Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country

[marbleheadmaui]

That is horrible. Really horrible.

It's such a poor country as it is and the only way to relieve some of that is to have fewer children. Only a complete arse could be against supporting contraceptives.

Pacquiao's comment about multiplying was also tasteless and crude. So every one should have as many children as they can eh Manny? Are you going to pay for them?

Yet there's actually no evidence supporting the notion that a declining population is linked to prosperity is there?

To have 2 children or to have 10? You tell me which is easier to raise on an average income. I would assume it is cheaper still to raise no children. I said nothing about a declining population anyway, it is common sense to assume that too many children is costly and likely to keep you in poverty.

In THIS case common sense is simply wrong. The causes of poverty are largely unrelated to family size or national population.

So tell me how one income can provide for 10 children when such an amount leaves most families living pay check to pay check with only 2.

If every family in the Philipines had 10 children, I have little doubt that it would make a poor country even poorer. More food needed, more clothes to buy and no jobs for those children when they get older. And then those children go and have 10 children each. It is hopeless and pointless.

But if you believe that this is a positive thing and actually makes society a better place, I am curious to know how.

The mistake you are making is assuming the ONLY thing that can be changed is the number of kids. The causes of Poverty are far more complex. If it were as you described? A family with ten kids would be noticably wealthier than the family next door with only nine than the family next door with eight in a linear progression. But there is obviously no such correlation.

Again if you were correct a declining Russia should have seen a significant increase in national prosperity over the last decade. It hasn't happened.

Your argument is making little sense to me.

For instance, there are two couples earning the same money. Couple A has no children, they invest their money. Couple B has 10 children, they spend all of their income on raising their children. Sometimes they even have to borrow.

Which couple is financially better off. It is clearly A.

Raising children costs both in terms of time and money. On a low income to have 2 is more sensible than to have 10.

I'm not going to spend all night doing economics 101. (sorry for that sounding Douchey, this ain't 101. what I mean is I don't know how to have this conversation with someone not conversant in economic theory and the vocabulary)

I've given you three books that can do that on this topic. Here is a fourth. Hernando de Soto's The Mystery of Capital.

Let me summarize. The cost of getting 10 people out of the sun, rain, wind and snow is not that different from getting two out. The fixed cost of a residence is the key.

The cost of feeding the incremental mouth is very, very small. It is the cost of the stove and refrigerator etc. that are FIXED and large.

Plus again, you are assuming wrongly that the only thing that can change is the size of the family. It's just an assumption that cannot be defended. Property Rights, corruption, industrialization etc can ALL be changed and have a marked effect.

Please read at least one of those books and I'll be pleased to have a longer discussion.

I'm out!