GFC & Australia: If we had 100 million people, would we be cruising right now?

Discussion in 'Australia, NZ, Pacific' started by Recusant, Aug 14, 2011.

  1. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    As the title asks:

    "GFC & Australia: If we had 100 million people, would we be cruising right now?".

    I'm not sure if more people would better insulate us against the effects of the GFC, or it would mean there would be more people to support. If our mining sales to China and elsewhere is what is propping us up then would we need to increase mining at least five-fold to be in the same position? If so, why not stick with 20 million people and double mining? Oh how the spoils would flow.

    Anyone got an opinion?
     
  2. mister magoo

    mister magoo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,115
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What a stupid question........
     
  3. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I see anonymity makes you stronger.
     
  4. mister magoo

    mister magoo New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,115
    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well....yeah....but it was a stupid question.....
     
  5. congo

    congo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lots of people turn a place into a (*)(*)(*)(*)hole.

    You asked.
     
  6. efjay

    efjay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,729
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    +1 mate..it was a silly question
     
  7. dumbanddumber

    dumbanddumber New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2011
    Messages:
    2,212
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey recusant

    Not a bad thought, if our economy was self sustainable and with a population of 100 million with say 4 or 5 percent unemployed.

    Problem is we or most of us are employed by a company that has a direct relationship with the US economy and wall street.

    So if they went down the gurgler it will affect those companies which in turn will effect the working people of Australia.

    I think when we tied our selves to the back of the US economy we certainely did ourselves in.

    Now if the US/Wall street sneezes we get the sniffles.
     
  8. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    pretty much ... we may be able to ride it out a bit like we did last time, although back then not only did we have extra money, but we were less divided, and I think that can make a big difference as well.

    To be honest - this obsession with balancing the budget, or getting back into surplus, is not be what is needed if we do go into a recession - we need to spend to stop dragging us down further, and spend on infrastructure via job creation programmes.

    that way - with most of our markets in Asia (especially China) we would be affected, but nowhere near as badly as the US - where cooperation is an alien concept.
     
  9. robot

    robot Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I think one of the major limits to our population is the shortage of fresh water. We could support more population, but we would probably have to cut down on how much food we grow to provide us with enough water for the population.
     
  10. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    we could also use water more wisely.

    in fact, land use generally could be handled better.
     
  11. congo

    congo New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2011
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I partially understand the logic behind this, but it's not sound economically.

    In a most simplistic analogy: You are broke. You get on the dole and get a
    dole loan for $500 to get job ready. You also max out your credit card to keep
    the bills paid at your current standard of living. You go out and spend and
    borrow as much as possible to stimulate your micro economics........ unlike
    governments, you soon find there is a limit, and hell to pay for your economic
    policy. First of all, you would be expected to pay all this money back with interest,
    and no one is going to bail you out. Bankrupt.

    Simplistic belt tightening and living within your means until the economic crisis is
    over would have no debt at the end, but misery may have to be endured in the
    meantime, that's life for a person, and that's the way it is for the taxpayer.

    Government can magically borrow obscene amounts of money, and SPEND it instead
    of tightening their belts, to "stimulate" the economy. Great for bankers and power
    mongers, but we must pay the piper one day, to deny this is insane. This is exactly
    why the US economy is where it is and there is only one outcome logically available
    ..... complete ruin.

    In short, the idea of borrowing and spending as much as possible when you
    are broke is simply insane, and to expect any sane person to believe in that
    policy is a far stretch. Those who spruke this kind of economics are seriously
    impaired in their thinking and logic, or are simply not being honest.

    Look at the recent stimulus packages which lost us billions, leaving us in massive debt.
    What did it achieve other than massive debt, lining the pockets of a few and making an
    absolute arse out the programs initiated?
     
  12. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't think you do.

    you got the centrelink advance right, but thats all.
     
  13. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    To the Libs credit, they saved well. At least until the debt was paid, then they spent like mad-men. They could have saved more - but Labor would have done no better (probably worse).

    This is a good video that does a good job explaining when to spend and when to save. And how badly most govenments manage it.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XvgCI0G3Avk"]The Economics of Good and Evil - YouTube[/ame]
     
  14. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I agree - self sustainability is a key factor. But beyond that, our exports is what makes us money - food, minerals and fuel. It's our balance of trade saving grace. With a 100 million people, how much will be exported and how much will we need to use ourselves. Imagine a future trade deficit (which already usually happens on a monthly basis).

    Countries that rely on imports of food have big problems. It's one reason China is buying up agricultural land in Australia. They surely predict the inevitable problem as the planet approaches and probably exceeds 9 billion people.
     
  15. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    The reason the US government is in such a bad position is because they never (sans Clinton) balance their expenditure, or better yet spend less than they earn. That has not been the case in this country. Also, they are heavily subsidised by the US dollar and probably never figure it will be worthless (along with their bonds).

    Perspective: Tony Abbott is in more debt, relative to earnings than the government. i.e. his capacity to repay his loans is lower than the governments to cover theirs (or at least was at the last election).

    Also, the economic crisis was caused by private debt - not government debt.

    Finally, the Australian government isn't broke - it is just in debt.
     
  16. baralaba

    baralaba New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2011
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think you are disagreeing with the increasing Australian population. If that is the case I agree with you. The full answer to that is beyond what I can say in this small room. The short answer is: wealthy people (excepting dick smith, bless him) are telling the government it is necessary - government is then telling people it is necessary - people are saying no; we disagree, but vote them in anyway. Both labor and liberal have the same mindset (and many more things they don't argue in public about). Uumm. Just don't vote for either of the major political parties. It's not rocket science.
     
  17. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    lols the australian government is in a better debt to income ratio than the average person with a mortgage!
     
  18. garry17

    garry17 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2011
    Messages:
    4,126
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    63
    And you know this HOW? What is your basis of your statement?
     
  19. aussiefree2ride

    aussiefree2ride New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hard to find a more irrelevant comparison.
     
  20. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    private debt is a VERY important consideration.
     
  21. aussiefree2ride

    aussiefree2ride New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    4,529
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That`s another subject, to compare National debt ratios with private debt ratios is like comparing apples with snails.
     
  22. cassandrabandra

    cassandrabandra New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2009
    Messages:
    16,451
    Likes Received:
    111
    Trophy Points:
    0
    not if you are talking about factors that have the potential to impact negatively on the economy.
     
  23. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Is that a serious question? The basis of that statement is that our government is still paying it's bills. Surely i don't need to explain any further.


    Have you seen a bankrupt country before?

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khjnU8tVQdM"]The Take Trailer - YouTube[/ame]
     
  24. Recusant

    Recusant Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,465
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Especially as it's what caused the problem in the first place!

    Governments are trying to fill the massive void (unsuccessfully, and in a bad way) left by private debt issues.

    I agree, it's incredibly relevant!
     
  25. MegadethFan

    MegadethFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    17,385
    Likes Received:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A bigger population means more people that require basic needs. Smaller populations, logically, require fewer resources, although Western nations like Australia are seriously testing that notion of fulfilling basic needs. The real worry is that with an increasingly aging population, the country is going to have to acquire some form of social welfare that doesn't subject everyone's output to the requirements of old people. And without going off topic, I really do think old people need to stop winging about how crap the country is if they seriously want benefits. John Howard seems to have been the one that left the idea you can have it all - free market and social welfare. Sorry but you cant.
     

Share This Page