Economy vs Over-population (1 Viewer)

[danieljarvis]

anyone else worry more about the continual over-population of the world more than the economy?
Telling us to increase our birthrate for economic stability.. i see a catch 22 in the fact that the more people around, the more we use our resources and then we'll need more and more people to keep our economy steady for a happy country.
There's only so many people this planet can take.. and i think, especially in some areas, we exceeded our limit along, long time ago... and there is no quick fix.

 

[withoutaface]

We don't need an increasing birthrate, we need old people to stop sponging off the workforce.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

Australia's economy can improve greatly with a larger population. 20 million!!! thats nothing. Look at all this land we have. Its time we start creating more capital cities. How about one in the desert like las vegas? Higher population, our economic capacity increases, demand increases, supply increases, economic activity increases, more jobs and higher standard of living.
We can also produce more for the the rest of the world, more exports, helping the CAD. Over population doesnt need to be a problem. We have plenty of coast for people to live and for new cities to grow.

 

[withoutaface]

That's circular logic. A higher population may mean more jobs but it also means more people to employ, and I'm not really understanding how you came to the higher standard of living conclusion either.

 

[...]

Its time we start creating more capital cities. How about one in the desert like las vegas? Higher population, our economic capacity increases, demand increases, supply increases, economic activity increases, more jobs and higher standard of living.

thats right!

create a TAB central in Alice Spring and watch the money roll into the economy!

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

I'm not really understanding how you came to the higher standard of living conclusion either.

a wider range of goods in the economy, less people are unemployed, it comes with higher levels of economic activity, more people spending and more people recieving money.

Because everybody congregates around the large cities, in particular Sydney and Melbourne? Especially immigrants.

Why do we need an improved economy? What more could we possibly need. Isn't every body happy as it is?

Not everybody is happy as it is. Theres problems of unemployment and HIGH TAXES!! John Howard isnt bad for trying to improve the economy (thats a good thing), his bad for being greedy, we dont need a 10 billion dollar surplus. Put it into hospitals, transport, believe it or not Australia is behind the world in alot of things.

We should send some immigrants into the desert and get them to create a city, instead of locking them up!

 

[Generator]

Look at all this land we have. Its time we start creating more capital cities. How about one in the desert like las vegas? Higher population, our economic capacity increases, demand increases, supply increases, economic activity increases, more jobs and higher standard of living.
We can also produce more for the the rest of the world, more exports, helping the CAD. Over population doesnt need to be a problem. We have plenty of coast for people to live and for new cities to grow.

To be quite blunt, you're an idiot. Just because there may seem to be 'room' for another city or two, that isn't to say that the land is necessarily capable of carrying such a load, especially out in the desert. Grow up, please.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

To be quite blunt, you're an idiot. Just because there may seem to be 'room' for another city or two, that isn't to say that the land is necessarily capable of carrying such a load, especially out in the desert. Grow up, please.

why not? Do you not know that China and India have populations over billions. England, look how small that is and thats got 50 million, thats not overcrowded. We are underpopulated, and need to increase the population, and the government is trying to increase the population also.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

I think the people in detention centres would lack even the most basic of skills needed to produce a city in the middle of the desert. IF you could somehow keep them there, it would produce a slum.

Well i wasnt serious, obviously its impractical. But maybe we can encourage migrants to live in new areas, instead of just sydney and melbourne.

 

[Generator]

why not?

Ah, have you not taken the time to consider the finite nature of this nation-state's resource base? Have you not taken the time to read through some of the most recent debates regarding water use throughout the country (particularly in rural and remote areas)? Etc.

Well i wasnt serious, obviously its impractical. But maybe we can encourage migrants to live in new areas, instead of just sydney and melbourne.

Ah, I believe that such ideas are already in operation (to a degree).

 

[iamsickofyear12]

Economic capacity may increase but how much of that capacity would be used to support the population growth. It's the same with more jobs. Standard of living may increase but it may also decrease.

As for the CAD that is because of borrowing money not lack of exports. As long as people continue to spend more than they save Australia will always have a high CAD.

Last I heard Australia was pretty close to the natural rate of unemployment. It doesn't get any better than that no matter how much population growth there is.

Any problems with Australia at the moment can't be fixed by increasing the population. If you can't manage 20 million you definately can't manage 30 or 40 million.

It terms of quality of life Australia is way up there. According to this report it ranks 3rd in terms fo HDI. We may have some problems but they are nothing compared to most countries.

http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2005/pdf/hdr05_HDI.pdf

And the problem with bringing in lots of immigrants and making new cities is that they won't want to live there, they want to live in Sydney or Melbourne.

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

Ah, have you not taken the time to consider the finite nature of this nation-state's resource base? Have you not taken the time to read through some of the most recent debates regarding water use throughout the country (particularly in rural and remote areas)? Etc.

Well we can start preparing the economy for a rise in population, its gonna go up anyway no matter how much people dont like it. Why couldnt we manage and support a larger population? Water - desalination plants i believe we need. Pipe the water all around Australia. The desert can have all the water they need.
Electricity - nuclear power.

We have 10 billion dollars surplus, howard is managing the economy fine.

 

[Generator]

Well we can start preparing the economy for a rise in population, its gonna go up anyway no matter how much people dont like it. Why couldnt we manage and support a larger population? Water - desalination plants i believe we need. Pipe the water all around Australia. The desert can have all the water they need.
Electricity - nuclear power.

We have 10 billion dollars surplus, howard is managing the economy fine.

...

