How many people do we want?

March 9th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Eric Crampton blogs:

, population 15 million. That’s the target for 2060 in a new NZIER working paper making the case for substantial New Zealand population growth.

The paper says:

A population target of 15 million by 2060 (2.5 times that now projected) is not only “feasible”, it is also likely to be sufficient to achieve the benefits from scale. It would allow four main cities with a population of three million or more each. This would foster competition within New Zealand to create conditions amenable to building local firms that can foot it internationally. It would bring New Zealand’s population into close proximity of the Netherlands (but still nowhere near the population density of that country).

Eric proposes:

Potential policy moves that encourage , and especially higher-skilled ? First on my list would be immediate permanent residence for any foreign student completing a Bachelor’s degree at one of the New Zealand universities. This will not only boost foreign student enrolments (helping to cross-subsidize domestic students) but also provide a nice selection mechanism for those who are most likely to really make a contribution. We could also draw in high skilled American migrants by not losing our comparative advantage in civil liberties and sane copyright legislation.

Complementary to increased immigration would be fixing local land use policy that forces up housing prices, but that’s also well worth doing for its own sake.

I broadly agree. I’m not sure about 15 million, but think 10 million is a reasonable target.

Tags: ,

49 Responses to “How many people do we want?”

  1. AlphaKiwi (686 comments) says:

    15 million?

    The problem is no government will have the balls or ability to force people to move to different parts of the country to balance the population. If we get to 15 million, then it wouldn’t be surprising with any of our present and future governments’ ineptness to end up having Auckland with 12 million people, while the other 3 million are spread throughout the rest of NZ.

    Are others here more positive that the government here could manage a geographical balance in population growth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. s.russell (1,564 comments) says:

    No. No. No. No. No.
    New Zealand’s low population density is something to be cherished. It is one of the things that make this.country so wonderful to live in. It is not worth sacrificing for some marginal economic benefit.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. RRM (9,475 comments) says:

    I think that would be positive for the country. Akl, Wgtn & Chch are not big cities, yet already they provide most of the downsides of living in a big city, but with few of the benefits.

    We are going to have to get real about zoning rules that are choking residential housing growth though, all those millions of people need to sleep somewhere.

    To add a million or two citizens Wellington is going to need a harbour bridge from Seatoun across to the Eastbourne / Wainuiomata hills, then a motorway/tunnel through the hills to a MAJOR new satellite centre or dormitory suburb out on the flat land down by lake Wairarapa….

    (Either that, or Palmerston North “Knowledge city” is just going to have to grow massively? ;-) )

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Are others here more positive that the government here could manage a geographical balance in population growth?

    No, not if what governments over the past couple of decades is anything to go by.

    But, just say they could manage an even spread of growth. That would mean a Dunedin population of 450k – no thanks, I’m here because it’s how it is. 150k would be fine but even 200k would be a massive change.

    Where would we get 4x the current electricity? Or more if there’s more electrification of trains and cars.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Australis (99 comments) says:

    s.russell: So, where will people be allowed to live? NIMBY?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,475 comments) says:

    2/

    If this kind of growth is seriously on the cards, then the rebuilding of Chch right now should be laid out on a scale that will allow it to fill up in some sort of orderly manner as it grows to 2-3million people. NOT just reinstating it as the mature city of 300,000 that it was two years ago. Are we bold enough to do this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Brian Harmer (686 comments) says:

    Forget it S Russell. This is nothing to do with economics. World population pressures will start to make boundaries and nation states less and less relevant. Small pockets of low density will not survive. Nor will I unless I live to 116, which seems improbable, but even if you plan to be alive then, I suspect that the old ways that you cherished will be unsupportable in the face of broader human need.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. KiwiGreg (3,179 comments) says:

    @ Brian “Small pockets of low density will not survive. ”

    Are you serious. Almost all the planet is low density. Fly over China or the US, they are both almost completely empty.

    As to the rest, global demographics are already seeing a radical tapering off of populstion growth, with almost all the develoepd world (US excepted) in decline. Wealth increases in Asia, Africa and Latin America will deal to any additional population pressues.

    As to the government trying to decide where this mythical 11m people are coming from or are going to live, puh-lease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. RRM (9,475 comments) says:

    Eketahuna and Waimate are not going to grow in the same proportion as Auckland.

