What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[benign0]

---

And given that we apparently can't - kahit pagulong-gulongin mo ang Pinoy sa talahiban, then it does not make sense to multiply like rats -- because even now -- at 80 million souls -- we already are living like rats.

Well, I would disagree with the assertion that we CAN'T prosper rapidly. In your other thread you already suggested some changes that I wholeheartedly believe CAN work.

• You said we should save. Of course! Thrift is a time-tested virtue. If we practice this, promote it, train people in it, set an example of it, then I think we will see some immediate, grassroots improvement. I have personally tried this on a small scale and it saved my butt more than once
  
• You also said we should do business as usual regardless of who's on top. I agree 100% Of course we should be concerned about our leadership. but ultimately we have to get on with the business of business! Let our politicians be the clowns. Let's move our country forward in the meantime.

If we do these and more, if we attack the ROOT problems, then I submit the idea that we don't even have to bother with population control. And, in the long run, population control will be detrimental to economic growth since it impairis the enabling effect of population density that a market economy requires.

Since you have already made some very workable suggestions, I would like to add an idea from Hernando De Soto. My explanation of it will necessarily be oversimplified, but I think you will immediately see some value in it.

De Soto's claim is this: the reason why capitalism (which is the system the Philippines is supposed to be using) flourishes in the West and fails terribly in so many other places is because while these other places have adopted the trappings of capitalism, they have largely failed to adopt an essential structure that allows capitalism to work: an inclusive, formal property system that allows all citizens to participate in the market economy in more meaningful and productive ways.

The poor masses actually have huge, untapped economic assets. In fact, the value of their property is, if I recall De Soto correctly, roughly 15 times that of all the aid loans given to the Third World! They actually "own" or make use of property and have marketable skills. I have observed many slum areas and I find a great many people engaged in small-time production. They are inefficient, of course, given their resources, but they do TRY to work hard and make ends meet. Of course there are many lazy drunkards too, but there are far many more who dream and try to work towards a better life. But they operate OUTSIDE the formal property system, which drastically impairs what can be done with these and destroys much of its economic value. In contrast, citiziens of the US, England, Hong Kong, Singapore, etc. have a legal, formal property that catalogs, assesses, and makes meaningful their assets in such a way that they have more economic value.

For example, in the US, one can get a mortgage on one's house in 15 minutes! Mortages are one of the most common sources for seed capital for businesses in the US. This can be done because the US formal property system properly catalogs, keeps updated, and assesses the value of each person's material economic assets. This fiorces persons to be responsible for their assets. It also make possible the effiicient delivery of goods and services. And finally, it allows owners to use their assets as financial instruments, greatly increasing the potential productivity that can be gotten from these assets. This is what enables commodity trade, stock exchanges, loans, mortgages, accumulation of capital, credit, etc.

In contrast, in the Philippines, one has to move heaven and earth just to get a title to one's property! De Soto's team catalogued the steps needed to obtain a title to real estate in several countries. In some places, it required nearly 200 different steps, involving dozens of government agencies and officials. No wonder so many assets remain outside the pale of the legal property system in the Philippines! And such assets, small as they are, could have been used, at least, for micro-finance. But as it is, their potential value is wasted.

This was also the situation in Europe over 300 years ago. Prior to the growth of cities and large populations, production was centered small villages, around manors of the nobility, and later in small towns with artisan's guilds. These were real improvements in comparison to the scattered settlements, true, but after the advance of technology, they were inefficient. With larger populations, towns grew into cities. Migrant labor appeared in the cities and began working and producing in small but increasing quantities OUTSIDE of the control of the guilds and the state or local governments. They crowded into cities to sell their wares and set up shop around them. Their presence caused resentment, crime, vagrancy, and other such ills. But people were willing to live with these since they had otherwise no access to the legally-approved economic system of the guilds and the state. They even suffered suppression by the authorities, but continued because they had no other means to live. Eventually, they demanded for greater recognition and participation in economic and political affairs. The numbers were just too great, and the state recognized that it was the inefficient economic system that was the problem, NOT the teeming poor masses that the state and nobility were suppressing.

