Population Control 3: People are Assets, d/w Paul Ehrlich

(This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz with original title, Population, the Economy and Population Control Policy)

People are workers and entrepreneurs, producers and consumers, buyers and sellers. In short, people are assets. 

With the ever-expansion of governments including the multilaterals and foreign aid, there is rising substitution in the assignment of responsibilities. What used to be personal and parental responsibilities have become government responsibilities. What used to be market functions have become government functions.

With the corruption of people’s perception of what is the role of government, many people have veered from self-reliance to state reliance; from hard-working people to subsidy-seeking people. And there is a big army of people who have peddled this corruption and prostitution in the assignment of responsibilities. These are the people in government bureaucracies, both appointed and elected, from local to national governments to international or multilateral agencies.

And since government is supposed to provide many if not all to the people, then government will also take many if not all from the people. Government is unlike any ordinary private enterprises that rely on voluntary exchange. In the latter, enterprises and companies have to provide good services and values to the public; otherwise, they will lose their consumers and they go bankrupt. Government is force and coercion. Even if government hires the most corrupt policemen and the laziest bureaucrats, people are forced to pay for them and sustain them until their retirement benefits.

So we have a situation where a big army of people peddle the idea that poor people cannot really be self-reliant, that they have to be assisted by the government and the multilaterals from cradle to grave whenever possible, no timetable of those subsidies that are supposed to cover their children, grandchildren, up to the future generations. And since more and more poor people have become “burdens”, their population need to be culled and curtailed. And that is how population control policies, explicit or implicit, have become vogue. And that is how the “Responsible Parenthood and Reproductive Health Bill” has become “pro-poor, pro-people.” Cute.

The Economist magazine has produced this nice chart in its September 10th 2011 issue, The Celestial Economy. In 1870 or more than a century and a half ago, Britain was the largest economy in the world, followed by Germany then France. One century after that, the largest economy was the US, followed by Japan and Germany. Last year, China rose to 2nd place and dislodged Japan to 3rd place. By 2030, the 3 largest economies in the world will also be the world’s 3 most populous countries – China, US and India. Although in population size, the ranking will be India-China-US as India’s population is rising fast while China’s is approaching a plateau  and is projected to decline by next decade.

With the liberalization of information, with global economic integration, with quicker people mobility across countries and continents, people are becoming more productive. Many governments though think that people need to be curtailed economically – hence, the endless business bureaucracies, taxes and fees. And when people become poor and unemployed, governments need to subsidize them by further taxing and bureaucratizing the productive and industrious people.

How do we go back to the first formulation above, that people are assets, not liabilities? By asserting more personal responsibility, more individual liberty, and less coercion and substitution of personal responsibility by collective and state responsibility.

-------

On JUNE 08, 2011, I wrote this:

Population alarmism and Paul Ehrlich

Paul Ehrlich was a famous biologist from Stanford University who enjoyed giving the most dire, the most alarming forecasts about the planet due to high population growth. Below are some newspaper clippings, h/t Steven Goddard blog.

He predicted in February 1968 that within 7 years or by 1975, mass starvation would happen, up to "500 million" will starve in the next few decades. Wow!

"... and by 1999, US population would have declined to 22.6 million. Wow-wow.

"... dangers of constantly trying to increase food production." So to prevent famine and mass starvation, people should stop raising food production...

In earlier years, he predicted declining population due to mass starvation. But population will rise to "billion billion".

In 1969, he proposed "sterility drugs in reservoirs and in food shipped to foreign countries..." Sterilizing the world.

In 1971, he complained of "too many people, too much pollution." So cut high population growth, cut high electricity consumption.

The population and environmental alarmism extended to 1972. Governments must do something, like amplify the alarmism, regulations and taxation.

Another prediction made in 1972: unless the world is very lucky, everyone will disappear by 1992.

So the world got lucky, we are still here. And the world is wealthier, 19 years after the "Doomsday of 1992."

If the track record of the population and climate alarmists are to be assessed, they have very good records: very good in making false and totally wrong predictions.

---------

See also:
a) Responsible Parenthood Cannot be Legislated, Part 4, July 21, 2011, and Part 5, August 08, 2011, and
b) Population Control Part 1, September 10, 2011, and Part 2, September 11, 2011.

Population Control 1: Ageing population, Globalization and the RH Bill

I am starting a new discussion series on "Population Control", a sequel to the "Responsible Parenthood Cannot be Legislated" which has Parts 1-5 this year (April 5, April 6, May 22, July 21, and August 8, 2011, respectively). For Part 1 of this new series, I am posting my three earlier papers on the subject of population, below.

(1) Ageing population: more government health spending or less?

March 14, 2008

I read today that the HK government is planning a new healthcare reform policy since  "The city of 7m people has the world's second highest life expectancy and one of its lowest birth rates. The proportion of elderly people in Hong Kong is expected to double within the next 20 years to reach one in four by 2033... a steep rise in public health expenditure, with annual per capita spending quadrupling by 2033."

The same problem in Europe, Japan, north America. I wonder, what can help the elderly more in those countries: more government spending in public health care (ie, more taxes from those who are in the labor force), or more migration of foreign health workers and caretakers, and the elderly and their families will take of themselves without the need for higher taxation and bigger public health expenditures?

Most rich country governments take the first option while clamping down on the entry of more foreign health workers. A third option is developing in some poorer countries: development of "retirement villages" for foreign retirees -- beautiful subdivisions and villages, have their own hospitals and clinics, near the beach, tropical climate. Children of retired Koreans, Japanese, Europeans, etc. bring
in their ageing parents and enjoy the tropics, the children and grandchildren come to visit them occasionally and enjoy as well the tropics' sun, white sand beaches, golf courses, etc. This trend is slowly catching up here in the Philippines.

The so-called "brain drain" of health workers in poorer countries like the Philippines is a myth. For every 1 nurse that leaves the Philippines to work abroad, at least 2 or more new nurses are graduating to take their place, even temporarily. After several years, some of those nurses and health workers who have worked abroad come back, not as a ageing nurses, but as investors in some new hospitals or clinics or other business enterprises.

 

(2) On Reproductive Health bill

February 23, 2009

Last November, I was interviewed by email by the editors of "The Varsitatrian", the official student publication of the University of Santo Tomas (UST), Manila, on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill in Congress.

