Immigration fuels endless growth

We need an ever rising number of consumers to keep us afloat

The latest Melbourne terrorist attack has sparked a discussion about immigration. Some commentators say Sydney and Melbourne have reached capacity; they’re full. Nonetheless, neither political side has plans to reduce the immigration rate. Why?

It’s due to the “gross” in gross domestic product — immigrants are the “consumption units” required for growth. Without ever more consumption units the illusion of growth cannot be maintained. Without growth there’s “recession” – which triggers terror in politicians. Recession reduces asset prices.

So, to avoid recession, growth is being funded by ever increasing borrowing. Yep, we’re borrowing to pay the running costs of immigrants so house prices stay high. Never mind the infrastructure we can’t afford.

Does anyone recall voting for that?

Peter Campion, Tolga, Qld

Canberra clearly wants to maintain high immigration levels and is aware of the infrastructure required. It has the highest paid, most educated population in Australia and the lowest unemployment rate (“PM push for states to set migrant rate”, 12/11). Clearly, it is the perfect destination region for new migrants. Already it is attracting Chinese migrants with its elite universities. Its sophisticated, progressive local population would thus be much better informed on migrant issues and able to formulate policy accordingly.

Sarah Childs, Lithgow, NSW

Going nuclear

Jim Molan’s proposition (“We can’t ignore our unique nuclear opportunity”, 13/11) makes manifest sense. It is past time that “old ideas and ideological barriers” are replaced by acceptance that modern modular nuclear installations do not pose the risks of the original nuclear power plants. Further, even if there remain legitimate concerns about nuclear wastes, any deleterious effects will not be experienced for very many decades after the relatively immediate dire effects of global warming, which rightly concern most of us. Nuclear power will certainly be cheaper and address Molan’s “trilemma” of affordability, reliability and emissions reduction.

Ron Spielman, Paddington, NSW

Victory by stealth

Jock Munro (Last Post, 14/11) notes the irony of politicians lauding the sacrifice of soldiers while fostering “the takeover of Australia by stealth, without a shot being fired”. This brings to mind ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. Sun advises “attack by stratagem”, where “the best thing of all is to take the ... country whole and intact” and to break “resistance without fighting”.

This process has been occurring in Australia’s commercial, industrial, agricultural, property and educational sectors for years, with the primary method of “breaking resistance” being monetary and resulting in parts of the Australian economy now being dependent on this income stream.

The Government has (belatedly) moved to protect the nation’s sovereignty. However, as Sun also notes: “If the bulwark is complete at all points, the state will be strong; if the bulwark is defective, the state will be weak”.

Deborah Morrison, Malvern East, Vic

True blue biff

Mark Latham is a polarising figure, but those of us old enough to remember the Australia of the 1950s and 60s will tell you Latham is a politician in the old Aussie larrikin mould. Sure, he has a short fuse. Sure, he occasionally calls people something that is less than ideal. But he tells it like it is. He has no desire to speak anything other than what he believes in. He has no interest in saying what others may want to hear. He is far from a perfect human being but in my opinion he is a straight-talking Aussie and I wish we had more of them in politics.

Ross Dillon, Forest Hill, Vic