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

[mannyamador]

---

Again marami ka nanamang sinabi...

That's known as SUBSTANTIATING a claim, a concept which seems foreign to you.

[battouter]

Take the jeepney. In its 50 year history it has pretty much remained the same -- same mediocre engineering and technology. Compare that to the Koreans, Japanese, and Taiwanese who both started out with the same job-shop style of manufacturing machinery, appliances, and other goods. Their productivity has vastly increased and now use world-class manufacturing technology to deliver higher valued goods. What did it take to achieve this feat? You guessed it -- those three virtues you cited: creativity and productivity.

Therefore exponentially increasing the numbers of a people who utterly lack the capability, will, and wherewithal to achieve a commensurate increases in production and capacity to create value will result (and in fact already has resulted) in impoverishment and starvation.

you remember that dude who invented that automobile that runs on h2o? hehehe
you seem to have this resentment towards the filipinos

no culture can survive if they are not creative, cooperative, and productive. we would have died long ago like the dinosaurs did.
we may not be as productive as the other countries, but definitely, in our little ways, we are.

wake up dude... look all over the world, why do you think most foreign countries would love to hire a filipino worker?
cheap labor? wahehehe

PRODUCTIVE - Effective in achieving specified results

btw... are'nt you a filipino? tsk, tsk, tsk....

[benign0]

Perhaps you may try to argue that Filipinos could be MORE productive, creative, and cooprative. Perhaps they could, but then that will NOT be solved by population control. And shrinking the population (ot stopping its growth) will create even more economic problems without increasing creativity, productivity, or cooperation. There ARE problems in the Philippines, but they are NOT caused by "overpopulation".

I never said that those problems are caused by overpopulation. They are caused by the innate characteristics of Pinoys as being a no-results society.

Which brings us back to my original assertion: Why should a society of no-results people continue multiplying rapidly when it lacks the capability to develop sustainable means to feed itself. When we multiply without the ability to multiply our productivity the result is a no-brainer -- poverty and starvation. They go hand-in-hand, dude, something your one-dimensional mind can't seem to grasp.

You seem to be stuck with your thinking that the issue is whether overpopulation causes poverty or not. It does only because in our case, we lack the capability to think of and implement ways to feed ourselves sustainably.

And yes, you cite, individual instances of achievement. Just as in a forest of short trees there might be the occassional tall individual. Just like a superpower like Japan might have a handful of homeless bums, and a chronic laggard like the Philippines might have the occassional world-class mind.

But in the bigger scheme of things, the picture is clear -- the Philippines is a society that is a chronic failure.



Be wary of taking the easy path in your arguments, dude.



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

[mannyamador]

wake up dude... look all over the world, why do you think most foreign countries would love to hire a filipino worker? cheap labor? wahehehe

TOUCHE!

I never said that those problems are caused by overpopulation. They are caused by the innate characteristics of Pinoys as being a no-results society.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim. So tell me, when is a society productive, creative, and coperative? What metric do you use? How many world class minds (which you clearly are not since you can't even grasp basic logical processes) must there be in Filipino society? Give me a number or a metric. You don't really have an answer, do you? I figured as much.

The so-called "productive" societies like the US also had (and to some extent still do) have the same problems. The US is one of the most litigous societies in the world. And yet they are a "cooperative" society in your eyes, are they not? Why so? Japan had one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Is that a hallmark of a productive society? Yet you probably think Japan is a productive society; and maybe they are, but why so? Singapore at the time of its independence, was a fractured society, torn by partisan religious strife and political instability. Is that cooperation? Not at all, but yet today Singapore is considered a model of "enforced" cooperation (though not democracy). Why so? India is STILL torn by partisan religiouis strife, and yet they are moving forward, as we will probably soon do. Sop when does a society become, in your twisted frame of mind, cooperative, productive, and creative? So far you can't really susbstatiate your argument with a metric or standard. And, as expected, it fails. MISERABLY.

As Hernando de Soto pointed out, the developed world also underwent the very same problems the Third World and former commuist countries face. They too lamented that their societies were chronic failures, fuil of beggars, corruption, and near chaos. t took nearly 300 years for their legal and economic systems to come to terms with new economic realites, and crafted -- slowly, haltingly, and with many errors -- a formal property and economic system that enabled most of their citizens to participate meaningfully in a market (capitalist) system. That is why their economic systems work. Population control will do nothing to help uis achieve the same.

The rest of the world did not have the same historical experience of the West to back up its adoption of capitalism. And that is why the Philippines, along with the Third World and former communist countries, is going through the same pains as the West did. But it does not make Filipinos any more hopeless than Western societies. it is just part of the transition to a real, working capitalist economy.