    “Real New Zealand” with farms and sheep etc will still be with us!

    (Like Kiwigreg said.)

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. emmess (1,373 comments) says:

    An absolute level of population shouldn’t be the target.
    Apopulation growth rate of around 1 percent or a bit over seems reasonable, 1% implies a doubling time of about 70 years.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. toad (3,669 comments) says:

    There is scant mention in the NZEIR paper of the ecological impact of increasing the population size to 15 million. This MfE research may be a bit dated, but I can’t find anything more recent:

    The amount of usable land available in New Zealand is calculated to be 17,783,949 ha. Usable land is defined as the total land area of New Zealand excluding national parks, forest parks, reserves and non-productive land. On this basis, the ecological footprint of the New Zealand population occupies 65.70 percent of the usable land. This means, assuming the per capita footprint remains unchanged, New Zealand could increase its population by 1.52 times before it overshoots its carrying capacity. New Zealand is, in fact, one of the few developed countries along with Canada and Australia that lives within its land-based carrying capacity, and in that sense can be considered a sustainable economy.

    That would suggest that the ecological carrying capacity of New Zealand is a population of around 6 million, rather than 15 million. That, of course, assumes “business as usual”, but at the moment we’re going in the wrong direction with increased agricultural intensification and increased reliance on fossil fuels. Reverse that trend and we may be able to continue to have an ecologically sustainable economy with a population of somewhat higher than 6 million, but I doubt 15 million could ever be ecologically sustainable unless we make the sort of lifestyle changes that would be unacceptable to most New Zealanders.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Sam Hill (34 comments) says:

    We had certainly better start seeing rising incomes and more sex in this country then, because the last thing we need right now is more cheap labour coming from overseas to undermine the people of this country and put more pressure on our already inefficient welfare system. I don’t know if all these Kiwi couples who wait until they are in their 30s to produce 1.7 children per couple are going to be able to triple out population over the next fifty years.

    The only people we should be letting in to this country are educated people and their families. People who will atually add to this country, by providing skills that are either a) desperately needed, or b) likely to produce great economic benefits to the country. It doesn’t matter what race you are or how much wealth you have, it just matters what benefits you are going to bring to this country.

    And three cities over 3 million? Ok, so Auckland can already say they have perfected the stupid urban sprawl model. As said above either Wellington would need a bridge/tunnel over to the Wairarapa to expand to that degree Christchurch or Dunedin? Yeah right. That leaves Hamilton, Tauranga, Napier and Palmerston North. Does that sound logical? People talk so much crap these days you have to wonder if they consider reality or whether they just pick ideas out of a hat.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Jman (84 comments) says:

    The New Zealand born population is actually very stable if you take the high birth rate of Maoris out of the equation. Most of our population growth has come from immigration and people living longer due to medical advances. Across the first world birth rates are below replacement level (i.e the average woman has less than 2 children). New Zealand has remained steady at about the replacement level for at least the last 20 years. (This info is freely available at Stats NZ website). So if immigration stopped, our population would be expected to remain where it is in the future.

    To get to a population growth of 15 million would mean that growth came almost exclusively from 3rd world immigration. Would our society and culture bear any resemblance to what it is now under such a scenario? Highly unlikely. To try and frame the issue purely as an economic one is dishonest.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Cunningham (821 comments) says:

    I agree with s.russell, a small population makes NZ a wonderful place to live. I lived overseas (in UK) and hated the fact that everywhere you went in Europe there were heaps of people. I imagine most immigrants find our small population one of the main reasons they love it here. We will encounter more and more social problems if we try to grow to that size. Just look at Aussie and the growing social problems there.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. PaulL (5,874 comments) says:

    All the usual problems. I like Eric, but I think he has this one just wrong – but it’s an opinion at least.

    1. We should care about income per head, not total income. Saying “NZ would be richer with more people” is not a useful statement unless you’re one of the people at the top who like having a bigger market. The key is growth GDP per head

    2. Lifestyle is also important. Like it or not, current NZers get a say over future NZers. I’d rather fewer people, less dense population, and a bit better lifestyle. I’ve lived in asia, and whilst big cities are vibrant, they’re also not much on lifestyle.

