 |
| GEORGE STREET, SYDNEY IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE? |
Moreover, if the Liberal Party, instead of refusing to budge on the almost religious fundamental of big immigration, that is, the exponential growth of Australia's population due to the per capita highest immigration rate in the world, and embraced the perfectly good sense Abbot is making, it would without a doubt romp home in the next federal election and leave the monotoned and personality-free leader of the opposition, Bill Shorten, wondering what had happened - what had happened to the cosy bipartisan agreement on immigration that was supposed to keep the plebs perennially locked out of the non-debate?
Abbot knows, even without every opinion poll run for at least the last forty years showing a substantial majority of the population is concerned about high immigration, even when it was nowhere as high as it is today, that it has never been convinced about the supposed joys of the multiculturalism shoved down their throats, and is frightened of jihadist Islam, that slashing immigration would win an election like it would be won for the Communists in the former Soviet Union (voting allowed for any candidate as long as he was a Communist).
Naturally though, the high priests living in cloud-cuckoo-land would slam such a change of tactic as pandering to the base instincts of the know-nothings, claimingthat it would be populism, as if that was something as unsavoury as herpes in a crowded steam-room, and evidently divorcing the word from its close relative, popular, which of course every politician aspires to be.
The fact that the Liberal Party has chosen not to tread this distasteful path even when it would provide them with what they want and need most, which of course is power, speaks volumes about the rightful owners of the Liberal Party which of course is Big Business (also, if the pesky unions and the bleeding-heart leftist/liberals would get out of the way, owning its co-joined political twin which masquerades as the working man's friend).
BB sees infinite growth - unfortunately no-one has bothered to send the memo that this can't exist - of everything which will turn a greater profit. They show here a similarly cavalier attitude as the criminally negligent captain of the destroyer who is reputed to have cried, "damn the torpedoes. Full steam ahead!" The difference here is that while the captain was locked into the same fate as his crew, the captains of industry, finance and politics will continue to live like pharaohs while the rest of the country goes down with the ship.
In a recent speech, Abbot trotted out at least three horsemen of the immigration apocalypse: "stagnant wages, unaffordable housing and clogged infrastructure”. It was timely, given Peter Dutton, whose portfolio includes immigration, earlier claiming that the migrant intake should be cut and intimating migrant numbers should not be at the point of causing existing inhabitants feeling overcrowded - deftly describing the current situation. Dutton though has since inexplicably, if ruling out the possibility of his being gotten to, "back-flipped" and described the current numbers as about the right measure, as if a highly sensitive piece of technology was being carefully calibrated.
The treasurer, Scott Morrison has also rained on Tony's parade. He correctly claims that rampaging immigration will increase Gross Domestic Product GDP. However, in the cold-as-a- grave business of economics, a collision between two oil tankers just off the eastern suburbs of Sydney would also increase GDP because of the boost to the economy the clean-up would cause. This however would mean little to the well- lubricated denizens of the affected suburbs, not to mention bathers emerging from the ocean looking frighteningly like creatures from the Black Lagoon.
Scott's claim, widely accepted by greedy capitalists worldwide, is predicated on population growth equalling, greater productivity. This economic model veers a little toward Voodoo economics, however, when subjected to closer scrutiny. For example, it presupposes that all the individual units of population growth are happily producing when obviously they are not. For starters, only humans old enough to work or no longer entitled to be sucking at a university teat, are factored into the equation. And of course the vast number of immigrants who get what they came for, that is, a work-free life courtesy of a modern welfare state, are hardly contributing to greater productivity. On the contrary they are economic liabilities but a blind eye appears to be turned to that.
The only sure way increased population contributes to increased productivity is by the the topping up of the unemployment pool, leading to supercharged competition for jobs which in turn suppresses real wages. So great productivity ensues from less cost. And what do you know? While inflation, like rust, never sleeps, real wages have been stagnating for years. This is the dirty little secret of those maddened by the obsession with infinite, rocketing population growth.