Below is the news item as posted in their online publication, dated February 6, 2009.

http://www.varsitarian.net/news/gov%E2%80%99t_should_not_spend_on_family_planning_expert_says

Gov’t should not spend on family planning, expert says

THE GOVERNMENT should not dictate the number of children couples must have and instead let families decide for themselves, the head of an economic think-tank has said.

Amid fierce debate over Reproductive Health Bill 5043, Bienvenido “Nonoy” Oplas, Jr., president of Minimal Government Thinkers, Inc., said the state has no role in curbing population size and the bill will only expand the government, which is already bloated and inefficient.

Oplas said the parents should plan their own families without intervention from the government.

“There is no ‘desirable population growth’ to be set by the State. The couples will decide the desirable size of their household based on the couples and their support system’s (clan, extended family, relatives, friends, voluntary charity system) capacity to support every additional child,” Oplas told the Varsitarian. “The state should not spend taxpayers’ money on condoms.”

Advocates of the RH bill argue that a national reproductive health law should be crafted to control the rising population, now at around 90 million.

When signed into law, RH bill will pave the way for massive government spending on artificial methods of family planning, including over-the-counter contraceptives.

Oplas explained that the economy can benefit from either a fast or slow population growth rate.

A slow increase in the population size is ideal if “there is high poverty already.” In this case, parents should be responsible enough to provide their children “good education, nutrition, and health care.”

“The economy can (also) benefit from high population growth, if the government will not intervene heavily in business — people starting their own businesses, hiring and firing people, and easier mobility across countries and continents of people and their goods and services,” he added.

To ease poverty, the government should pour resources into creating more jobs and reducing taxes, Oplas said.

“The State should over-regulate murderers and rapists, over-spy embezzlers

and robbers, over-persecute land-grabbers and kidnappers, and should hit hard on criminals,” Oplas said. “If the government will stay out of the bedroom, there is no need to legislate this bill and related type of proposals.”

Changes in the bill

In any case, Oplas said the RH bill would be acceptable as long as it would not require married couples to attend seminars about nutrition and breastfeeding. More importantly, the bill must not impose family-planning education on elementary and high school students.

“These things the couple can learn from their parents, friends, neighbors, and associates. They need not pay additional fees to local government and spend additional hours or days on additional requirements,” he said.

“If [family-planning education] will become mandatory, then other groups will also lobby strongly that environment and climate change, that drug abuse, that gender equality, be made mandatory for all classes from elementary to high school. Goodbye math and science and grammar. Students will be learning subjects forced on them by lobbyists, and not what they will need in the future,” Oplas said. 

-- Prinz P. Magtulis

(3) Population and Globalization

July 01, 2009

In a hypothetical situation where government immigration regulations are absent, State-welfare programs are very few and limited to, say, emergency health care and to persons with disabilities, and governments focus their resources in protecting the people’s basic rights – right to life, right to private property, right to liberty – people will be criss-crossing between islands, countries and continents in full economic freedom. Not to commit crime as they will be hounded and intimidated by a strong State that will monitor and arrest all criminals. Not to seek and depend on welfare as there is very little to expect, but to find the best economic and social opportunities for them and their family.

This would mean that the bulk of raising families and developing peaceful and clean communities will fall on individual and parental responsibilities, and corporate and voluntary organizations. Each voluntary association – village or homeowners’ associations, professional organizations, student councils, labor unions, employers’ confederations, sports clubs, civic clubs, religious and faith-based organizations, etc. – will act as “local governments”. Since these are voluntary associations and not rigid bureaucracies like government bodies and agencies that do not die, such voluntary organizations have the prospect of dying anytime, anywhere, when their members will stop supporting them. Which means that only really useful organizations will survive, the badly-run and corrupt organizations will become bankrupt, like any private enterprise.

Many rich and developed countries are experiencing slowing or declining population growth since the 90s. But even if population growth rate will touch the negative territory, say -0.2 percent per year, absolute population does not automatically fall because of longer lifespan of people there. Birth rates fall but death rates also fall as instead of dying at age 75, people die at 80+ on average.

The only problem here is that many of those 70+ years old people are retirees and are depending on pension from the State. Since the pension system there is quite generous and expensive, the weight of paying the taxes and pension insurance to finance the monthly needs of the retirees will fall on the shoulders of the current batch of workers. And since the ratio of the economically-active population to the retired population is declining, there is a big danger to the generous welfare and pension system if many of the currently active population will migrate and work elsewhere, as the latter are threatened with longer mandatory retirement age, from the previous 65 to 75 years or older. The current breed of workers is being forced to work longer in order to maintain the expensive welfare system.

There are three important policy options to address this long-term problem.

One, encourage (and subsidize) couples to have more children, and those children will become future workers to finance the pension and welfare needs of their parents, grandparents and other older people. But then there is also a possibility that those future workers will work and live elsewhere, not in their home countries.

Two, have more machines and robots to do the work of some people. This means more efficient washing machines, cooking sets, house cleaners, robot welders, assemblers, manufacturers, etc. This will drastically increase productivity per worker, no doubt about it. But then this is still not the equivalent of seeing plenty of children playing and running in the parks, playing with their grandparents. Instead, the oldies are adopting dogs, cats and other pets as their companions and occasional playmates.

Three, allow more foreign workers to work and migrate into their home countries. This seems to be a combination of the first two options: more people who would sometimes work tirelessly like robots as the salary and benefits are a lot better compared to those available in their own countries, thus these foreign workers do not want to lose their current jobs. The problem though is the cultural and economic insecurity posed by these foreign-born workers to the locals of the rich countries. They came from countries with different religion, different work ethics, different lifestyle, different language.

For many rich countries, all 3 options above are being done, except that they are stricter and more bureaucratic in adopting the last option. That is where immigration problems never cease to die. The welfare system is very expensive to maintain, that is why taxes and local labor costs are very high. So some employers want to hire foreign workers who are willing to work at lower pay, but protectionist labor interests are opposing this.