    3. In absolute terms, the world population is happening. If those people don’t live here they live somewhere else. When Toad talks about NZ’s carrying capacity, he’s ignoring that those people otherwise live in a country with even less carrying capacity per head. A lot of people draw borders on income distribution and helping the poor – they’re not interested in income distribution to people offshore. I suspect that’s partly because for many of those people it changes them from net recipients to net donors, and they don’t like the sound of that. As someone who’s already a net donor, I’m not sure I care whether I donate to people in NZ or people in Indonesia, and the people in Indonesia are arguably more needy. The problem is that the whole philosophy of income redistribution is flawed, and trying to do it on a global scale just shows why its flawed.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (22,863 comments) says:

    Population ponzi.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (5,874 comments) says:

    Sorry – to be clear – Eric did suggest that greater population would lead to greater GDP per head – he’s seeing some economies of scale from having larger cities. My view is that those economies of scale also come with some reduction in lifestyle benefits, and I’m not sure that everyone would want to make that trade.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Brian Smaller (3,999 comments) says:

    There will probably be millions of refugees from Europe in a few decades.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Jman,


    To get to a population growth of 15 million would mean that growth came almost exclusively from 3rd world immigration.

    I don’t know about 15 million or even 10 million, but if 3rd world immigrants come here to get residence through a bachelor’s degree at one of our universities they must a) be able to afford the foreign student fee and b) have english good enough to be enrolled. If they meet both those standards and are able to pass their course I can’t see the problem with them gaining residence.

    The problem is that every migrant seems to want to get residence the easiest way possible. So they get a tiny bit of English then study a level 5 diploma in business in some upstairs business school. This gets them a recognized qualification which is awarded points under immigration instructions. They then go out and get a retail management job which can be anything from managing a corner dairy to managing a KFC. On this basis they apply for residence.

    It would be much better if they had to attend a real University, which would require as a prerequisite more English language training in order to be accepted for enrolment. Then after they obtain their bachelors we shouldn’t need to worry about them finding a so-called “skilled job” because they have already demonstrated that they’ve got real skills and knowledge by gaining a proper qualification that people would respect (as opposed to the upstairs business schools many of which just sell qualifications). Many migrants just quit their “skilled” jobs after they gain residence anyway so what’s the point. The focus should be on ensuring they have real skills and that’s only going to happen if they are forced to get decent qualifications from our most respected institutions and if you automatically give them residence for a Bachelor’s degree they’ll be more motivated to put in the effort to get those qualifications.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Sam Hill,


    It doesn’t matter what race you are or how much wealth you have, it just matters what benefits you are going to bring to this country.

    Having wealth benefits our country. Our investment and business schemes are far too rigid. If someone wants to invest 9 million dollars in our country we shouldn’t be worrying about how well they speak English. The 9 million is good enough. Even 1 million is good enough.

    Similarly if people want to start a business here and have the money and an acceptable business plan then we shouldn’t be asking them to demonstrate their business expertise. If the business fails then they go home, if it succeeds then they’ve obviously demonstrated acceptable business expertise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Jack5 (4,595 comments) says:

    Pipe dreams!

    NZ is not able to export enough now to sustain a population of 4,428,953. The continuing balance-of–payments deficits eventually mean an economic crunch is inevitable.

    As for Brian Harmer’s 11.27 post which included:

    World population pressures will start to make boundaries and nation states less and less relevant. Small pockets of low density will not survive.

    Such small pockets have survived for millennia around densely populated China. For example, Mongolia has 5.8 times the land area of NZ, but its population is just 72 per cent that of NZ’s. Siberia would be even less densely populated than Mongolia, I suspect.

    Most NZers live in cities or on the fringe of flat land, but this country is predominantly mountainous. The CIA World Factbook indicates that less than 12.5 per cent of the land area is farmed (excluding the increasingly pressured leasehold grazing).

    Higher population will mean our cities will increasingly encroach on our farming land. And how will they earn sufficient for imports. They won’t of course. High population will mean poverty and emigration to Australia (if they will still allow us in). The emigration-to-Australia valve already saves us from a high unemployment rate. How much bigger would Australia allow it to become if the world population surge fears do eventuate? The Aussies will be able to pick from highly educated from round the world.

    Also, Brian, do you really think the population graph line must incredibly soar upwards? AIDS and bird flu show futures devastating plagues are not impossible, especially with the development of medical drugs under great pressure from sky-high demands for safety. This is pushing up the cost of developing drugs at the same time do-gooders’ pressure would break the patent model that ultimately finances the science and development of such new drugs.