The country could possibly support a larger population, but such a population would need to be far more resource conscious than we are if it is to be sustainable . As for your suggestions... This may surprise you, but whenever we extract and/or redirect a raw resource, we tend to cause quite a bit of damage. Now, though many of these extractions and their impacts can be managed, they cannot be carried out indefinitely - believe it or not, but nothing is infinite and the damage that we cause isn't necessarily confined to a particular area or resource.

Better yet, we are humans, not gods - we are but one of the animal species living on this planet, and though we are more than entitled to look after ourselves, we still have to ensure that we do all that we can to sustain the non-human world.

Australia's economy can improve greatly with a larger population. 20 million!!! thats nothing. Look at all this land we have. Its time we start creating more capital cities. How about one in the desert like las vegas? Higher population, our economic capacity increases, demand increases, supply increases, economic activity increases, more jobs and higher standard of living.
We can also produce more for the the rest of the world, more exports, helping the CAD. Over population doesnt need to be a problem. We have plenty of coast for people to live and for new cities to grow.

Though what is contained within this piece is clearly from a particular point of view (I'm not one for such dire predictions, but I do agree with the general idea that we aren't living sustainably), it does address some of the above points.

 

[withoutaface]

a wider range of goods in the economy, less people are unemployed, it comes with higher levels of economic activity, more people spending and more people recieving money.




Not everybody is happy as it is. Theres problems of unemployment and HIGH TAXES!! John Howard isnt bad for trying to improve the economy (thats a good thing), his bad for being greedy, we dont need a 10 billion dollar surplus. Put it into hospitals, transport, believe it or not Australia is behind the world in alot of things.

We should send some immigrants into the desert and get them to create a city, instead of locking them up!

Where's the need when we can just focus on the industries that Australia is best at and we can use our high efficiency in these to purchase the remainder from overseas?

For example say we're twice as good as making wheat as oranges. If we get half our workforce to make wheat, and half of them to make oranges, we end up with 1 unit of wheat and half a unit of oranges. However if we get our whole workforce to farm wheat, we can keep 1 unit of wheat, and use the other whole unit to purchase a unit of oranges, and we end up better off.

EDIT: Surplus is bad. It means we're producing more than we're importing and so we're left with less goods in favour of having a given amount of foreign currency lying around. However if we didn't, then it would be the other way around, and we'd be trading 1 unit of goods for 1.5 units of goods + some currency which we can make cheaply and easily, and which, keep in mind, has to be reinvested in Australia sometime in the future. Also note that if you have a surplus you're better off delivering it back to the taxpayers through income tax cuts.

 

[Sarah]

Where's the need when we can just focus on the industries that Australia is best at and we can use our high efficiency in these to purchase the remainder from overseas?

For example say we're twice as good as making wheat as oranges. If we get half our workforce to make wheat, and half of them to make oranges, we end up with 1 unit of wheat and half a unit of oranges. However if we get our whole workforce to farm wheat, we can keep 1 unit of wheat, and use the other whole unit to purchase a unit of oranges, and we end up better off.

To an extent i agree with that first paragraph but it doesn't always generate the highest return.

It can take time for some industries to develop and losses may be incurred during it's infant industry stage. The long term gains may offset the short term losses. The problem with deciding on which industries to focus on and to develop is picking the winners from the losers.

 

[withoutaface]

To an extent i agree with that first paragraph but it doesn't always generate the highest return.

It can take time for some industries to develop and losses may be incurred during it's infant industry stage. The long term gains may offset the short term losses. The problem with deciding on which industries to focus on and to develop is picking the winners from the losers.

That's what billionaires are for. If they see promise in an industry and they're thinking long term, then surely they'd be prepared to take the short term hit on their wallet.

 

[Sarah]

That's what billionaires are for. If they see promise in an industry and they're thinking long term, then surely they'd be prepared to take the short term hit on their wallet.

Yes billionaires can be useful.

But you seem to overlook the role that the govt can have with regards to having in place policies favourable to the industry or giving assistance be it monetary or non-monetary.

 

[Pink_Butterfly]

The government wants us to have more kids because the population is getting older - they want to bring the population to a young age.

All we need to do - is die younger!!!

 

[ND]

For example say we're twice as good as making wheat as oranges. If we get half our workforce to make wheat, and half of them to make oranges, we end up with 1 unit of wheat and half a unit of oranges. However if we get our whole workforce to farm wheat, we can keep 1 unit of wheat, and use the other whole unit to purchase a unit of oranges, and we end up better off.

Hahah good old 1st year micro.

EDIT: Surplus is bad. It means we're producing more than we're importing and so we're left with less goods in favour of having a given amount of foreign currency lying around. However if we didn't, then it would be the other way around, and we'd be trading 1 unit of goods for 1.5 units of goods + some currency which we can make cheaply and easily, and which, keep in mind, has to be reinvested in Australia sometime in the future. Also note that if you have a surplus you're better off delivering it back to the taxpayers through income tax cuts.

It doesn't mean we're producing more than we're importing, it means that we're exporting more than we're importing. Why is that bad?


There's some talk in this thread about lower unemploment rates being good, but that isn't the case. Low unemployment rates lead to inflation, which leads to interest rate hikes. (same can be said for tax cuts)

 

[StGeorgeDragons]

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/perspective/stories/s1474533.htm

i dont like this article. Oil is gonna run out sooner or later anyway, so we need to develop electric methods. And what the hell does higher population got to do with increase temperatures??? Ok pollution is a possibility, but the electric methods would take care of that.
Australias farming isnt productive. We should be focusing on technological areas anyway, and services.

"We must ‘power-down’: move away from a carbon economy, travel less, grow food locally, have fewer children. We may even have to contemplate a non-coercive one-child policy for a couple of generations."

ridiculous.