Government and Taxes: population control

Showing posts with label population control. Show all posts

Monday, January 23, 2017

BWorld 106, Top 10 projections for Asian economies

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last January 12, 2017.

Taking off from the paper by a friend and fellow columnist Romy Bernardo’s “Wishes for the economy in 2017” last Monday, this paper will make some raw projections of GDP size until 2026.

The base document is the IMF’s World Economic Outlook (WEO), October 2016 database. In the table below, GDP size is based on purchasing power parity (PPP) values, not nominal or current values. Actual data for 2006, 2016, and 2021 are IMF projections.

Now this paper will take a longer but very raw view by projecting potential GDP size by 2026. Here is the raw and crude methodology.

(a) Take the GDP multiple or expansion from 2026 to 2021 per country, call it Y.

(b) Assume that the same degree of expansion will occur from 2021 to 2026.

Readers with more advanced data and econometric tools will scoff at this raw methodology but please understand that this is just an attempt and the limitations of the assumption have been stated. So here is what we can project in the next few years.

From this table, we can summarize important projections for selected Asian economies.

1. In 2016, four Asian countries would remain in the 10 largest economies in the world: China, India, Japan, and Indonesia.

2. Six of the 10 ASEAN countries would belong to the Top 40 largest economies in the world in 2016: Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam and Singapore.

3. By 2021, Indonesia will overtake Brazil in the seventh spot and will be in a striking distance to dislodge Russia in the sixth spot.

4. Also by 2021, the Philippines will rise to the 26th spot and Malaysia will rise to the 27th spot, overtaking Argentina and Netherlands. Malaysia and the Philippines will also belong to the club of trillion-dollar economies by around 2018 or 2019.

5. Vietnam will rise from its 36th spot in 2016 to 33rd or 32nd in 2021, overtaking UA Emirates, Algeria, and Iraq, and possibly South Africa.

6. By 2026, assuming that the raw projections will somehow hold, the combined size of China and India will be larger than the combined economies of US, Japan, Germany, Russia, Brazil, UK, France, Mexico, and Italy.

7. Also by 2026, Indonesia will become the 5th largest economy in the world, overtaking Japan, Germany, Russia, and Brazil.

8. And the Philippines will rise to the 22nd spot, further overtaking Taiwan, Nigeria, and Poland. It will also be in a striking distance to overtake Thailand and Australia by then.

9. Pakistan and Vietnam, also having big and young population like India, Indonesia, and Philippines, will also significantly expand their economic sizes and improve their ranking.

10. While Japan is expanding marginally, South Korea will sustain its growth. Now, a collapse of North Korea (possible within the next six to eight years) and unification of the two Koreas will possibly make them overtake France in the #10 spot.

Many things will happen in the coming years so those IMF projections for 2021 and the assumptions made in this paper for 2026 can be considered as suggestions with some material basis. We still take actual numbers as they become available as basis for policy reforms.

Other Asian governments should take lessons from the experience of Europe and Japan: an ageing population will be a drag in further economic expansion. Policies that control population or heavily restrict migration are wrong, as wrong as trade protectionism, heavy taxation, and stifling business regulations. Governments should avoid these policies.
------------

Saturday, August 06, 2016

Demography 26, Once again on the RH law

Four years ago, I wrote this paper in interaksyon and shared it in my fb wall with this note, "People are assets, not liabilities. Government should focus on promulgating the rule of law, not in expanding bureaucracies and in population control."

I never supported that bill (now a law) of more government, state-sponsored population control. Condoms and pills lang, gobyerno pa.

Government is stretching out, further out. Gun control, drugs control, smoking control, alcohol control, fare control, rent control, price control, wage control, speed control, texting control, land ownership control, land conversion control, population control,...

So my opposition to that measure was nowhere on the morality issues raised by the church. It's mainly an opposition to further government expansion. Things that can be done by civil society and volunteerism like donating pills and condoms, gobyerno pa? Gawad Kalinga, Rotary Homes, other NGOs are able to build thousands of houses for the poor via civil society, volunteerism route, NOT legislation and national coercion.

