Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country

[Gandalf]

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.

[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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[generalbulldog]

I don't usually agree with Miles, hell it's a rarity, but the guy is right on about poverty and large families.

If a family's income is like say 20k per year and they have 5 kids to feed and raise compared to say having no kids at all on the same income, what is the better situation? I mean it's just common sense.

[marbleheadmaui]

I don't usually agree with Miles, hell it's a rarity, but the guy is right on about poverty and large families.

If a family's income is like say 20k per year and they have 5 kids to feed and raise compared to say having no kids at all on the same income, what is the better situation? I mean it's just common sense.

Nope. Here's why. The cost of feeding the incremental mouth is actually pretty small. The cost of owning a dwelling that can keep two or five out of the rain? Surprisingly close. The cost of heating that place, almost exactly the same. The cost of clothing? Surprisingly small due to the hand me down progression and so on and so on.

Ever hear the expression two can live as cheaply as one? It is largely correct because it is the FIXED costs that drive the economic analysis, not the marginal ones.

Again Poverty is FAR more complex than merely family size. Read Thomas Sowell or Charles Murray for deep explorations of the issues involved. Losing Ground, Theories of Poverty and Economic Facts and Fallacies are all good on the topic.

[:::PSL:::]

Great. Another Pinoy cock thread from Generalbulldog. What's with the obsession man?

[generalbulldog]

Great. Another Pinoy cock thread from Generalbulldog. What's with the obsession man?

It's funny. And BTW, it's a Pacquiao thread you should be happy.

And BTW, since the issue is on poverty and 3rd world countries, the Phillipines is poor is because of another thing that isn't mentioned, culture. Take a look at S. Korea, Japan, and China's culture and why they are economic giants or top economies in the world.

[AdamGB]

Telling poor people to have more children... Not wanting to give a teaspoon of blood for tens of millions?!

...and they say politicians are out of touch with their people.

[Howlin Mad Missy]

everybody's got aids, aids aids.

[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.

[Gandalf]

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.

[Gandalf]

I agree that there is much more to poverty than family size, but it is clearly a factor. If the already poor single mother had stopped at one child she might have been able to work her way out of poverty. But to keep getting pregnant means that she can never escape.

[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!

[Gandalf]

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. 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!

How many poor people can afford to buy their homes?

Rent is the norm and to pay the rent you need a regular income and to get a decent income you usually need to be educated.

What about families where there is no father figure? There are many of them. How can a mother of five go to work?

Have you seen what is happening around the world? Food prices have risen 20% in the last year out here. In the Philippines that would be the difference between one plate of rice a day or two. And to then have to worry about extra mouths. Food takes up a much larger amount of your income in poor countries. You do realise how poor some south east Asian countries are, right?

[Dizaster]

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!

Educated by books, ignorant of reality.... and common sense...

Obviously you don't have 10 children... or maybe not even 2...

Also how does a government support a population where at least 50% of the population doesn't barely have a formal job, and the political stance on population control is god's word, "go forth and multiply".... Regardless of what books you've read or how experienced on economics you are,,, if you can't see that that is a recipe for poverty that in 30 years will be absolutely impossible to fix, then sorry boy you are a moron...

Yes, you've mentioned political, property, corruption, industrialization, etc all affecting poverty.... And exactly, we are talking about the Philippines here... where all these things are fucked and have been against the people for years!! So you couldn't get a WORSE situation where you tell people to have as many kids as is absurd to them... And eventually high population will fit your economics books, and the Philippine people will all be living rich!

They need to start with something to fix poverty there.... Controlling population (like every other prosperous country does) is only a positive thing....
Leaving everything else out, Can we not just agree on that one point...?