For those, like this writer, who are generally befuddled by economics, it may be gratifying to focus on an easy to understand aspect of this esoteric endeavour, and that is the difference between GDP and GDP per capita, or head of population. GDP, as already noted, is linked to productivity, but more exactly is the total value of everything produced within a country and is therefore taken as a measure of its wealth. Even here, it darkens to African witch doctor shade because GDP also includes, as well everything produced by a nation's citizens, that produced by its non-citizens, not precluding every multi-national country operating in Australia, paying either laughable tax or none at all and shipping profits elsewhere. Knowing, for example, that Australia's second largest mining company, Rio Tinto, is 83% is sobering given that its ballooning effect on GDP is something of a mirage, if not an hallucination.
But like those oil-dripping creatures from the Black Lagoon, what we, like the bums waiting for Godot, the suckers waiting for the "trickle-down" from the growing GDP giant, should be concerned with is GDP per capita. This, amusingly, is used as a measure of the standard of living in a given country. It is arrived at simply by dividing total GDP by total population. Straight away, this is looking like a consolation prize offered to game-show contestants after fucking up on the one million dollar question when it's remembered that all the population is factored in - kids, the much maligned stay-at-home mothers, students, the unemployed and those who think being unemployed is never having it so good.
And doesn't attempt to take into consideration such intangibles as the claustrophobia engendered by stuffing more and more people into major cities. The population of Sydney, for instance, with more than 40% of immigration making a beeline for it, grows at staggering 1,500 per week. Neither does it consider the years of dead-time racked up in ever longer daily commuting, traffic on its way to resembling that of Manila, parking spots seeming like lottery wins, rents unaffordable, the cost of housing an enormous bubble, its burst-proof coating contributed by the inflooding of mostly Chinese money, and clogged hospitals - in short, infrastructure groaning like an over-worked whore short on KY. Including all these factors shows our standard of living, in marked contrast to those in the big end of town making out like bandits, plunging as though over a cliff. According to a Sydney Morning Herald of February 27, "[t]hese quality-of-life- criteria suggest that Sydney's optimal size was exceeded years ago."
So what has Tony Abbot actually said that has the rest of his party looking like they've been blasted with Despicable Me's Freeze Ray?
He has said that the level of immigration currently running at over 200,000 a year should be stripped back to 100,000. Given that even that is still 30,000 more than it was in the nineties, why the Bird's Eye snap frozen reaction? Ever seen a cow wandering a city street in India? Seen how it does what it likes, goes where it likes, browsing in shops, shitting on the floor? Well immigration in Australia is like that - untouchable, so untouchable that the Liberals would rather lose power than put a soft, uncalloused finger anywhere near it.
Abbot has added - needlessly - that immigration numbers must be brought down at least to where "infrastructure, housing stock [Sydney currently 100,000 dwellings short] and integration [overlooking integration being actively discouraged since the advent of multiculturalism] has better caught up." It's a needless addition because it is axiomatic.
To be fair to Abbot, while prime minister he simply did not have the freedom he now has as a back-bencher to be pushing this agenda. Such a shame. At the next election, because of its intransigence on this issue, the Liberals will be carved up. What votes the Labor Party doesn't take from them the minor conservative parties will, but will still be minor so, under our system, will remain impotent and the democracy in our so called liberal democracy will continue to remain as hopelessly out of reach as the carrot on the donkey. Surely, in a real democracy, the people would have a say in whether or not they want to be replaced.
Scott's claim, widely accepted by greedy capitalists worldwide, is predicated on population growth equalling, greater productivity. This economic model veers a little toward Voodoo economics, however, when subjected to closer scrutiny. For example, it presupposes that all the individual units of population growth are happily producing when obviously they are not. For starters, only humans old enough to work or no longer entitled to be sucking at a university teat, are factored into the equation. And of course the vast number of immigrants who get what they came for, that is, a work-free life courtesy of a modern welfare state, are hardly contributing to greater productivity. On the contrary they are economic liabilities but a blind eye appears to be turned to that.
