tampa they would see it as a winner.
Seriously, talking population level in 40 years time in Australia is a bit of nonsense irrespective the merit of the issue. It is impossible for any government in Australia to plan for that far. Government can change frequently, so can their policies.
What any government can do is to combine infrastructure services and immigration level at any time to best meet the needs of residents.
PS: comments on other related articles as follows:
Gary Johns “You can't move forward when you hit the brakes, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/you-cant-move-forward-when-you-hit-the-brakes/story-fn59niix-1225895302953
While governments may have failed in their responses to population growth and infrastructure supply, there is still a point in demand management of population growth and settlement.
Both supply and demand management should be used by governments in an integrated framework to meet the needs of their residents.
Paul Kelly “Julia's mixed messages reduce debate to absurdity”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julias-mixed-messages-reduce-debate-to-absurdity/story-fn59niix-1225895336778
It is nevertheless an election going on now, so short term election politics cannot be avoided.
Election is the high point of politics and political parties will use whatever issues that can benefit them to their advantages, as long as it is within a reasonable boundary.
Given that Rudd's big Australia and the illegal boat arrivals had caused alarms in the public, Gillard should take a stance try to neutralise that.
However the two main parties prefer in their population and immigration policies, it would be better left unspoken, especially if it is for a big Australia. It is an issue that you can do it quietly but better not talk about it loudly.
If they discuss it openly, then it is likely that either the voters or businesses will find issues with them, that is not what they would like to see unless it is like Tampa they would see it as a winner.
Seriously, talking population level in 40 years time in Australia is a bit of nonsense irrespective the merit of the issue. It is impossible for any government in Australia to plan for that far. Government can change frequently, so can their policies.
What any government can do is to combine infrastructure services and immigration level at any time to best meet the needs of residents.
PS: comments on other related articles as follows:
Gary Johns “You can't move forward when you hit the brakes, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/you-cant-move-forward-when-you-hit-the-brakes/story-fn59niix-1225895302953
While governments may have failed in their responses to population growth and infrastructure supply, there is still a point in demand management of population growth and settlement.
Both supply and demand management should be used by governments in an integrated framework to meet the needs of their residents.
Paul Kelly “Julia's mixed messages reduce debate to absurdity”, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/julias-mixed-messages-reduce-debate-to-absurdity/story-fn59niix-1225895336778
It is nevertheless an election going on now, so short term election politics cannot be avoided.
2010-07-15
Optimal future population path in Australia
Comments on Oliver Marc Hartwich “Australia's choice between growth and decline”, 15/07/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Julia-Gillard-Tony-Abbott-population-immigration-m-pd20100714-7C5GT?OpenDocument&src=sph
The lessons from European demographic changes in the past decades should not be just that as Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich implied.
The most important lesson is how to respond to future population changes, as opposed to continuing a growth path as Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich suggests.
For Australia, there are three potential demographic paths for future: growth, stable or decline.
Given that it is the per capita growth in GDP or wealth that is most important to the population at large, each potential scenario can be managed reasonably in Australia as long as the population decline is not too rapid and certainly that can be managed to achieve without too much difficulty.
Australia has the luxury of time to consider and plan for future population path and the flexibility of immigration if needed at its disposal that was not necessarily all available to the European nations at that time in the past.
In my view, Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich's view misses the most important point and lacks a clear strategic version.
Given the challenges from climate change and natural resources, my gut feeling is that the best path for future Australian population is more likely to be a relatively stable one.
Having said that, I must qualify that statement by saying that we need more studies before we can firmly decide what will be best for us.
The lessons from European demographic changes in the past decades should not be just that as Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich implied.
The most important lesson is how to respond to future population changes, as opposed to continuing a growth path as Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich suggests.
For Australia, there are three potential demographic paths for future: growth, stable or decline.
Given that it is the per capita growth in GDP or wealth that is most important to the population at large, each potential scenario can be managed reasonably in Australia as long as the population decline is not too rapid and certainly that can be managed to achieve without too much difficulty.
Australia has the luxury of time to consider and plan for future population path and the flexibility of immigration if needed at its disposal that was not necessarily all available to the European nations at that time in the past.
In my view, Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich's view misses the most important point and lacks a clear strategic version.
Given the challenges from climate change and natural resources, my gut feeling is that the best path for future Australian population is more likely to be a relatively stable one.
Having said that, I must qualify that statement by saying that we need more studies before we can firmly decide what will be best for us.