In an environment of free and full mobility of labor, capital and technology across countries and continents, there should be “equalization” of the prices of labor (wages) and capital (interest) over the long-term. This is because the labor-abundant countries will experience migration of their excess workers, while labor-deficient countries (a result of low population growth and/or fast economic growth) will receive the excess labor from elsewhere. The less-skilled workers from poorer countries will soon become high-skilled as they get more education and training in their newly-adopted countries.

The lazy and irresponsible people in rich countries do not like this situation. They are envious to see people born from poor and God-forsaken countries but have high ambitions and high individual responsibility, soon have economic standings equivalent to them, if not higher.

And this illustrates the beauty and fairness of globalization, of people mobility across the globe, of free trade and free market, of personal responsibility and individual liberty. The system of reward and punishment is very clear and very quick. The industrious will prosper; the lazy and complacent will become poor. Big governments attempt to force equality among people by subsidizing the lazy and irresponsible and penalizing the industrious, through confiscatory high taxes
--------

See also  Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, Part 5, August 08, 2011, and
Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, Part 4, July 21, 2011

Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, Part 5

These are my twitter notes on the Reproductive Health (RH) and Responsible Parenthood (RP) bill between July 20 to 29, 2011. My debate actually with some of the guys mentioned here.

@cesdrilon @risahontiveros Rename RH bill into "RH Liberalization Act of 2011." No? Not liberalization? Then call it "RH Minimization Act".

@pinoygossipboy @PawieSharpei Social & pol. planning, econ & ecological planning, rural & urban planning, soon fam planning by d state, wow.

@indayevarona @ruffybiazon Educ, healthcare, housing, AR, credit , irrig. for the poor, now CCT for the poor, soon condoms for the poor.

@seclaudio @newsbreak_ph RH bill says govt responsib bigger than parental responsib, bit.ly/q2RTYF. State cant substit parental respon

@I_amHolo @risahontiveros I counted 12 sections of RH bill that explicitly say spend-spend-spend and imply tax-tax-tax, bit.ly/kcYcfN

@risahontiveros @newsbreak_ph @seclaudio No Risa, RH bill says tax-tax-tax bec govt will spend-spend-spend for population control policies

@newsbreak_ph @seclaudio See 2 charts fr The Economist mag,bit.ly/rmY4ff. Parental decision will prevail over govt fam. planning

@jonasbagas China spent big time on popn control, see bad result, projectns from UN, bit.ly/rmY4ff. Wholl take care of oldies, robots?

@risahontiveros @newsbreak_ph @RepLuzIlagan Taxpayers shd fund free educ, healthcare, housng, AR, credit, CCT, condoms, pills for d poor wow

@risahontiveros @newsbreak_ph @RepLuzIlagan Too many planners. They want more money fr our pockets so they can plan d family of other people

@newsbreak_ph Thnx. Here, bit.ly/rmY4ff China spent big time on popn control, bad result. Who'll take care of oldies, robots, commies?

@meGEMSON @newsbreak_ph "tama na pagiging makasarili" -- sige, kunin nyo lahat pera namin, panggastos sa popn control policies nyo. hooray!

@pmella @risahontiveros @newsbreak_ph @RepLuzIlagan Yes, free cars, yachts for d poor, provided they shd take free condoms, pills & ligation

@Jimparedes When d poor work hard to feed their fam, govt shd not impose too many bureaucracies, taxes, fees, fines & penalties vs d poor.

@newsbreak_ph Govt imposes many taxes & bureaucracies for d industrious. When people become poor, more taxes to control population of d poor

@seclaudio CBCP lobbied for religious educ in pub sch? Equally horrible. I criticize RH bill w/ zero reference to CBCP. My pts purely econ.

@seclaudio Had a looong debate in fb re RH bill w/ econ arguments,bit.ly/pnsxbS. ProRH have zero ans on costs of the bill. U have it?

@senmiriam If you can provide numbers re cost of RH bill, great. Most if not all pro-RH have zero ans to it, see bit.ly/pnsxbS, thanks

@seclaudio At P300 B per yr ave budget deficit, where do u stop proposing new spending when old spending proven ineffective & corrupted?

@seclaudio "spending massively for social services as prelude to econ take-off" Really, even if money wasted or stolen? moral hazards prob?

@seclaudio "This money can be raised several ways" Govt can easily find money? Then why borrow P300B/yr on ave? Pub debt near P5 trillion.

@seclaudio "deficit per se not bad" Why is govt sounding off new taxes soon to finance deficit? Endless borrowing to finance def is wrong.

@seclaudio Educ, health, housing, agri, pub works, MRT/jeep fuel subsidy for d poor, now CCT for d poor, soon condoms & ligation for d poor.

@seclaudio If we encourage more personal & household responsibility in running people's lives, then most "govt responsib" unnecessary.

@tweetnirizal @sagadasun Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, bit.ly/pnsxbS. Been asking d cost of #RHBILL, got zero reply.

@SagadaSun @tweetnirizal Pathetic to consider d poor as baggage to be fed, clothed, shelterd. People are workers, entrepreneurs, taxpayers.

@SagadaSun @tweetnirizal More dangerous is fiscal irresponsib. US govt debt crisis now. RP govt deficit P300B/yr on ave. More debt for RH?

@SagadaSun @richard_cairo @tweetnirizal My critique of #RHBILLis mainly econ, zero religious reason,, see 2 charts, bit.ly/rmY4ff.

@SagadaSun @tweetnirizal Sex Ed, gender equality, etc shd be electives, not mandatory. Studnts good at sex subjectss but idiot in sci & math

@SagadaSun Good to hear you're miniarchist too, cheers. Reduce d role of d state, reduce central planning, incl planning d households.

@SagadaSun #RHBILL is central planning in popn. How many condoms & pills to buy, how many midwives to hire, how many maternity hosp to build

@SagadaSun Optimum popn size to be dictated by d state? If a household will exceed that "optimum" size, d state will penalize it?

@SagadaSun "no GOVT MONOPOLY on Sex Ed or RH", good. Keep that way, don' create new monopoly, new central planning, new taxes to financ them

@SagadaSun D state will determine what's "microecon efficiency at the family level"? Thats central, top to bottom planning.

@SagadaSun When d poor want to work hard to feed fam., state shd not impose endless bureaucracies, taxes, fees & fines that penalize d poor

@SagadaSun "you shouldn't make more babies than you can reasonably feed. govt can impose this" Thats central planning. Impose & control.