The pro-RH guys and campaigners then were gloating that because they could trump and debunk the church arguments, the more government, more state-sponsored population control argument was correct. So when I argued my position -- zero regard for church position, zero sympathy for "more government" -- many of them could not anticipate and rebut my position. But then again, it's all politics. The legislators, the DOH, PopCom, LGUs, etc. were just happy that government has further expanded.

I hardly read the church position on the RH then because I felt I could not and would not use them. My argument has zero regard for church position, catholic or otherwise. Mainly about Big government vs. civil society volunteerism.

I am pro-divorce, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, pro-same sex marriage, pro-drugs legalization, pro-gambling legalization, pro-taxation of church properties and income, etc. The anti-RH stance was the only position that I happened to align with the church, and it was for a different reason. :-)

Gawad Kalinga (GK) can build thousands of houses, more expensive than pills and condoms, via volunteerism. Why force the rest of the population to contribute to their "bright idea"? If an idea is bright, it does not need coercion, national coercion and arm-twisting to be implemented.

GK, Rotary Homes, etc. are successful, even with zero legislation, zero national coercion. I have visited some rotary homes projects, dozens if not hundreds in one RI District alone here. Money usually comes from abroad, rich Rotarians from rich countries, plus rich local Rotarians.

Those rich Rotarians from abroad would give money for housing for the poor here, to their fellow civil society leaders like local Rotarians. But NOT to the government when it builds housing for the poor. That is why a bright idea very often does NOT need legislation and national coercion. If done via legislation, 90-99% it is a stupid idea.

My Filipino friend in the US regularly donates to GK, yearly. He is updated by GK and so far, he is happy with the projects. He says that if he can confirm just one instance, not 2 or 3 but just one instance of corruption and stealing of his donation, he will automatically stop donating. See the system of reward and punishment via civil society? It is instant.

The same in rotary. One instance of corruption, of stealing donated money, those rotarians, their clubs, are blacklisted and implicitly shamed. Within months, not years. Goodbye to professional and business network, replaced by shame.

The pro-RH camp then keep repeating the argument that there is no force, no coercion, "walang pilitan" employed and stated in the law.

Walang pilitan sa RH? Eh ayoko magbigay more tax money to the government for state-administered condoms and pills distribution, may choice ba ako? saan? where? Kaya nga legislation kasi pilitan eh. Sa ayaw at sa gusto mo, sumunod ka, bayad ka.

The activists are the usual government-bashers. They distrust government, which is understandable. They distrust government's implementation of education for the poor, housing for the poor, tractors for the poor, rice subsidy for the poor, MRT subsidy for the poor, etc. Fine. But why do ask for more government, like the state-administered condoms for the poor, suddenly they trust government. Neh?

A friend said that distribution and allocation of tax money is up to the Legislature and the Executive, ganon daw talaga. If so, then these things are ok with them:

1. Government will put up a jeepney and bus corporations, subsidized and funded by taxpayers of course. People can take them or not, no coercion/walang pilitan naman eh. Sila taxpayers lang ang obligado magsubsidize kasi palaging lugi.

2. Government will put up a new state university in all provincial capitals on top of existing ones. Students can enroll there or not, walang pilitan naman eh. sila taxpayers lang ang obligado magbayad.

3. Government will put up a "carinderia ng bayan" in all 42k+ barangays and villages nationwide. People can eat there or not, walang pilitan naman eh. sila taxpayers lang obligado magbayad sa subsidy. Magaleeeng.

-------------

See also:Demography 23: The UN, Depopulation and Climate, May 03, 2015
Demography 24, The Maddison Project data, August 13, 2015
Demography 25, Ageing societies, Japan's depopulation, December 29, 2015
BWorld 53, Population and growth projections, April 09, 2016

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Demography 24, The Maddison Project data

The Maddison Project, data on per capita GDP and world population, 1000 to 2001. There is positive correlation. More population is an asset, not a liability.