This then led to a slow but major change in the economic system. These changes, too numerous to mention and often too small to even discern, allowed the extral-legal economy, still operating far below its potential, to join the property system and with it, all the benefits of participating more meaningfully in the economy. And this is what allowed the "economy of the masses" to fulfill its potential, resulting in a massive increase in productivity and economic growth. This is what also led to the Industrial Revolution.

I think this can happen here. In fact, I think it's almost inevitable barring some hugely cataclysmic and destabilizing pollitical or economic upheaval (such as war or natural disaster on a national scale). That, at least, is the conclusion I can draw from De Soto's wide-ranging data and analysis.

Yup. I agree with all of what you said above.

I would also submit to you that given this perspective, population control would ultimately be short-sighted because although it may seem to solve some immediate supply problems, it would also sabotage the very mechanisms needed by a market economy to flourish, It would also continue to perptuate the under-achievement and under-productivity of the masses. We need population growth to fuel our move toward this next stage. To lower our already rapidly dropping fertility rate (from 7 to 2.3 in just 50 years) will ead to other vastly more difficult problems such as population ageing (which is something no one is even prepared to deal with).

So, in a nutshell, I think we should move on with your suggestions and some others, and by doing so, we will altogether avoid any percieved or imagined need population control. After all, you have already hinted at some far better solutions than population control. Let's put our resources into those instead.

Sorry. Still can't say I agree with your suggestion that we allow population to gallop away unabated. As you said, it took Europe hundreds of years to change from what effectively the Philippies is now to citadels of achievement.

It took Japan 100 years to do the same, and Singapore and Korea half that time.

How long do you think it will take for the Philippines to achieve the same (not even taking into account our dismal capability to pull our $hit together)? 10 years? 20 years? 50 years?

At the rate our population is growing, how many Filipinos mouths will be bumming around our islands in 10 years (the most optimistic of the three scenarios, I might add)? I reckon about 95 million people. Even if the economy grows at an optimistic 5% per annum continuously over ten years, that would raise our per capita income from just $5000 today to a little less than $6500.

I say it is optimistic because we are likely bound to lose 2 to 3 odd years of productivity because of this latest political debacle.

How does one live on $6500 a year? Take a look around you. That figure propbably represents the income of a typical diploma mill graduate in his/her 30's to 40's -- a time when most people are supposed to be purchasing their first homes.

And that's just an average figure (it assumes national production is spread equally across the population). But if you take into account that old cliche statistic about the 5% rich controlling 95% of the country's wealth, then we're effectively cutting the above figure by half ($3000 a year for each unfortunate Pinoy who happens to live on the wrong side of our subdivision gates).


Think about it.

Think about how grossly irresponsible it is to happily cheer on our talent for making babies.



-------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this!

[mannyamador]

At the rate our population is growing, how many Filipinos mouths will be bumming around our islands in 10 years

First, I will have to disagree with the premiss that Filipinos in general will be bumming around. They aren't now and there's no reason to think they are likely to in the future. Our basic disagreement, I think, is how we see Filipinos as a whole. You see them as unproductive, uncreative, and uncooperative, while I see them as being like most humans: creative, productive, and cooperative ESPECIALLY when they are grouped in great enough density to enhance economies of scale. I think in an earlier message you effectively said that Filipinos were different in that respect from people in other countries. Doesn't it then mean that you should substantiate the claim?

But even without that, and admitting the economic difficulties that you mention above, population control will still NOT solve them since population control does not attack the root problem. At the very best one may only argue that it will result in localized, short-term alleviation of certain economic situtaitons, but the problems population control will create are far worse and longer lasting.

One such problem, which the UN Population Division has been warning about for years is population ageing. The effects of such a phenomenon are dramatic, devastating. and profound. And it is not something that can be reversed easily or quickly. It takes decades to do so. The Philippine Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has been dropping like a rock for the past 50 years, from 7 to 2.3. This is a far greater change than in the past several hundred years! At that rate, we will face a demographic winter which our economy (like the rest of the world) is ill-prepared to handle.