2010-06-28
It is per capita growth not headline GDP that matters
Comments on Michael Stutchbury “Playing politics on population”, 28/06/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/opinion/playing-politics-on-population/story-e6frgd0x-1225884963233
Australia could accommodate a big population, there is no question about it.
However, it is not necessarily the best option for Australians to have a big one.
It is important to note that it is productivity and per capita growth that is much more important than the simple headline of GDP growth which includes the effects of population growth.
Australia should focus on productivity growth as the core strategy and optimise population through immigration programs.
The welfare of all Australians are the more important and top priority. Sustainability is and should always be secondary. Purely business considerations for more labour to benefit business profitability should be the last consideration of all.
Economics should make it clear and should not play too much of political economics for business only.
Australia could accommodate a big population, there is no question about it.
However, it is not necessarily the best option for Australians to have a big one.
It is important to note that it is productivity and per capita growth that is much more important than the simple headline of GDP growth which includes the effects of population growth.
Australia should focus on productivity growth as the core strategy and optimise population through immigration programs.
The welfare of all Australians are the more important and top priority. Sustainability is and should always be secondary. Purely business considerations for more labour to benefit business profitability should be the last consideration of all.
Economics should make it clear and should not play too much of political economics for business only.
2010-04-12
Population size and economic growth
Comments on PAUL SHEEHAN “Less can be more, for people, pensions and government”, 12/04/2010, http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/less-can-be-more-for-people-pensions-and-government-20100411-s0ov.html
While there is no really bearing of population size on per capita economic growth but on gross growth, the natural wealth effects in the Australia context is a significant one and should not be ignored.
Obviously, more population with diminishing natural resources means less per capita natural wealth for future Australians.
In terms of international politics and military strength, population size has an effect, but Australia can't expect to be militarily strong by an population to the size of 36 million in the geographical area of countries with population sizes of over hundreds of millions or billions.
It is a self delusion, or more accurately political popularism or opportunism of any politicians arguing for a big Australia.
They are wrong and are misleading the Australian public to benefit only themselves.
While there is no really bearing of population size on per capita economic growth but on gross growth, the natural wealth effects in the Australia context is a significant one and should not be ignored.
Obviously, more population with diminishing natural resources means less per capita natural wealth for future Australians.
In terms of international politics and military strength, population size has an effect, but Australia can't expect to be militarily strong by an population to the size of 36 million in the geographical area of countries with population sizes of over hundreds of millions or billions.
It is a self delusion, or more accurately political popularism or opportunism of any politicians arguing for a big Australia.
They are wrong and are misleading the Australian public to benefit only themselves.
2010-04-10
Two important issues in population debate
Comments on Paul Kelly “The biggest game in town”, 10/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/the-biggest-game-in-town/story-e6frg6zo-1225852009335
Paul, while your beloved rational approach may seemingly appear to be reasonable, it is really based on false belief.
If you think it is impossible to plan population path or growth in advance, how can you plan the infrastructure for an uncertain population size or path? Isn't illogic at the extreme?
The Treasury argument on challenges from population aging in advanced countries is red herring! Old people, if they have enough assets, don't have increased burden to the economy or society at all, because they can have enough income from their productive and valuable assets.
Why the Treasury people can't see or understand that? It is beyond belief.
Further, while your suggested important missing element is not an issue at all, there is a really and extremely important missing element in the population debate. That is the emissions reduction or cap in the future.
For a given target of emissions level in the future based on current emissions (also population), the larger the future population the less the allowable per capita emissions, that means the lower per capita energy with the current energy mix, or much higher costs in reducing emissions.
I have not read Treasury's IGR, and don't know if they have ever considered it at all.
If they haven't, that means they are incompetent in their work! How can they miss such an important, so significant and urgent issue inevitably related to population in the future?
The whole premise on which the IGR has based on needs to be reconsidered, that is, both the population aging and emissions capping!
Paul, while your beloved rational approach may seemingly appear to be reasonable, it is really based on false belief.
If you think it is impossible to plan population path or growth in advance, how can you plan the infrastructure for an uncertain population size or path? Isn't illogic at the extreme?
The Treasury argument on challenges from population aging in advanced countries is red herring! Old people, if they have enough assets, don't have increased burden to the economy or society at all, because they can have enough income from their productive and valuable assets.
Why the Treasury people can't see or understand that? It is beyond belief.
Further, while your suggested important missing element is not an issue at all, there is a really and extremely important missing element in the population debate. That is the emissions reduction or cap in the future.