@SagadaSun How d state penalize d poor who want to stand on their own and not rely on state & politicians patronage, bit.ly/nYzIaJ

@SagadaSun I have a feeling #RHBILL to become a law. UN, WB, ADB, USAID, Congress, etc. money poured on that bill. Its a BIG govt project

@SagadaSun The State declares: whether u support #RHBILL or not, you pay lots of taxes for its implementation. That's "free choice"?

@SagadaSun "argument that big pharma interests are behind the RHBILL" where did this come from? I mentioned zero about Pharma.

@SagadaSun Central planning: State centralizes buying pills, injectibles, maternity lab eqpt, hiring new midwives, new sex ed teachers, etc

@SagadaSun "Isn't it Catholic Church that is guilty of "central planning"" I have zero sympathy for Cath church position on RH.

@SagadaSun "congruence bet "central planning" argument against RHBILL & Catholic Church practice!" I have zero sympathy for Church argument

@SagadaSun "Govt will sell condoms, pills and IUDS" Nope. Govt does not sell those, it gives out free, by confiscating our mo

@SagadaSun "Private Hospitals be banned from buying lab eqpt?" They can, they'll charge patients, they wont get fr our pockets by force, tax

@SagadaSun "same choice bet private & public sch for our children" No. Even if u send kids to priv sch, u still pay for pub sch, u pay twice

@SagadaSun I say for d 3rd time. I have zero, even neg. sympathy for church position on RH, why keep mentioning it in your debate w/ me?

@SagadaSun "Why arent 100% of patients in free govt hosp?" Bec people see wastes & bad serv in govt hosp, they pay extra to go to priv hosp.

@SagadaSun Then show why #RHBILL isnt central planning, zero need to mention church. I argue RH is central planning proj in popn by BIG govt

SagadaSun "govt doing Central Planning of Hosp" Yes, some central planning in health. Those who over-drink, over-smoke, we pay in govt hosp

@SagadaSun Central planning is social engg. Those who over-drink, over-eat, over-fight, dont take care of their body, will be treated.
-------

In my debate with the pro-RH groups, there are three things that I notice.

1. You ask them how much the bill will cost, initial year and succeeding years, you will get two types of reply. One is silence, no answer; and two is a rhetorical answer like "No one was asking how much it would cost when provisions for free elementary and high school education were included in it. How much are teen pregnancies, abortions and deaths of pregnant women costing us?" See Part 4, July 21, 2011.

2. You keep asking more questions, they answer how arrogant or insensitive the Catholic Church is. Even if you argue that your stand on the bill has zero reference, zero sympathy, for the Church position, they still think you are a mindless supporter of the church dogma.

3. And if you question this bill as another central planning project by the state, they will not dispel such argument, and lash back again at the church as a model of central planning. Maybe if they hate Bill Gates or Henry Sy or the Ayalas, they will also mention these guys as "model of central planning." They have difficulty focusing on the issue at hand and resort to diversionary arguments.

See also Part 3, May 22, 2011,

Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, Part 4

Yesterday, there was a good, fast and dynamic debate in twitter on the Reproductive Health (RH) bill in Congress. I joined the debates, it was very engaging and fun at the same time.

Then I went to my facebook account and posted this in my status,

Just joined the debates on RH bill on twitter, enjoyed it :-) Too many planners and interventionists in society. They want more money from our pockets so they can plan the family of other people.

Then my fb wall was (happily) peppered with a number of comments and counter-comments from some friends. In particular, from Danny A, Doods dlR, Francis, and Ted J. Below are our exchanges.

WARNING: this is looonggg. Nice to read this if holding a cup of your favorite drink :-)
-------

Doods: no to sex education in schools, yes to sex education from the parents. yes to choices, no to religious exclusivism. let tolerance and understanding reign, as long as no laws are being broken and human rights are protected.

Nonoy: RH bill says we pay more taxes so that DepEd can hire more teachers to teach sex education from Grade 5 to HS (7 years!)

Doods: we need more teachers to teach basic education. and more classrooms.

Danny: But if you think spending for sex education is expensive, try ignorance.
The effects of ignorance are pretty obvious: teen pregnancies, abortions and high mortality rates for pregnant women. Can't blame RH for that because there is no policy or program for it. These are the problems a comprehensive RH policy and program intend to help solve.

Nonoy: Parents, older family members, older friends, NGOs, can teach sex education for free. Here, I counted 12 sections of RH bill that say spend-spend-spend, http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/04/responsible-parenthood-cannot-be.html

Danny: That's the result of "free education". Or should we call it free ignorance?

Nonoy: Only the state thru DepEd has monopoly of sex education? From other sources are called "free ignorance"? wow.

Danny: And why oh why should basic education be so divorced from human biological programming?

Nonoy: Pub educ has been hijacked by so many interest groups. Gender equality, environmentalism and saving the planet, sex education, etc. Could mean little time for science and math, good english and grammar.

Doods: I myself don't subscribe to the "free condoms is the solution" doctrine. i think eliminating the macho man mystique, gaining respect for your partner and the other sex in general, respecting choice, and empowering women would go much further and actually fix a lot of the social ills especially among the poor.

Danny: Explain the problems cited and show how "free education" is positively impacting on it. Better yet, check out the communities where these problems are happening. It is so easy to spin theories and dreams of freedom from the ivory tower, but what is to be learnt from there?

Doods: Danny: IMO the effects you cite can also be directly attributed to lack of choices and opportunities for women in the countryside, lack of health services at the barangay level, and lack of sex education within the family unit. The RH bill doesn't really directly solve any of those problems.

Danny: A thorough check of the public school system shows that there is so much time for learning English, Math and Science but it isn't happening. How many students per teacher and classroom? How much are teachers paid and why? No one is claiming full health socialism, only education on and access to a full range of options so families can plot their future. Will you let the parish priest dictate on this?

Francis: I hate it when people proclaim 'tolerance.' Do you tolerate a beautiful day? A child's smile? Your basketball team crushing the opposition? Of course not.

So what do people tolerate? Broccoli. Someone farting in an elevator. Your boss' stupid plan. If whatever someone tries to sell you can only be sold through tolerance... screw it. It's probably ugly, evil, without merit, disgusting, or smells like old socks.