Source, Angus Maddison, 2004. "Growth and Interaction in the World Economy: The Roots of Modernity."
http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/other_books/Growth_and_Interaction_in_the_World_Economy.pdf

Statements like "Condition of the poor is worsening as the world modernizes" are jokes. Even the poor live longer, which means certain preventable diseases have been curtailed. Global development reaches the bottom, but not at the level that some people would wish to see. Same data source as above.

And statements like "As world population rises, world non-renewable (fossil fuels) energy shrinks" are also jokes. Maddison is a great no nonsense economic historian.

Some lessons from the Maddison data:

1. Government-sponsored population control is wrong. People are assets, not liabilities. More people means more producers and consumers; more entrepreneurs and workers. The real liabilities -- killers, thieves, abductors, etc. -- both rich and poor, private and in government, government should get them. That is the main function of government, enforce the rule of law, protect lives and private property.

The poor children, gusgusin, madumi, etc. that we saw several years ago are now the yaya/nanny of the kids, the family or office drivers of the rich and middle class, the construction workers, electricians, plumbers and security officers of residential and office condos of the rich and middle class. They are now the taxi or bus or truck drivers who move hundreds of thousands of people and tons of goods everyday.

Many of the poor want to stand on their own, rather than become mendicants to politicians and government welfare programs. They can be the sari-sari store owners, public market or ambulant vendors, barbers, etc. Since they want to stand on their own, government should not require them annual permits, from barangay to sanitary to electrical to Mayor's permit, up to BIR, DTI, SSS, etc. permits. That is not how government works. It disables many of these people to become good, micro entrepreneurs, so they become poor, and government and politicians now come to give them various subsidies so they won't become poor. Ironic no?

2. Government energy rationing and cronyism of the renewables is wrong. As human population increases and modernity continues, need for energy rises. Renewables are good for outdoors -- the Sun as the greatest light at daytime, the Wind as greatest fan day and night. Indoors, so-called "non-renewables" are a great source of stable and cheaper electricity.

3. Government involvement in healthcare is good, especially in dealing with communicable or infectious diseases. For non-communicable, non-infectious diseases, more personal and parental responsibility + civil society responsibility should have greater role than government.

------------

Sunday, May 11, 2014

Demography 22: Japan's Depopulation and Migration Policy

A good article here from WSJ last Wednesday. The author is arguing for a more liberal or freer immigration policy by the Japanese government because of the huge manpower requirements by the ageing population. Something like 650,000 new immigrants a year.

In Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, other developed economies in Asia, Europe and N. America, flat or declining population is a problem while in developing economies like the Philippines, India and Indonesia, their rising population is considered by certain sectors as a big problem, big liability, instead of looking at it as a big asset. While Japan can invent more robots to run its many manufacturing plants, robots cannot smile and give "human touch" when replacing adult diapers or guiding old people to walk and stroll in a park.

Government-sponsored population control in developing countries is wrong. And government strict immigration policies that restrict if not prevent private enterprises and households to get the necessary immigrant labor they want is also wrong. If the host governments are wary about possible crimes or health opportunism by the migrant workers, then government should simply do their basic function, to enforce the rule of law. And let the local employers, companies or households, provide private health insurance for their migrant workers.

Below is the article. Enjoy.
--------------

Trade in a Land Without Chhldren

Discussions about Japan's economy generally focus on GDP growth, consumer confidence, business sentiment, unemployment, wages, investment and the like. Those are all useful markers, but if you want a clue about the country's long-term prospects, a far more significant statistic was released recently: The number of children in Japan has just declined for the 33rd straight year, and is now at its lowest level since data collection began in 1950.

Young people between birth and 15 years old constitute only 12.8% of Japan's population; in the U.S. it's closer to 20%. Those over age 65 make up more than 25% of the population, a record high. The overall population has declined for the past decade.