So, just to restate my point: population control is short-sighted because it soesn't attack the root causes of our difficulties and as such really solves nothing, and at most results in temporary alleviation in some localized cases. But the long-term effects of such a "solution" are far worse. The "cure" causes yet another disease.

Shouldn't we instead be trying to reform the property system, among other things?

PS: pahabol lang
Did you know that at US$3000 a year you can live decently today in Dumaguete or Cebu provided you keep a simple lifestyle? I have seen it done.

[mannyamador]

you may have been correct as to other countries where they experienced economic growth when they had population growth. There economy was booming long before they experienced population growth.

No. Their economies were NOT booming BEFORE they experienced population grwoth. The two went hand in hand. Population growth can fuel economic growth, and usually does.

[mannyamador]

Here's a footnote that appeared in "IS POPULATION GROWTH A DRAG ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT?" by Julian Simon. (emphasis added)

It may at first seem preposterous that greater population density might lead to
better economic results. This is the equivalent of saying that if all Americans
moved east of the Mississippi, we might not be the poorer for it. Upon reflection,
this proposition is not as unlikely as it sounds... such a change would bring
about major benefits in shortening transportation and communication distances,
a factor which has been important in Japan's ability to closely coordinate its
industrial operations in such a fashion as to reduce costs of inventory and
transportation. Additionally, greater population concentration forces social
changes in the direction of a greater degree of organization, changes which
may be costly in the short run but in the long run increase a society's ability to
reach its economic and social objectives. If we were still living at the
population density of, say, ten thousand years ago, we would have none of
the vital complex social and economic apparatuses that are the backbone of
our society.

Alternative Info and Opinion: http://www.phnix.net
[img width=447 height=60]http://www.phnix.net/phnix_logo02.jpg[/img]
Prolife Phils. http://www.prolife.org.ph

[dacs]

there it is again..basing inputs, assumptions and datas from other countries. you may have been correct as to other countries where they experienced economic growth when they had population growth. There economy was booming long before they experienced population growth.

Think. You were castigating mannyamador for basing inputs, assumptions and datas from other countries; yet, your last two statements used the same methodology. How else could you have found that [their] economy was booming long before they experienced population growth (not that I believe you)? Where did you get these information? Could you point me to your source? Or are you just making a personal assumption?

Take a good look at our country...a very good look. there are just not enough jobs out there to support the growing population that is why people are going abroad and never looking back.

People take jobs to support their family or themselves. They don't take them to support the growing population. Your last statement betrays your method - you are looking but not asking. Most of my batchmates who are ECE graduates went abroad because the best paying job they could have here cannot compare to the compensation they now enjoy abroad. Menial jobs abroad most of the time pay more than supervisory-level ones here. 'Too many people' is seldom given as a reason for leaving the country; the political climate is almost always part of the reason.

Ask any person that is working abroad...

I have, and they don't agree with you.

Ask them if there children has a future here..Most if not all will tell you, NO...

You mistake that NO response as agreeing to your hypothesis that the reason was that there is just too many people in the Philippines. Again, I have found out differently.

I live in the real world..In my experience when a compay post a vacancy for 1 position..2,000 people applied for just one position..IMAGINE THAT 2,000 for 1. We may have a very strong labor force available but where will we put them? Its no longer a healthy competition.

Is that how you measure 'healthy competition' - the fewer, the better? Yet, imagine a different scenario. You have a strong and trusted government, a fairly-good record of law and order, good fiscal management, functional government agencies, decent tourist attraction, a good local and multinational investment portfolio. With this scenario, further investment would surely come. Who will these new players hire if we don't have the necessary labor force to support them? A young labor force is an additional incentive.