The only sure way increased population contributes to increased productivity is by the the topping up of the unemployment pool, leading to supercharged competition for jobs which in turn suppresses real wages. So great productivity ensues from less cost. And what do you know? While inflation, like rust, never sleeps, real wages have been stagnating for years. This is the dirty little secret of those maddened by the obsession with infinite, rocketing population growth.
For those, like this writer, who are generally befuddled by economics, it may be gratifying to focus on an easy to understand aspect of this esoteric endeavour, and that is the difference between GDP and GDP per capita, or head of population. GDP, as already noted, is linked to productivity, but more exactly is the total value of everything produced within a country and is therefore taken as a measure of its wealth. Even here, it darkens to African witch doctor shade because GDP also includes, as well everything produced by a nation's citizens, that produced by its non-citizens, not precluding every multi-national country operating in Australia, paying either laughable tax or none at all and shipping profits elsewhere. Knowing, for example, that Australia's second largest mining company, Rio Tinto, is 83% is sobering given that its ballooning effect on GDP is something of a mirage, if not an hallucination.
But like those oil-dripping creatures from the Black Lagoon, what we, like the bums waiting for Godot, the suckers waiting for the "trickle-down" from the growing GDP giant, should be concerned with is GDP per capita. This, amusingly, is used as a measure of the standard of living in a given country. It is arrived at simply by dividing total GDP by total population. Straight away, this is looking like a consolation prize offered to game-show contestants after fucking up on the one million dollar question when it's remembered that all the population is factored in - kids, the much maligned stay-at-home mothers, students, the unemployed and those who think being unemployed is never having it so good.
And doesn't attempt to take into consideration such intangibles as the claustrophobia engendered by stuffing more and more people into major cities. The population of Sydney, for instance, with more than 40% of immigration making a beeline for it, grows at staggering 1,500 per week. Neither does it consider the years of dead-time racked up in ever longer daily commuting, traffic on its way to resembling that of Manila, parking spots seeming like lottery wins, rents unaffordable, the cost of housing an enormous bubble, its burst-proof coating contributed by the inflooding of mostly Chinese money, and clogged hospitals - in short, infrastructure groaning like an over-worked whore short on KY. Including all these factors shows our standard of living, in marked contrast to those in the big end of town making out like bandits, plunging as though over a cliff. According to a Sydney Morning Herald of February 27, "[t]hese quality-of-life- criteria suggest that Sydney's optimal size was exceeded years ago."
So what has Tony Abbot actually said that has the rest of his party looking like they've been blasted with Despicable Me's Freeze Ray?
He has said that the level of immigration currently running at over 200,000 a year should be stripped back to 100,000. Given that even that is still 30,000 more than it was in the nineties, why the Bird's Eye snap frozen reaction? Ever seen a cow wandering a city street in India? Seen how it does what it likes, goes where it likes, browsing in shops, shitting on the floor? Well immigration in Australia is like that - untouchable, so untouchable that the Liberals would rather lose power than put a soft, uncalloused finger anywhere near it.
Abbot has added - needlessly - that immigration numbers must be brought down at least to where "infrastructure, housing stock [Sydney currently 100,000 dwellings short] and integration [overlooking integration being actively discouraged since the advent of multiculturalism] has better caught up." It's a needless addition because it is axiomatic.
To be fair to Abbot, while prime minister he simply did not have the freedom he now has as a back-bencher to be pushing this agenda. Such a shame. At the next election, because of its intransigence on this issue, the Liberals will be carved up. What votes the Labor Party doesn't take from them the minor conservative parties will, but will still be minor so, under our system, will remain impotent and the democracy in our so called liberal democracy will continue to remain as hopelessly out of reach as the carrot on the donkey. Surely, in a real democracy, the people would have a say in whether or not they want to be replaced.
No comments:
Post a Comment