FF:QLD Welcome to QLD Fanforce

There is an optimum population, and Australia has not yet achieved it. It involves a delicate balance between primary industries and population, or some such nonsense.

 

Population growth is a component of GDP growth. Immigration has supply and demand side effects Skilled migrants can greatly benefit an economy, creating jobs, etc.. The benefits outweigh the costs. That is why the Governments current program consists of 100000-110000 immigrants per annum, which is slightly up from previous years. Phillip Ruddock knows what his doing

 

And yet the scales can be unbalanced so easily.

 

Australia cannot support a population the size of the lower 48 United States because it's climate doesn't bring the water to support it. Also, the soil is geologically very old and relatively barren, meaning we can't grow the crops necessary to sustain a population so large. I would say that Australia is reaching it's maximum population capacity if it hasn't already.


Dollars is also right. Population growth is good for the economy. Economists see things in terms of growth, and assume a limitless opportunity for growth (in as much as I can discern). However, basic biology shows that a population will grow within the confines of its resources.

Economists argue against the limitations of resources (of humans) by citing "innovation". And the more people we have, the greater the likelihood we'll get someone innovative enough to change the global climate, so Australia gets more rain. Of course, it will be deviated from some other part of the world, but won't it be great for the economy?

 

So the pendulum does swing both ways

 

You can not separate economics from the world so you must see both sides and weigh out what is the best solution.

 

You just have to make sure that you do make the right one or you could really screw it all up.

 

But if you did the best you could and it go wrong there is no point in worrying about what could have been.

 

Be careful, it's easy to work a mob up into a frenzy.

 

You can not separate economics from the world

The world was quite separate from economics for millions of years, Dave. The "world" is much more than just human beings and their abstract constructs, that was exactly my point.

 

Was not being argumentative with you. lol. In many ways I agree with you. But economics is only a study of number. But since we introduce it into the system we can not now just separate it from the world

 

Oh I think that it easily could.

 

However, basic biology shows that a population will grow within the confines of its resources.

Until along comes world vision to **** everything up.

 

let them all die I say.

World Vision and other humanitarian orginisations do their best to educate about birth control but certain religious figures are constantly working against them telling people it is a sin.

 

The world was quite separate from economics for millions of years, Dave. The "world" is much more than just human beings and their abstract constructs, that was exactly my point.

Otter, the history of people mainly has to do with how we overcame certain things like scarcity. Everyone had to work out how to survive with a limited amount of food, until we learned how to domesticate animals and so forth. Economics covers this, the relationship between needs and wants, the system of trade and demand and supply.

Even animals work this way I believe. The ecosystem works like a perfect economic system. Until there is a shortage of one food supply, which can lead to the reduction of one species which in turn effects the numbers of another species.

 

Yes but animals have no concern for money, and I believe that was the point. Besides there is more than just that that will cause one species to go extinct and another to rise out of obscurity. There are so many other factors to consider that you can't explain it economically even if you tried. Continental drift for instance is currently one theory that explains diversity in nature. Do keep in mind I said "one" theory, there are more. I will admit that I don't know the tiny in depth details but I am sure Otter will fill in the blanks next time he is online.

 

Even animals work this way I believe. The ecosystem works like a perfect economic system. Until there is a shortage of one food supply, which can lead to the reduction of one species which in turn effects the numbers of another species.

There is certainly a supply and demand element at work in a natural ecosystem, but the climactic result is generally balance. There is a certain supply of oxygen in a stream, this limits the number of fish that can survive there. The end.

The fish don't then plant more algae or build riffles to increase oxygenation in the stream. Or build aerators from sticks and stones. Human economics accounts for innovation to permit growth. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't plan for an end to growth, which I hope to have illustrated does happen in natural systems. When demand meets supply, growth stops.



Nice call on continental drift and diversity Grieyls. You are of course right, there are lots of contributing factors to speciation and extinction.

 

I have to take Nyder's side on this. His argument makes more sense to me.

 

Yeah, sorry about the big words Dave.

 

God made me, God made everything and Jesus is still allright with me.

That's all you need to know.

 

you truly think that is true ??

 

You obvioulsy don't know him.

 

Grieyls and Otter: Externalities

Smoggy: Thank you

But yes it is difficult to apply economics to the animal system, but it can be done. There is definitely trade-offs (think of the sucker fish cleaning the sharks). Besides I'm too pissed at the moment to think of anything wonderful.

 

Thank you for that one word, here's another: internalities

Now if you can figure out what I meant by that then you are making it up as I meant nothing. Which begs the question, what the hell do you mean? There is more than word in the English language for a reason, one word alone will not convey a meaning but a string of them will.

End of line.

 

I think he was trying to embarrass us with our ignorance of economic jargon.