For a given target of emissions level in the future based on current emissions (also population), the larger the future population the less the allowable per capita emissions, that means the lower per capita energy with the current energy mix, or much higher costs in reducing emissions.
I have not read Treasury's IGR, and don't know if they have ever considered it at all.
If they haven't, that means they are incompetent in their work! How can they miss such an important, so significant and urgent issue inevitably related to population in the future?
The whole premise on which the IGR has based on needs to be reconsidered, that is, both the population aging and emissions capping!
2010-04-08
What is the ratinale for a big Australian population?
Comments on ABC report “Australians wary of 36m population target”, by Sabra Lane and staff, 8/04/2010, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/08/2866842.htm?section=justin
The rationale for a big Australia has never been made clear to the public.
We all know that there is infrastructure and natural wealth in Australia that belong to all Australians, not just the politicians or big businesses.
When you have dilution in population, your per capita wealth diminishes.
Further, the argument that a bigger population if good for geopolitical and economic reasons is utterly untenable what difference does it make between 28 million and 35 million in terms of military strength in a region where countries have more than 100 millions or a billion people?
Poor Rudd a complete and intellectual dumb on this issue, like him with many other issues.
The rationale for a big Australia has never been made clear to the public.
We all know that there is infrastructure and natural wealth in Australia that belong to all Australians, not just the politicians or big businesses.
When you have dilution in population, your per capita wealth diminishes.
Further, the argument that a bigger population if good for geopolitical and economic reasons is utterly untenable what difference does it make between 28 million and 35 million in terms of military strength in a region where countries have more than 100 millions or a billion people?
Poor Rudd a complete and intellectual dumb on this issue, like him with many other issues.
Understand poplation statistics and population issues
Comments on Bernard Salt “Making sense of population push”, 8/04/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/property/making-sense-of-population-push/story-e6frg9gx-1225851117721
If Salt's reasoning and argument is true, then there is a case to distinguish between temporary and permanent residents in Australia from ABS population statistics.
If that information is clearly disseminated and understood, the public, bureaucrats and politicians can make a better debate on what is the optimal population level and how to plan and manage population growth in the future.
Further the argument of overseas students by Salt appears incomplete, because while there are more comings, there should generally be more leavings as well, leaving the net increase of overseas students not that high.
There must be something else that Salt either ignored or neglected. I guess it could be the increase in the graduates from overseas students in Australia to become permanent residents or at least allowed to stay temporarily longer.
In order for the public to make sense of population issues, we need the public to understand important information behind population statistics.
If Salt's reasoning and argument is true, then there is a case to distinguish between temporary and permanent residents in Australia from ABS population statistics.
If that information is clearly disseminated and understood, the public, bureaucrats and politicians can make a better debate on what is the optimal population level and how to plan and manage population growth in the future.
Further the argument of overseas students by Salt appears incomplete, because while there are more comings, there should generally be more leavings as well, leaving the net increase of overseas students not that high.
There must be something else that Salt either ignored or neglected. I guess it could be the increase in the graduates from overseas students in Australia to become permanent residents or at least allowed to stay temporarily longer.
In order for the public to make sense of population issues, we need the public to understand important information behind population statistics.
2010-03-31
Business Council Australia and Australian population
Comments on Graham Bradley “If we want more people we have to plan better”, 31/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/if-we-want-more-people-we-have-to-plan-better/story-e6frg6zo-1225847684873
Graham Bradley's argument is deeply flawed.
How can anyone with a good analytical mind claim that growth in population must be the foundation for economic growth.
Did Graham Bradley include how population growth impacts on per capita growth in which living standards are measured?
Has he ever considered the delusional effects of immigration on the natural wealth that Australia has that belong to Australians?
He should declare clearly that his living standards apply only to businesses and handful rich capitalists.
Graham Bradley needs to go back to primary school for some re-education to be analytically competent enough to talk about living standards in Australia.
Graham Bradley's argument is deeply flawed.
How can anyone with a good analytical mind claim that growth in population must be the foundation for economic growth.
Did Graham Bradley include how population growth impacts on per capita growth in which living standards are measured?
Has he ever considered the delusional effects of immigration on the natural wealth that Australia has that belong to Australians?
He should declare clearly that his living standards apply only to businesses and handful rich capitalists.
Graham Bradley needs to go back to primary school for some re-education to be analytically competent enough to talk about living standards in Australia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
