Congressman Pacquiao would like to ban condoms in his country

[Gandalf]

Somebody can study economics at Chicago, but it doesn't mean the person at Chicago knows anything more about the real world. Economics is the most corrupt of all academic subjects and is often excuse making for policies that keep the rich rich and the poor poorer.

[mafiajoey]

Love the boxing talk fellas...Miles wins. But Miles you can't debate a Pactard. They are never wrong and always right...lol

[Kev]

Love the boxing talk fellas...Miles wins. But Miles you can't debate a Pactard. They are never wrong and always right...lol

I have to say I really like marbleheadmai, a very intelligent new addition to the forum.

He is also completely on the money here.

The problem that you and Miles have, is your comparing our civilisations to the third world. It doesn't correlate. They don't have playstations and toys to buy for the kids, they don't have cars to drive or offices and stock exchanges to run.

These countries are primarily rural and agricultural.

They don't have machinary like we do doing most of their grunt work for them, people still do.

Thus, more children equals more people working, hence more money for the family.

As marbleheadmai points out, many of their costs are fixed, the only real extra expense in the third world is food and water per person.

If the child once grown (and I don't mean 18 like in the UK or US) is able to earn more than it takes to feed him/herself then how do they lose money exactly?

If a person is able to produce more than they consume then there is a net gain. Consider a beehive. More bees means a bigger hive will need to be built, but they will make more honey. Considering the value of honey exceeds the effort to make the hive I imagine therefore a bigger hive is preferable....

As the Phillipines is an Agrarian rather than industrial economy it is not suited to low birth rated. The need for child labour, higher infant mortality rate and an industrial revolution are just a few things needed to turn the country around before people can stop having kids..

[Gandalf]

Love the boxing talk fellas...Miles wins. But Miles you can't debate a Pactard. They are never wrong and always right...lol

I have to say I really like marbleheadmai, a very intelligent new addition to the forum.

He is also completely on the money here.

The problem that you and Miles have, is your comparing our civilisations to the third world. It doesn't correlate. They don't have playstations and toys to buy for the kids, they don't have cars to drive or offices and stock exchanges to run.

These countries are primarily rural and agricultural.

They don't have machinary like we do doing most of their grunt work for them, people still do.

Thus, more children equals more people working, hence more money for the family.

As marbleheadmai points out, many of their costs are fixed, the only real extra expense in the third world is food and water per person.

If the child once grown (and I don't mean 18 like in the UK or US) is able to earn more than it takes to feed him/herself then how do they lose money exactly?

If a person is able to produce more than they consume then there is a net gain. Consider a beehive. More bees means a bigger hive will need to be built, but they will make more honey. Considering the value of honey exceeds the effort to make the hive I imagine therefore a bigger hive is preferable....

As the Phillipines is an Agrarian rather than industrial economy it is not suited to low birth rated. The need for child labour, higher infant mortality rate and an industrial revolution are just a few things needed to turn the country around before people can stop having kids..

In looking at the 3rd world you have to consider that simply buying food takes up a huge proportion of the income. There is no way that a single mother raising 5 kids can work or for those kids to work either. Sure, after an investment of a decade or so they could find work, but what work is there? If everyone is having 10 kids as well, the shoe shine market is likely taken or so saturated that the take home pay is practically nothing. Of course they could go on the game, but as I say, it will be a saturated market too. In countries like the Philippines there are no real opportunities. In the mean time mother has to pay the rent, feed the kids, clothe them, educate them etc. It is hell on earth. The best thing she could have done was to make her partners wear condoms and to think about her own future. Being a breeding machine is no real strategy or satisfactory alternative.

Nobody is saying the Philippines needs to have a low birthrate either, there should be a happy medium. Having 10 kids is unhealthy and counterproductive. How many people do you really need to live in the country at large? If there are no opportunities now then I don't see how expanding the population 10 fold really serves any ultimate purpose.

[Gandalf]

Also in considering a home, you have to think about space. Where on earth can ten children sleep? Even with two to a room, you need at least 5 bedrooms. Are all of these peasants going to be given government funded mansions?

Also more children doesn't mean more children working if there are no viable jobs. It just means an extra person to feed.

Families need to be created out of love rather than a need to create a factor of production. There are too many people being born for no good reason without billions more being born out of the faint hope that the child might throw a crumb when he matures. Who's to say he will ever have a crumb anyway?

Just use condoms, people should be free to do what they want. The Catholic church and Manny Pac are quite sick in this regard.