12-08-2009, 06:00 AM
The Optimum Population Trust, with Sir David Attenborough as its new patron, believes that by the end of this century the UK will only be capable of sustaining less than 30 million people, yet official projections indicate the population of the UK will be 77 million by 2050:
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
Clearly something has to give. Western economies are underpinned by the neoclassical economic model, which relies on endless economic growth for its survival. The question is what happens to the existing policies after the economic model has failed? Steve Keen, an economist not of the neoclassical variety predicts that deleverging ourselves out of the current economic crisis will take 15 to 30 years, notwithstanding any unforeseen events which may accelerate the deleveraging process:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
Global population growth can only be curtailed by a co-ordinated global approach and I don't have much faith in that happening in the near future.
Immigration is in the hands of Governments however, and it seems western Governments are hellbent on using this to exacerbate the drop in living standards caused by the failure of the current economic system.
Immigration is (yet another) taboo issue in the mainstream media. Nobody wants to be labelled a racist. For me, it doesn't matter at all where immigrants come from. The issue is one of raw numbers, and the effect of mass immigration on living standards during a protracted period of economic depression.
In Australia immigration levels are the highest in history. It's as if the Government is unaware that the good times are over. The Business Council of Australia, the Government's silent partner in the mass immigration program, maintains that more immigrants means more demand and therefore this is good for the economy. They also know that it helps create a huge pool of cheap labor, but they are less forthcoming about this fact.
Another by-product of immigration is that it helps prop up the housing market, especially as the demand is running well above supply in Australia's major cities, making them among the most expensive rental stock in the world. With the unemployment rate rocketing, many thousands will soon be living on the street, joining the thousands already there.
It's very frustrating because immigration policy has been hijacked by an unelected lobby group, and the media guards the policy vigilantly, allowing no public debate, and branding dissenters as racists.
I say mass immigration only benefits a country when jobs and land are plentiful, as was the case in the 50's, 60's and 70's. In today's Australia (and elsewhere), there are no jobs, no water, no housing and massively inadequate infrastructure. Most immigrants now are merely joining the ranks of the unemployed.
Maybe those wealthy supporters of mass immigration don't care if housing will be unaffordable for their children, or if they have to live in armed, walled estates surrounded by vast pockets of poverty occupying other parts of major cities. But I think they should.
As JFK said, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/
Clearly something has to give. Western economies are underpinned by the neoclassical economic model, which relies on endless economic growth for its survival. The question is what happens to the existing policies after the economic model has failed? Steve Keen, an economist not of the neoclassical variety predicts that deleverging ourselves out of the current economic crisis will take 15 to 30 years, notwithstanding any unforeseen events which may accelerate the deleveraging process:
http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/
Global population growth can only be curtailed by a co-ordinated global approach and I don't have much faith in that happening in the near future.
Immigration is in the hands of Governments however, and it seems western Governments are hellbent on using this to exacerbate the drop in living standards caused by the failure of the current economic system.
Immigration is (yet another) taboo issue in the mainstream media. Nobody wants to be labelled a racist. For me, it doesn't matter at all where immigrants come from. The issue is one of raw numbers, and the effect of mass immigration on living standards during a protracted period of economic depression.
In Australia immigration levels are the highest in history. It's as if the Government is unaware that the good times are over. The Business Council of Australia, the Government's silent partner in the mass immigration program, maintains that more immigrants means more demand and therefore this is good for the economy. They also know that it helps create a huge pool of cheap labor, but they are less forthcoming about this fact.
Another by-product of immigration is that it helps prop up the housing market, especially as the demand is running well above supply in Australia's major cities, making them among the most expensive rental stock in the world. With the unemployment rate rocketing, many thousands will soon be living on the street, joining the thousands already there.
It's very frustrating because immigration policy has been hijacked by an unelected lobby group, and the media guards the policy vigilantly, allowing no public debate, and branding dissenters as racists.
I say mass immigration only benefits a country when jobs and land are plentiful, as was the case in the 50's, 60's and 70's. In today's Australia (and elsewhere), there are no jobs, no water, no housing and massively inadequate infrastructure. Most immigrants now are merely joining the ranks of the unemployed.
Maybe those wealthy supporters of mass immigration don't care if housing will be unaffordable for their children, or if they have to live in armed, walled estates surrounded by vast pockets of poverty occupying other parts of major cities. But I think they should.
As JFK said, those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.
