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.

[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.

[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?

[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..

[No Contest]

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.

Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.

Basically I'm talking about resources, there are only so much natural resources. We may not be anywhere near the threshold of being able to sustain the population, but if the population continues to grow at the current rate we will eventually get there. Look at population growth charts just over the last few centuries and development that has taken place. We will eventually run out of of room.

[Kev]

Well I would think with the world becoming overpopulated eventually, it will soon become prosperous to have a declining population.

Please tell me what number equals overpopulation? If you think a declining population leads to prosperity? Please explain Russia. Declining birth rates, life expectancy lower than it was 25 years ago.

Poverty is mostly driven by things other than family size or national population.

Basically I'm talking about resources, there are only so much natural resources. We may not be anywhere near the threshold of being able to sustain the population, but if the population continues to grow at the current rate we will eventually get there. Look at population growth charts just over the last few centuries and development that has taken place. We will eventually run out of of room.

What resources do you think we are running out of exactly?

Food is infinite. We need some, we grow some. We need more we grow more.

You are confusing the affluence and greed of the Western world that wants unlimited fossil fuel to power their SUV's and bloated infrastructure and thinking that these things are essential to humanity.

But of course they are not.

[:::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.

[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.