    More pressure on health comes from increasing air traffic and refugee flows, legal and illegal.

    Add to this the coming proliferation of atomic weapons. North Korea, Israel, and soon Iraq. In 50 years, Fiji might have the bomb! Do you really think mass-casualty wars are a receding possibility?

    The world population blow-out is just another doomsday scenario of the pessimists who, in a less secular age, would be fretting about Judgement Day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. adze (1,870 comments) says:

    15 million by 2060? How long did it take to go from 2 million to 4? About 50 years; and that was during the baby boomer period. They’re dreaming, unless we import truckloads. I’d much rather we concentrate on getting fundamentals right in the economy; skilled immigration will naturally follow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. KevinH (1,132 comments) says:

    Geographically New Zealand is close to the most densely populated regions on Earth ie China, India and Indonesia where approx 3.5 billion people are experiencing all sorts of deprivations associated with high density populations.
    Consequently you don’t need much imagination to guess where those extra 10 million people will come from. Now is the time to begin a conversation about the impending immigration of millions to New Zealand ie who, why and how.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Paulus (2,503 comments) says:

    Jman

    If you look at the Pacifica birthrate I believe you will find it well in excess of “Maori” – whoever that is.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Scott Chris (5,884 comments) says:

    High population will mean poverty and emigration to Australia

    Jack I disagree. Our focus on primary industry does us no economic good at all. I like 15 million as a number, as it provides a reasonably sized domestic market from which would spring innovation and exports.

    Another consideration is addressing our demographic age range imbalance, which can be rebalanced by encouraging people with a suitable demographic profile to emmigrate here.

    Yeah, the more the merrier imo. If you look at the United States as an example, the decendents of the tired huddled masses now run the country, because their parents weren’t the jaded domestic stock we currently have, rather they were hungry to succeed and could see relative opportunity for what it really is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. kowtow (7,650 comments) says:

    How about a referendum on the subject, you know like the ones in real democracies where the government must obey the result.
    Unless you’re a member of the EU where they repeat them until they get the result the government wants.

    Well if we’re going to have that population driven by immigration I think the atheists are shit out of luck as we’ll become an Islamic Republic.

    Bachelors degree? Waste of time, any idiot can get a BA now.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. emmess (1,373 comments) says:

    If we had 15 million I think the cities sizes would be something like this

    Auckland – 6 million
    Christchurch – 1.5 Million
    Hamilton – 1 million
    Tauranga – 1 million
    Wellington – 700,000
    Napier- Hastings – 500,000
    Nelson – 400,000
    Whangarei – 400,000
    Dunedin 300,000
    New Plymouth – 250,000
    Palmerston North – 250,000
    Invercargill – 150,000
    Gisborne – 150,000
    Wanganui – 100,000
    Timaru – 100,000

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Imagine how many more MP’s we’d have :(

    There’s also the slightly tricky issue of the husband of our head of state, Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh who is credited with saying “If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”. We’d been in queenie’s bad books at 15m.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Sam Hill (34 comments) says:

    Come on Weihana. If you can’t speak English you shouldn’t be granted citizenship. End of story.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Sam Hill,

    No I don’t agree. Having millions is a huge benefit to our country. It provides jobs and opportunities to NZers which is more important than whether or not they speak English. We need to stop being so precious. We need people with millions a lot more than they need us. There are plenty of other countries that are more than willing to take them if we pass on the opportunity.

    edit: I just realized you said citizenship whereas what I’m referring to is residence…. If that makes a difference for you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    Fine as long as they all settle in the North Island , rather , make that ”New Tibet. ”
    If the trans alpine goes there may not be much of a south island anyway and very little of Wellers left. Sad that.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. john.bt (170 comments) says:

    I would agree with the Duke. I think a target of 3 million is a much better option.

    Currently the world population is growing at a rate equivalent to the population of NZ every two and a bit weeks. That is the same as the Australian population every three months or the US of A in three years. This growth is compounding and is totally unsustainable.

    When the growth rate for the so-called developed countries drops the governments start paying punters to breed. As has happened in this country. As we have a finite amount of resources I wonder how bad things will get in another couple of centuries. Or shouldn’t we worry about that?