[benign0]

At the rate our population is growing, how many Filipinos mouths will be bumming around our islands in 10 years

First, I will have to disagree with the premiss that Filipinos in general will be bumming around. They aren't now and there's no reason to think they are likely to in the future. Our basic disagreement, I think, is how we see Filipinos as a whole. You see them as unproductive, uncreative, and uncooperative, while I see them as being like most humans: creative, productive, and cooperative ESPECIALLY when they are grouped in great enough density to enhance economies of scale. I think in an earlier message you effectively said that Filipinos were different in that respect from people in other countries. Doesn't it then mean that you should substantiate the claim?

But even without that, and admitting the economic difficulties that you mention above, population control will still NOT solve them since population control does not attack the root problem. At the very best one may only argue that it will result in localized, short-term alleviation of certain economic situtaitons, but the problems population control will create are far worse and longer lasting.

One such problem, which the UN Population Division has been warning about for years is population ageing. The effects of such a phenomenon are dramatic, devastating. and profound. And it is not something that can be reversed easily or quickly. It takes decades to do so. The Philippine Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has been dropping like a rock for the past 50 years, from 7 to 2.3. This is a far greater change than in the past several hundred years! At that rate, we will face a demographic winter which our economy (like the rest of the world) is ill-prepared to handle.

So, just to restate my point: population control is short-sighted because it soesn't attack the root causes of our difficulties and as such really solves nothing, and at most results in temporary alleviation in some localized cases. But the long-term effects of such a "solution" are far worse. The "cure" causes yet another disease.

Shouldn't we instead be trying to reform the property system, among other things?

PS: pahabol lang
Did you know that at US$3000 a year you can live decently today in Dumaguete or Cebu provided you keep a simple lifestyle? I have seen it done.

As I've said before. Population is not the root problem. The unproductivity of the society is. Therefore, increasing the population of an unproductive society will cause poverty, because production cannot keep apace with increased consumption.

Simple, dude.

On other threads I clarify the root problem that is the inability of Philippine society to produce results. Here we are talking about population and how irresponsible it is to keep multiplying without getting our ability to produce results to keep apace.


We need to work on your ability to clarify and focus, dudep.


----------------------
Visit www.getrealphilippines.com for more views like this.
[img width=150 height=68]http://www.getrealphilippines.com/images/begto.gif[/img]

[bad donkey!]

At the rate our population is growing, how many Filipinos mouths will be bumming around our islands in 10 years

First, I will have to disagree with the premiss that Filipinos in general will be bumming around. They aren't now and there's no reason to think they are likely to in the future. Our basic disagreement, I think, is how we see Filipinos as a whole. You see them as unproductive, uncreative, and uncooperative, while I see them as being like most humans: creative, productive, and cooperative ESPECIALLY when they are grouped in great enough density to enhance economies of scale. I think in an earlier message you effectively said that Filipinos were different in that respect from people in other countries. Doesn't it then mean that you should substantiate the claim?

But even without that, and admitting the economic difficulties that you mention above, population control will still NOT solve them since population control does not attack the root problem. At the very best one may only argue that it will result in localized, short-term alleviation of certain economic situtaitons, but the problems population control will create are far worse and longer lasting.

One such problem, which the UN Population Division has been warning about for years is population ageing. The effects of such a phenomenon are dramatic, devastating. and profound. And it is not something that can be reversed easily or quickly. It takes decades to do so. The Philippine Total Fertility Rate (TFR) has been dropping like a rock for the past 50 years, from 7 to 2.3. This is a far greater change than in the past several hundred years! At that rate, we will face a demographic winter which our economy (like the rest of the world) is ill-prepared to handle.

So, just to restate my point: population control is short-sighted because it soesn't attack the root causes of our difficulties and as such really solves nothing, and at most results in temporary alleviation in some localized cases. But the long-term effects of such a "solution" are far worse. The "cure" causes yet another disease.

Shouldn't we instead be trying to reform the property system, among other things?

PS: pahabol lang
Did you know that at US$3000 a year you can live decently today in Dumaguete or Cebu provided you keep a simple lifestyle? I have seen it done.