Danny: There is no hijacking of public education, only loud expressions of concern and continuing deterioration. Otherwise, there would be no need for a reproductive health law. Without a policy and programs in place, reproductive health will not happen. The important first step is to pass that law. The next step is to implement it. Happily, most Filipinos agree.

I believe the time for debate has passed. Let all arguments pro and con be fully aired, but let a vote decide the matter, preferably a binding referendum.

Francis: I don't think there is a 'need' for a reproductive health law. I do believe the politicos have found a 'need' for the P 3billion payload. With that kind of money involved, they could find a need in providing bubblegum to coma patients...

Nonoy: As I said earlier, I counted at least 12 sections of RH bill that say, spend-spend-spend. Do you have the figures how much they will cost, initial year and continuing spending each year? P300 B/year budget deficit even w/o RH bill is not enough yet, we shd make it P320 B? more? Please provide the numbers. People just approve of something without bothering how much it will cost them.

Danny: No one was asking how much it would cost when we voted in a referendum for the 1987 Constitution. No one was asking how much it would cost when provisions for free elementary and high school education were included in it. How much are teen pregnancies, abortions and deaths of pregnant women costing us? How many poor Filipinos are asking about the cost of information on choices that they can make so they can have just the number of children that they can support?

It is expensive to be healthy. But how much more expensive is it to be sick?

Francis: P300 billion? Not P3billion?! Crap. Worse than I thought. How much is the deficit now after Arroyo's pump-priming plans in the last three years of her Presidency? I know we're broke, so how on earth are we gonna pay for this?! This probably explains why the BIR has been so agressive these past three years. I thought this RATE thing was over the top, but it's damn deliberate.

Nonoy: So anyone can propose new spending, like free bicycles or free motorcycles for the poor, w/o bothering how much they will cost, how much they will add to the P4.7 trillion public debt, where to get the new spending? We've had educ & healthcare for the poor, housing & MRT subsidy for the poor, AR, irrig & credit for the poor, now cash transfer for the poor, soon condoms & pills for the poor. What's next? No one shd bother how much they will cost?

Francis: Question. These meds are essential, so how come they ain't tax-free? We don't manufacture them, so why is there an importation duty on them? I buy dopamine from overseas and it's only P3.00 a tablet compared to P120 a tablet local. You want people healthy, get these damn politicians out of the equation. Then you'll see poverty levels go down.

Doods: Danny: i myself am in favor of an RH Bill, with revisions. It's high time this country paid attention to the health, social, and economic problems caused by our population explosion. i don't think the RH Bill in its current form is going about it correctly. Sex education in schools takes away time and resources that can be used for teaching something else, and I think parents have the moral ascendancy to teach their children about sex and the family unit. Let the RH Bill teach parents how to talk to and educate their children about sex, and let this be done at the barangay level instead of in schools.

Danny: If you really want concrete answers to questions about cost, visit communities were the local government has put in place a reproductive health law and programs, like Aurora province, I'm sure you can find the information, if you really want it. You can compare the situation there with the situation of communities that actually ban or do not bother to put in place reproductive health policies and programs.

Then again, if you've already decided against it, what's the point? The ivory tower is a comfortable place to stay. Just don't expect people to hang around and accept what can be found there.

Nonoy: The burden of providing the numbers shd be on those who propose it. Convince us that it won't be costly, that the benefits are larger than the costs. Otehrwise, don't propose it.

Danny: I don't have to convince anyone. You convince yourselves. the burden is now on those who oppose it. Politics, in the end, is a numbers game.

Nonoy: That's why I dont support that RH bill because it's a lousy proposal. Proponents cannot even provide the numbers, we just have to accept it daw, be an idiot supporter and not ask questions.

Danny: by the way, the latest version of the bill allows parents to choose not to have their children undergo sex education in school. What version are you reading? This bill is still undergoing revisions and the proponents are listening. but to insist that things should stay the way they are, with no law in place, is unacceptable.

Doods: Danny: be that as it may, it only allows parents to exclude their children from such. it doesn't empower the parents to do the proper guidance themselves.

Danny: Saka na ito, time for a gym workout. As I said, health is expensive, but I'm spending, for myself and my family. Are you?

Nonoy: I spend money for my family. that's why I dont want the state to confiscate more money from me so the politicians and bureaucrats can just propose and implement new spending, even for programs that I don't even support. Govt business is coercion, right?

Doods: i just got a health insurance policy from Manulife. :) the only sure things in life are death and taxes. must do all we can to uplift our quality of life, must we not? :)

Nonoy: Yes, we work hard for ourselves, our family, other people close to us. And govt says it should confiscate more money from us, to spend on programs that we may not even support.

Ted: Spending on reproductive health is investing in human capital. The ratios that the RH bill are aiming to achieve are necessary in the context of a poverty rate of 3 in 10. Proposed RH measures will have to be targeted accurately at these poor households. Details will have to be fleshed out through the GAA but indicative figures would need to be discussed by Congress. Yes, responsible parenthood cannot be legislated but women from poor households need help.

Nonoy: Ted, all those public spending on educ (elem to tertiary), healthcare (brgy centers to DOH), housing, social work, environment, agri, etc. are investments in human capital. Why new programs like cash transfer for the poor and condoms for the poor? Because past programs were failures or mere opportunities for robbery. If this is the case, the solution is to improve existing programs, or abolish them first before we create new programs, like condoms and ligation for the poor.

Francis: Yeah. It sounds dumb any way you sell it. I'm being tapped to help some other guy's family. At least I think it's some other guy's family and not some politico's wife's Hongkong junket... Still, while I'm doing who is going to take care of my family? Some other guy the government is tapping? That's just so wrong.

"Spending on reproductive health is investing in human capital." I dunno. Sounds more like you're reducing human capital right there.45 minutes ago • Like

Ted: Helping others makes society possible. Given the problems of governance in the Philippines, a lot of work needs to be done in terms of the effective and efficiency of this help. Looking for better mousetraps presupposes the need for mousetraps.

Nonoy: Helping others via voluntary charity is highly possible. Govt thinks it is impossible, thus govt shd coerce people to contribute and govt itself will do it. And that's how large-scale coercion and corruption happens. Govt can force its way, whether we like it or not.