But since you seem to be able to only grasp simplistic answers, let me give you yet other simplified answers to your abovestated question: a) Because Filipino society needs the enabling mechanism brought about by populaiton growth; b) we must avoid the disastrous effects of population ageing, which is a situation no economy in the world is prepared to face. Simple enough for you?

Which brings us back to my original assertion: Why should a society of no-results people continue multiplying rapidly when it lacks the capability to develop sustainable means to feed itself. When we multiply without the ability to multiply our productivity the result is a no-brainer -- poverty and starvation.

As shown above, your argument is based on an unfoudned assumption, and fails. But let us take a look at some very significant examples of achievements of Filipinos AS A PEOPLE.

EDSA I was one of the most significant achievements in the democratic world, and has been acknowledged as such by the international community. That was a towering example of cooperation, which achieved important lasting results, despite the fact that some of this has been watered down by later events. This is definitely not a NO-RESULTS situation.

After the Second World War, the Philippines was devastated and did not even receive as much economic aid as Japan. Yet, the Philippines achieved some of it sgreatest economic growth -- along with rapid population growth which fueled it -- in that period. This was ultimately held up by the instability and massive corruption of the marcos regime, but that is still hardly something that a NO-RESULTS society does.

The historical evidence has buried your idiotic claims. You really should get out of your glass bubble and see the real world. Your arguments would then exhibit some intelligence.

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

[benign0]

India is STILL torn by partisan religiouis strife, and yet they are moving forward, as we will probably soon do

I highlighted in boldface another of your BIG ASSUMPTIONS on which, again, your whole argument (sayang naman yung ti-nype mo, bai) is hinged on.

Your assumption is that we will "probably soon [prosper]".

What makes you think we will prosper "some time soon". Your quite big on "metrics". Let's see you come up with some to show us why you think this assumption is valid.

Back in 1986 after EDSA 1, people thought we were going to prosper soon. Didn't happen. During Ramos's time, we were in the midst of a prosperity boom. Fizzled out.

What makes you think we've got it right this time? Ironic that you should think so, considering that we failed in far more optimistic times.

Keep in using that gray matter, dude. To be fair, I think you're you've been getting a bit better at it.


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

[mannyamador]

I highlighted in boldface another of your BIG ASSUMPTIONS

Historically speaking, it is not a far-fetched assumption. In fact, as De Soto points out, it is pretty much a natural development of economies. This is partly because of the inevitable geometric rise in interaction between persons in large populatipons; and also due to the rising number of persons who are demanding more meaningful participation in the formal property and economic systems.

Europe experienced the same thing. These was strong resistance from the guilds and the state against extra-legal migrant labor and small, privately-owned light industry for hundreds of years, But the greater numbers won out (even if those numbers were considered largely illiterate, unproductive, and a nuisance). The situation here is largely the same and there is hardly any reason not to believe that the same thing will not happen again. It is just that given the pace of today's world, another 300 hundred years is of course way too long. But nverthelesss it is very difficult for the entrenched classes to effectively resist against so numerous a "foe" for very long.

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

[benign0]

I highlighted in boldface another of your BIG ASSUMPTIONS

Historically speaking, it is not a far-fetched assumption. In fact, as De Soto points out, it is pretty much a natural development of economies. This is partly because of the inevitable geometric rise in interaction between persons in large populatipons; and also due to the rising number of persons who are demanding more meaningful participation in the formal property and economic systems.

Europe experienced the same thing. These was strong resistance from the guilds and the state against extra-legal migrant labor and small, privately-owned light industry for hundreds of years, But the greater numbers won out (even if those numbers were considered largely illiterate, unproductive, and a nuisance). The situation here is largely the same and there is hardly any reason not to believe that the same thing will not happen again. It is just that given the pace of today's world, another 300 hundred years is of course way too long. But nverthelesss it is very difficult for the entrenched classes to effectively resist against so numerous a "foe" for very long.

That's true of course. In fact Europe was mired in a centuries-long Dark Ages before it prospered.

But then we can't really compare, can't we? Back then, Europe had no model for prosperity to turn to. Right now we do. All the Asian Tigers exploited it -- Japan, Korea Singapore, Malaysia, and now China are exhibiting brilliant feats of learning, applying knowledge, and adapting.

The Philippines, on the other hand, with its supposedly large English-speaking populace remains as backward as it ever was.

If countries like Singapore can go from 3rd World to 1st World in one generation, why can't we. For as long as some other country did it, we have no excuse for our current failure to prosper rapidly.

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.


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

[mannyamador]

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.

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.

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

[bad donkey!]

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. 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. Ask any person that is working abroad..Ask them if there children has a future here..Most if not all will tell you, NO...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.

[darkwing]

waah! i'm more worried about the effect of E-VAT, malibat gyud ta