    Also,I am amazed that those believers in the global warming scam haven’t targeted too many people as the problem they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    john.bt,


    As we have a finite amount of resources I wonder how bad things will get in another couple of centuries. Or shouldn’t we worry about that?

    We should worry about it, but consider how 7 billion people would have survived on the technology available in 1900. It’s a reasonable assumption that our technological capabilities will be improved in 50 years time. Indeed they are already starting to grow meat in a lab so who knows how we will use our resources in 50 years time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. KiwiGreg (3,179 comments) says:

    LOL and those poor Japanese – so many more people than the Greens would allow, no wonder they are all starving, not like those rich fatties in Ethiopia. Yeah, it’s all about population density…..people need to travel more.

    “Geographically New Zealand is close to the most densely populated regions on Earth ie China, India and Indonesia”

    Are you serious? Geographically New Zealand is as far aways from anywhere as 4m people can get. Siberia would have something to worry about if all these weird theories of poor densely populated Asians rushing to get somewhere open were valid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    KevinH,


    Geographically New Zealand is close to the most densely populated regions on Earth ie China, India and Indonesia where approx 3.5 billion people are experiencing all sorts of deprivations associated with high density populations.

    In terms of population density China, India and Indonesia rank 80th, 33rd, and 92nd respectively.

    The United Kingdom, Germany and The Netherlands rank 12th, 13th and 30th respectively.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density

    I suspect it’s something other than population density which is the cause of their deprivations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Also,I am amazed that those believers in the global warming scam haven’t targeted too many people as the problem they are.

    There are plenty of eugenetics followers involved in the global warming scam. Check out Maurice Strong, Al Gore’s mentor. His involvement in UN Charter 21 is pretty scary. Acutually the whole charter is scary! Then there’s John Holdren, although he’s probably better described as a genocidalist. Ted Turner.. and the list goes on

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Weihana (4,496 comments) says:

    Just as an example of why we need rich people, just consider Dotcom:


    Dotcom gave $50,000 to the Christchurch mayoral fund following the earthquake, another $50,000 to a rugby player who was left in a wheelchair after an on-field injury and forked out $600,000 for a fireworks display in Auckland harbour.

    “I am told he has spent around $1 million in GST, indirectly created 18 jobs for New Zealanders, benefitted local businesses who are servicing and supporting his visit.”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/6547471/Secrecy-over-Dotcoms-residency-application

    Although Dotcom does speak English very well, considering all the benefits people like him bring, who really gives a toss even if he didn’t speak English well? Indeed I totally agree with Immigration New Zealand waiving good character requirements for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Chris2 (758 comments) says:

    Surely the first debate should be whether we want such growth in the first place, instead of assuming that “growth” is desirable or necessary.

    Does the quality of life of those already here degrade by allowing for a such a population increase>

    A parallel is the current discussion of increasing the size the Auckland waterfront to accept even more shipping. Yes that is growth, but is is necessary or desirable? Not one commentator has for instance raised the issue of the consequential increase in gridlock on Aucklands roads and motorways arising from even more large trucks traveling to and from the port. That becomes a cost born by the travelling public, impacting on their “growth” activities, like earning a living.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Jack5 (4,595 comments) says:

    Scott Chris posted at 12.54:

    …Our focus on primary industry does us no economic good at all…

    Everyone wants diversification, Scott Chris. Everyone’s got ideas, but is diversification feasible, or is it just another deadweight for our primary industries to carry?

    You have to wonder how, in the near term, we can develop strong export-focused secondary industry under what amounts to NZ’s high NZ dollar policy? This is hammering exporters and helping only borrowing-happy governments and their backers in real estate, foreign-owned banking, and the burgeoning public relations industry.

    In the long term how can we develop export industries when we are letting our domestic manufacturing die?

    Technology is touted as the answer, but when? We have a string of disappointments among once heralded tech start-ups that have failed to become multinationals: Wellington Drive, BLIS, BotryZen, Genesis Research and Development…

    Even Rakon, one of our better hopes, struggles with the currency. A fine firm like Tait Electronics remains a relatively tiny fish on the world scene. Tech firm after tech firm is bought by foreigners as soon as the founders can make a good capital gain. Sometimes the new owners leave the R&D here because our techies work for less. Generally we are left with foreign-owned branch operations.