Francis: Helping others, sure. But don't we get a say in what we can give and what our capabilities and resources are? I can't exactly give what I don't have or have prior allocation. Things should stand on their own intrinsic merits. If something has to be mandatory or needs someone behind you with a stick to get it done... maybe we should be asking what is it really worth.

Ted: Government (the state), by definition, is coercive. And, yes, you can fight City Hall.

Nonoy: So by bending on another coercion by the state, after we've bent hard on its many other programs that were mostly failures, we end up big losers, the politicians, bureaucrats and their rent-seeking allies in media and NGOs are big winners.

Francis: Malacañan, yes. City Hall, no. I can go to Edsa and kick out the President. But when the Mayor declares your street is now One-way... SHIT!!!!

Nonoy: A friend commented that the RH bill is not that expensive, mura lang naman daw. If it's cheap, then PNoy and other RH supporters can chip in, or ask Henry Sy & Gokongwei to donate big time, ask the WB-ADB-WHO to give grants, no more debates and social division on that bill while goal is attained. Mura lang naman pala eh.

Danny: The idea that an RH law means more taxes is a lot of bullshit. If that;s where this is coming from, then the burden of proof is on those spreading this lie. Facebook discussions obviously cannot provide all the information you are demanding for, but surely you should know where to find that information.

The driving motive behind an RH law is informed choice, the right of couples to choose from various options so they can plan their families. Information on this is not readily available yet and in many cases is denied to those who need it. Now where is the coercion there?

I am glad that most people aren't asking questions about budget items per RH provision because no such budget exists. Anyone with common sense who is immersed day in and day out in the lives of poor communities know there is a crying need for an RH policy and programs. They know how much more expensive it has been because there is no RH law.

Nonoy: RH bill is expensive, that is why it has to be done by legislation and all the state's revenue collection agencies will be compelled to look for more revenues to finance it. If it's cheap, then private donations + grants from the foreign aid establishments would be enough to finance it.

In our ordinary private lives, if we want our kids to go to a language school, or ballet or music school, or a swimming or basketball clinic, we ask, "how much does it cost?" But in govt programs like RH bill, we are supposed NOT to ask questions how much it will cost, we should just sheepishly and idiotly support it, wow.

We ord folks are busy working to sustain our households, communities, etc. We also have to work hard bec govt already gets lots of taxes and fees to finance its old programs like public educ, healthcare, housing, social work, agri, env., public works, MRT subsidy, irrig, AR, etc. Then pro-RH bill groups say, "Hey we got a really bright idea to solve poverty, you all shd support it too." But when they are asked, "how much will it cost? the existing programs are already costing us some P300 B a year on average in budget deficit alone." The pro-RH camp says, "The burden of finding the numbers how much it will cost is on you, just support it, blindly as much as possible." Really cool.

Stephen: Nonoy, I'm a bit chagrined to ask this...is the RH bill proposal posted someplace so we can read it? I'd like to know more, but not sure where to look.

Nonoy: One of the mysteries of Philippine Congress and other govt agencies that support the RH bill, it is hard to find the most recent copy. Check www.congress.gov.ph, search "Reproductive Health bill" and their online query system will ask you more questions instead of just pointing to you the bill. I read a copy from scribd.com via google, problem is that I dont know if it's the most recent or not.

My next query was the DOH website, since DOH is one of the major implementing agencies once this becomes a law. They have the comm report no. 664, but it's dated Feb 17, 2011, so obviously it's not the most recent bill with many changes, http://www.doh.gov.ph/file​s/rh_bill_2011.pdf, DOH website

Danny: Not much mystery here. For updates on a controversial bill still undergoing heated deliberations, information online is hard to come by. However, the bill's proponents, or their staff, or the staff of House committees to which the bill is assigned, or enterprising reporters at the House who are actively covering the issue, would have the information

Nice quote: The pessimist sees difficulty in opportunity; the optimist sees opportunity in difficulty

Nonoy: ‎"entertaining reporters at the House..." Which means we ordinary mortals cannot see that document online? No transparency how much that bill will cost, no transparency of what's newly added or removed on that bill. That's government.

The optimists say that even if you keep hiding info from those who will be affected, state coercion will prevail. Cool.

Fralin: P300 B? A big amount... but i'd be happy to instead spend that to buy off the sanctimonious brains and the ridiculous contentions of the 4x4-hungry, child-molesting hypocrites who are stopping the Divorce Law from beng passed.:))

Nonoy: Fralin, the P300 B per year is the budget deficit, or difference between lower revenues and higher spending. Because so many sectors and politicians are sooo bright in coming with new spending each year, revenues always fall behind, so the deficit don't go away, and accumulated public debt keep rising, now P4.7+ trillion. Interest payment alone this year, excluding principal amortization, is P357 B.

And now we are told that we shd swallow, no question, the expensive RH bill, they won't even tell how much this will cost, how much this will add to the deficit of P300 B per year on average. Basta daw gastos lang ng gastos, don't ask how much the cost and where to tax next to finance those additional spending. Really bright ideas.

Fralin: Well then, i hope the govt. does not end up purchasing condoms at P5,000/pc. ...brings back memories of Joey Marquez's walis-tingting controversy.:)) Always a need for a streamlined program and an extensive cost-benefit analysis (after all, we have already allowed the Arroyos to steal billions, what's to spend some more?), but i always appreciate it when democracy is at work: when people are given the right to CHOOSE; when govenment decides on stern realities, and not on dogma or sentimentalities Back to divorce... lolz

Nonoy: There is no assurance, zero, that the political and bureaucratic class will not resort to over-pricing of everything, from condoms to pills to injectibles to hospital lab equipment. That is why the total cost of this bill remains a mystery, a deliberate mystery.
-----

Related article is Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, Part 3, May 22, 2011

Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, Part 3

One of the important premises of the population control policies by many governments and the officials of the multilateral and foreign aid institutions, is that when an economy or country is poor, it is not Ok, not good, that its population is expanding fast. But if the economy is developed, it is Ok, even encouraged, that its population show grow, fast whenever possible.

Here's a graph from The Economist, May 5th 2011 issue; its original data coming from the UN. The graph says that such premise is mostly wrong; or whatever population control policies and programs by the respective governments and the UN + foreign aid bodies, would be a failure.