$3000 a year? f***!!! I make just above the minimum wage and I live a simple life.Â* I rent a room.. Before I ride a jeep to work.Â* Now If the weather is good I walk to work.Ther is the quetion of food, water, electricity.I have to work overtime inorder to hava just enough to save for a future hat I am planning.SImple lifestyle?? We live in the city. Ther I have TV, radio....I grew up in the province and I've seen a family live with that kind of salary (example.Â* jeepney driver) napuno sa utang! Simple?Â* Bisyo pa..sigarilyo...inum...simple gihapon?Â* That kind of amount can barely suport a single person...Living in a big City like Cebu has a higher cost of living compared to other cities.Â* Yes, it is lower than manila but what you are saying is just plain crazy..$3000 a year..that would mean living in a shack.My God man WAKE UP!

[dacs]

$3000 a year? f***!!! I make just above the minimum wage and I live a simple life. I rent a room.. Before I ride a jeep to work. Now If the weather is good I walk to work.Ther is the quetion of food, water, electricity.I have to work overtime inorder to hava just enough to save for a future hat I am planning.

US$3000x54 = P162,000 a year. P162,000/12 = P13,500 a month

Question : Will a man be able to live in Cebu City with this monthly wage? Honest answer? Yes. I have been around Cebu City most of my 34 years, and I have known people who live with a P10,000-a-month wage. It can be done.

SImple lifestyle?? We live in the city. Ther I have TV, radio....

Quite a number of people actually do live a much simpler life than what you are living. They have other more productive ways to spend their time.

I grew up in the province and I've seen a family live with that kind of salary (example. jeepney driver) napuno sa utang!

Just because you've seen one doesn't afford you to make a generalization.

Simple? Bisyo pa..sigarilyo...inum...simple gihapon?

Question : Is it part of mannyamador's definition of simple lifestyle that the person should have vices? I don't supposed it is. What lead you to include such characteristic?

That kind of amount can barely suport a single person...Living in a big City like Cebu has a higher cost of living compared to other cities. Yes, it is lower than manila but what you are saying is just plain crazy..$3000 a year..that would mean living in a shack.My God man WAKE UP!

Is it too much an effort to learn to spend less? To cut your vices? To find less costly food suppliers? To adopt your ways to your means? You can't let go of your comfort, can you? If you can and do, you would have waken up a long time ago. You're still in bed, if this is still how you think of life.

[mannyamador]

This post was an error. I have edited it. Please see my next post. Thanks!

[mannyamador]

As I've said before. Population is not the root problem. The unproductivity of the society is. Therefore, increasing the population of an unproductive society will cause poverty, because production cannot keep apace with increased consumption.

Now that is yet another UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM! There is ZERO evidence to support your claim that our society and its people cannot produce results to keep pace with increased consumption. First you MUST show that the PROPORTION of "unproductive" persons increases, not just the absolute number because there are also productive persons being born and they increase production (and not just proportionately, but sometimes geometrically). And you CAN'T, so your entire argument collapses completely.

I have also asked for your metrics to prove that Filipinos are more "unproductive" than others. You obviously CAN'T provide any. So how can you make such a claim when other currently "successful" soceities also experienced exactly the same situation before they became prosperous? You have to brush up on your logic, dude.

As I have proven in my past posts, "overpopulation" does NOT cause poverty. So whether or not you consider our people to be unproductive (also an unsubstantiated claim), the bottom line is that population control will do NOTHING to solve or alleviate poverty. So why should we spend millions on a poverty alleviation strategy that doesn't work?

Like I said, brush up on your logic, dude.

$3000 a year..that would mean living in a shack.My God man WAKE UP!

I think you haven't done your math. US$3000 a year is at least P165,000 a year. That amounts to P13,750 a month. If you live simply, rent a room with cable TV, take public transportation, eat three simple meals a day, then that kind of monthly salary is certainly enough.

Take note that US$3000 was a PER CAPITA figure. A couple, therefore, earns more. Actually double.