    Do you see an intellectual coolie role for a big population NZ? A nation of relatively modestly paid machine-code hackers, electronics engineers and technicians with all lesser qualified work done abroad?

    The belief that you can increase the population and miracle industries will evolve strikes me as smoke and mirrors. It’s like providing services or products in the hope that demand will spring up, that a market will come.

    In the meantime there will be a hundred expensive, bullshit Knowledge Wave-type conferences, think tanks, committees, commissions, research groups, papers, and general waffle. All to little avail.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Jack5 (4,595 comments) says:

    Weihana at 2.10pm cites Herr DotCom as a good reason why we need rich immigrants.

    C’mon, Weihana, here’s why we really want them:

    1. They keep property prices high and help the real-estate, banking, immigration-consultant slice of the National Party.

    2. They will vote National as soon as they learn English.

    3. They will likely gratefully support the National Party with donations.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Jack5 (4,595 comments) says:

    Kevin H posted at 12.42:

    …Geographically New Zealand is close to the most densely populated regions on Earth ie China, India and Indonesia …

    Is the presumption that NZ is close to these big Asian centres based on a century of looking at
    Mercator projection maps with a big empty Pacific Ocean? On the edge, is NZ, on the end of an island chain leading to China and Japan.

    In fact:

    - Beijing is 8223 km kfrom Paris, compared with 10,385km from Auckland.

    - New Delhi is 11,750km from New York, compared with 12,480km from Auckland.

    - Indonesia is obviously nearer Australasia than it is to Europe or America, but compare the 7633 km distance between Jakarta and Auckland with the 3513km between London and Cairo. No-one spouts on about Britain being close to the densely populated Nile valley of Egypt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. backster (2,081 comments) says:

    Well that would be similar to the population of Greece and Portugal but still a few less than Italy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Scott Chris (5,884 comments) says:

    You have to wonder how, in the near term, we can develop strong export-focused secondary industry under what amounts to NZ’s high NZ dollar policy?

    Jack I agree the high dollar is a problem which requires decisive intervention. We’ve allowed it to float freely and look where it’s got us. In theory, the dollar would settle on its real worth if it weren’t for the speculators, so I’d target them with a financial transactions tax. (legitimate commerce would be exempt)

    Secondly I’d undermine the artificial confidence in the overblown value of the dollar by printing money, but rather than line the pockets of the banks and create inflationary pressure, the funds would be used to employ idle hands to use idle equipment in places such as Christchurch which require rebuilding. Inflation only occurs when there is a supply failure which could occur in the building supplies sector, but the impact would be relatively minor. If it does start to create inflationary pressure, then you stop and try something else.

    Of course followers of the Austrian school of economics will throw up their hands in despair, but the thing is the government for better or worse does interfere in the market place creating artificial imbalances, so half measures will only make the imbalance worse.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Colville (2,085 comments) says:

    I dont mind if we go up to 10 Mil as long as 7 Mil of them live above the bombay hills :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. thor42 (922 comments) says:

    I’m with s russell and cunningham – I’m completely against getting the population up to even 10 million.

    If anyone wants to see how “wonderful” opening the floodgates to immigrants is, they need look no further than the UK and Europe. Millions and millions of Muslims flooding in, and almost all of them going onto welfare.

    A number of Islamic leaders have openly stated that the flood of Muslim immigrants into the West is part of their strategy to conquer it and take it over. Their high birth rate is part of that same strategy.

    I have zero confidence that our government is (a) awake to this, and (b) would do anything to stop it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    15Million? wow, imagine how many Civil Servants there will be in Wellington – all voting Labour, all PC nutbars

    Hahahaha

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. MT_Tinman (2,993 comments) says:

    Will all 15 million have to stop and pray to Allah five times a day or just the majority?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Steve (4,499 comments) says:

    @ Colville

    “I dont mind if we go up to 10 Mil as long as 7 Mil of them live above the bombay hills ”

    You want 70% to subsidise the rest of the country? we already do that in real Taxes, not variable arithmetic Taxes like Govt employee Taxes

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Bullitt (137 comments) says:

    I am yet to be convinced any population growth is a good idea let alone such a rediculous number. Imagine the reduction in new infrastructre that would be required if we had a zero or even slightly negative growth rate. My ideal number for New Zealand would be closer to 3 million than 15.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.