The population of poor economies Nigeria, Tanzania, Congo, Afghanistan and India would be rising so high by 2050, until 2100, except India which is expected to have a population drop in 2100, but still at a high level of more than 1.5 billion then. The US would probably be the only rich and big country that will experience a rising population.

Could it mean that AIDS and other killer diseases in many African countries would be defeated, so that mortality would have declined significantly while birth rate remains very high, so that the net population (birth - death + net migration) would be very high.

Meanwhile, the population of many richer countries like Germany, Russia and Brazil would be declining. China's population control policy of one child per family should have its own momentum by now or in the next few years. China's population would be slowly shrinking. Or many Chinese would have migrated to other countries where they can have two or more children and they will not be persecuted by the state.

And another graph also from The Economist, May 13th 2011 issue, the pyramid by age of world population until 2100.

The message is very clear: life expectancy will continue to increase, meaning people would be dying at a later age. And all those talks of "more and more people dying because of poverty and expensive medicines/treatment" would be slam-dunked as false.

What are the implications of the two graphs above, in relation to population control policies, like the proposed Reproductive Health (RH) and Responsible Parenthood (RP) bill in Philippine Congress now?

1. Responsible parenthood cannot be legislated, parental decision will prevail over government and politicians' decision with regard to the size of household. Otherwise, the population of Germany, UK, France, Japan and other rich economies would be rising because of the various subsidies and entitlements given by the governments of those countries for their citizens to produce more offspring. And the population of Nigeria, Congo, etc. would be declining because of the various "free" condoms, pills, injectibles, sex education and other government-sponsored interventions.

2. As the average age of people around the world is rising, meaning there will be more senior citizens, more pensioners, more ageing people requiring longer and more expensive healthcare, the need for more younger workers and entrepreneurs to sustain the needs and subsidies for the older people, should also rise. But what if, because of population control policies, the population of the younger people will only stabilize, if not decline, who will work more to sustain the oldies -- robots, migrant workers, trained animals, or younger government bureaucrats themselves?
--------

On MARCH 24, 2011,  I wrote this:

Global market capitalization and population

Around 3rd quarter of last year, China overtook Japan as the world's 2nd biggest economy in terms of GDP size. The 1st place is held by the US economy always.

This week, after significant declines in Tokyo stockmarket since last week, China overtook Japan as the world's 2nd biggest market capitalization.

Source of graph is Bespoke Investment. H/t to Prudent Investor Newsletters, a Manila-based financial and free market blog that I regularly visit.

The other notable point from the above table is the slow but consistent rise in global market capitalization share of other Asian dragon or emerging economies. Date compared is from 01 January 2005 to 23 March 2011:

China, from 1.25 to 7.38 percent (almost 6x increase in 6 years and 2+ months.
Hong Kong, from 2.40 to 4.77 percent;
India, from 1.08 to 2.70 percent; S. Korea, from 1.16 to 2.02 percent;
Taiwan, from 1.33 to 1.63 percent; Singapore, from 0.59 to 1.03 percent.

The combined share of the above 6 countries plus Japan over the same period, is from 18.43 to 26.58 percent, or an increase of more than 6 percentage points.

While certain economic "models" would have some bearing on such significant growth in market capitalization of the seven Asian economies mentioned above, one important factor is the huge population of China, India and Japan. More people, more entrepreneurs and workers; more producers and consumers; more sellers and buyers.

As productivity increases across sectors, a rise in per capita productivity multiplied by a rise in working age population would translate to more economic activities in those countries.

Another important reason why I do not support governments- and foreign aid-sponsored population control programs.

---------

And on FEBRUARY 25, 2011, I also wrote this:

Increasing population, no problem

(Notes: (a) This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz; (b) Pictures here are not part of the original article there; and related article here is Population policy: Big Govt or Big Church?)

More population means more productive hands and minds, more businesses and more diversity in human growth and enjoyment.

But many sectors do not see it that way. For them, more population means more houses and offices, more malls and shops, more cars and buses, more planes and ships, more power plants, more global warming, more ecological catastrophe.

Thus, their favorite proposal is to limit population, which in turn limit the growth of new houses and offices, new malls and shops, new cars and buses, which in turn limit the need for more power plants especially the “non-clean” energy sources, and they "save the planet." That is why the population scare is directly related to climate alarmism and ecological socialism movement.

There was a report last week, Planet could be 'unrecognizable' by 2050, experts say. It said,

The United Nations has predicted the global population will reach seven billion this year, and climb to nine billion by 2050, "with almost all of the growth occurring in poor countries, particularly Africa and South Asia," said John Bongaarts of the non-profit Population Council.

To feed all those mouths, "we will need to produce as much food in the next 40 years as we have in the last 8,000," said Jason Clay of the World Wildlife Fund at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"By 2050 we will not have a planet left that is recognizable" if current trends continue, Clay said.

The swelling population will exacerbate problems, such as resource depletion, said John Casterline, director of the Initiative in Population Research at Ohio State University….

This is a typical "control population" scare by the socialists and global central planners at the UN, WWF and other international groups. When the world population was only 1 B entering 2 B, they said the same catastrophic warning. When world population was only 2 B entering 3 B, they said the same catastrophic warning. And now that the world population is entering the 7 B mark, the same catastrophic warning.

I think there is zero limit to human imagination and capability for continuous improvement and modernization. Before, 1,000 people would need probably at least 2 hectares of land area for housing. Now 1,000 people can have spacious housing in just 3 high rise condo buildings occupying just 1/4 of an hectare, with swimming pool, jogging path, gym, theater, convenience store, etc.

In agriculture and food production, traditional farming will need several hectares of land for vegetable production. Now even one-fifth (1/5) of an hectare can produce tons of vegetables per year with all-year round production via greenhouse and hydroponics farming. Even with heavy rains or prolonged drought, production continues, and the veggies are usually 100 percent organic as they do not need soil. Bacteria and fungi that attack leaves and fruits are generally soil-dwelling.

The population increase of the poor that those central planners are scared to see should not be seen as more people that need more government subsidies. Such planners and socialists have little concept or belief in more personal and parental responsibility. For them, almost everything is government responsibility: education, healthcare, housing, pension, transportation, environmental protection, and so on.

The poor generally do not seek “government welfare” as they see that there are tons of bureaucracies and political interventions before they can enjoy whatever is given. The poor can start an ordinary food shop, barbeque stand, barber shop, vulcanizing shop, and many other micro entrepreneurial projects. But governments always say that all those initiatives are illegal and prohibited, unless the would-be entrepreneurs would first get various permits, licenses and certifications and pay the corresponding taxes and fees from the village, city/municipality and national government agencies.

And this is the main cause of poverty: prohibiting productive activities unless there is blessing and approval by the central planners themselves.

Socialists are generally unproductive people. Not engaged in any productive enterprises that rely on voluntary exchange between sellers and producers. Thus they are concentrated in government bureaucracies, national and international like the UN, or big international NGOs like WWF, producing tons of papers of new studies that justify more regulations, prohibitions and taxation, to "save the planet."

Who will "save humanity" from such huge army of international do-gooders who rely 100 percent on tax money?

--------

See also Part 2 of this discussion series.

Responsible Parenthood cannot be legislated

Question: If you are a parent, has one or more kids, do you need the government to tell you that you should be a responsible parent?

Think quick. Yes or No?

....
....
....

If you answer Yes, then I believe there is something wrong with your personal values. If you answer No, then I congratulate you. You know your role as an individual and as a parent.

But now, we in the Philippines are faced with a congressional proposal with an ugly title called "Responsible Parenthood" bill. Parental responsibility is a non-issue. It's a given. If you are a parent, you HAVE responsibilities to your kids, to your family, no alibis.

So how come that a supposedly non-issue has become a big national issue?

I think the quick and simple answer is: Government. The government wants to impose another round of coercion and mandatory actions. And there are penalties and fines for non-obedience to such new round of coercion.

This highly controversial, highly divisive, highly emotional congressional bill, will require long discussions. Section by section if necessary.

For now, I will limit this article to only one thing: HUGE budgetary requirements to implement this proposal if it becomes a law. I will reserve additional discussions in the continuation of this new discussion series.

The authors, sponsors and advocates of this bill seem to think that this problem does not exist -- high public debt as a result of endless annual budget deficit, a result of endless borrowings to plug those deficit. High debt will require high repayment, both in principal and interest payment.

And thus, they thought of these programs with still undetermined, high, and new expenditures on top of existing expenditures:

Sec. 5. Midwives for Skilled Attendants.

The Local Government Units (LGUs) with the assistance of the Department of Health (DOH), shall employ an adequate number of midwives to achieve a minimum ratio of one (1) fulltimeskilled birth attendant for every one hundred fifty (150) deliveries per year...

Sec. 6. Emergency Obstetric Care.

Each province and city, with the assistance of the DOH, shall establish or upgrade hospitals with adequate and qualified personnel, equipment and supplies to be able to provideemergency obstetric care. For every 500,000 population, there shall be at least one (1)hospital with comprehensive emergency obstetric care and four (4) hospitals or other health facilities with basic emergency obstetric care...

Sec. 7. Access to Family Planning.

All accredited health facilities shall provide a full range of modern family planning methods,except in specialty hospitals which may render such services on optional basis. For poorpatients, such services shall be fully covered by PhilHealth Insurance and/or governmentfinancial assistance on a no balance billing...

Sec. 9. Maternal Death Review

All Local Government Units (LGUs), national and local government hospitals, and other publichealth units shall conduct annual maternal death review in accordance with the guidelines setby the DOH.

Sec. 10. Family Planning Supplies as Essential Medicines

Products and supplies for modern family planning methods shall be part of the National DrugFormulary and the same shall be included in the regular purchase of essential medicines andsupplies of all national and local hospitals and other government health units.

Sec. 11. Procurement and Distribution of Family Planning Supplies

The DOH shall spearhead the efficient procurement, distribution to Local Government Units (LGUs) and usage-monitoring of family planning supplies for the whole country.

Sec. 13. Roles of Local Government in Family Planning Programs

The LGUs shall ensure that poor families receive preferential access to services, commodities and programs for family planning. The role of Population Officers at municipal, city and barangay levels in the family planning effort shall be strengthened. The Barangay Health Workers and Volunteers shall be capacitated to give priority to family planning work.

Sec. 14. Benefits for Serious and Life-Threatening Reproductive Health Conditions

All serious and life threatening reproductive health conditions such as HIV and AIDS, breast and reproductive tract cancers, obstetric complications, menopausal and post-menopausal related conditions shall be given the maximum benefits as provided by PhilHealth programs.

SEC. 15. Mobile Health Care Service

Each Congressional District shall be provided with at least one Mobile Health Care Service(MHCS) in the form of a van or other means of transportation appropriate to coastal ormountainous areas.

SEC. 16. Mandatory Age-Appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education

Age-appropriate Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education shall be taught by adequately trained teachers in formal and non-formal educational system starting from Grade Five up to Fourth Year High School using life-skills and other approaches.... The Department of Education (DepEd), the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), and the Department of Health (DOH) shall formulate the Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education curriculum. Such curriculum shall be common to both public and private schools, out of school youth...

SEC. 19. Capability Building of Barangay Health Workers

Barangay Health Workers and other community-based health workers shall undergo training on the promotion of reproductive health and shall receive at least 10% increase in honoraria, upon successful completion of training. The amount necessary for the increase in honoraria shall be charged against the Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) componentof the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) program of the DSWD. In the event the CCT is phased out, the funding sources shall be charged against the Gender and Development(GAD) budget or the development fund component of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA).

SEC. 24. Right to Reproductive Health Care Information

...The DOH and the Philippine Information Agency (PIA) shall initiate and sustain a heightened nationwide multi-media campaign to raise the level of public awareness of the protection and promotion of reproductive health and rights...

Twelve sections leading to still undetermined amount, several billions of pesos per year of new spending to control high population growth. Determining the size of family is now government responsibility, not parental responsibility. Then taking care of the kids -- their education, healthcare, nutrition, other needs -- is also implied to be largely government responsibility, not parental responsibility.

Since when have the values of parents been corrupted this way?

Additional discussions to follow in the coming days and weeks.
-------

Related articles here are Increasing population, no problem

Population policy: Big Govt or Big Church?