The litany of baleful consequences of population decline is familiar. Fewer children today means fewer workers tomorrow to support the non-working young and old. Fewer workers also means less growth, especially in an already advanced economy like Japan.

Neither of the two most commonly cited solutions to this problem is satisfactory. Increasing the proportion of the working-age population that is actually working, especially by boosting the shockingly low female labor-force participation rate, will help in the near term. So will raising the retirement age so that Japan's wondrously healthy elderly stay in the labor force longer.

Elderly Japanese women stand in front of Hina dolls displayed on the steps at a Shinto shrine in Katsuura city, Chiba prefecture, Japan. European Pressphoto Agency.

But there's a limit to the long-term efficacy of either measure. Both women and the elderly die the same way today's cohort of working-age men eventually will. A consequence of having too few babies is that even if the labor participation rate reaches an unrealistic 100% in the future, the number of Japanese who are working will still eventually fall to below the number who are working today.

Immigration is the obvious solution, and also the one that seems to be least politically viable. Only in recent months has Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government dared to leak word to the press that a plan to allow up to 200,000 immigrants per year may be in the works. This would more or less stem depopulation by mid-century—if Japanese can also be prevailed on to increase their birth rate to a blistering 2.07 children per woman from the current 1.39. Good luck with that.

Otherwise, Japan needs to let in around 650,000 immigrants per year to achieve the same population outcome. Good luck with that, too. One feature of Japan's population debate is how blasé the Japanese themselves sound about it. Reporters can reliably find (elderly) interview subjects to aver that life won't really be so bad. It will be less crowded, and per-capita incomes will be stable. And allowing foreigners in, the subtext goes, will make the country's famously orderly existence far too chaotic.

Demography 21: China Overtaking the US' GDP Size in 2014?

The IMF's World Economic Outlook (WEO) came out last month. I checked some numbers, particularly GDP size via Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) valuation. The top 4 are still the US, China, India, Japan, in that order. China will overtake the US by 2019, with a projected GDP size of $22.41 trillion for China and $22.09 trillion for the US.

Then there was an article from The Economist that was well-circulated yesterday. Here is the short article and the chart.

Crowning the dragon

April 30th 2014

UNTIL 1890 China was the world’s largest economy, before America surpassed it. By the end of 2014 China is on track to reclaim its crown. Comparing economic output is tricky: exchange rates get in the way. Simply converting GDP from renminbi to dollars at market rates may not reflect the true cost of living. Bread and beer may be cheaper in one country than another, for example. To account for these differences, economists make adjustments based on a comparable basket of goods and services across the globe, so-called purchasing-power parity (PPP). New data released on April 30th from the International Comparison Programme, a part of the UN, calculated the cost of living in 199 countries in 2011. On this basis, China’s PPP exchange rate is now higher than economists had previously estimated using data from the previous survey in 2005: a whopping 20% higher. So China, which had been forecast to overtake America in 2019 by the IMF, will be crowned the world's pre-eminent country by the end of this year according to The Economist’s calculations. The American Century ends, and the Pacific Century begins.

Perhaps an important lesson for the US - and Japan, Germany, UK, etc. -- is that big population is an asset, not a liability. More workers and entrepreneurs; more producers and consumers. Human talent and creativity is the single most important resource in this planet. So if countries or economies cannot raise their population the natural way, then they must allow more migrants to come in. Simplify and relax the migration procedures.

Meanwhile, a Bloomberg article argued that the above data may be right, but it does not mean that China and its people are generally rich.

On a per-capita basis, the highest-income country in the world in 2011 was the oil-soaked and lightly populated Gulf monarchy of Qatar, at $146,000 per person. The U.S., as this chart shows, was No. 12, at just under $50,000.

China? China was No. 101, at a little less than $10,000 per capita. It’s not labeled on the chart, but if it were, it would appear between Serbia and Dominica.

Yes, it is not possible for China to have a per capita GDP size as big as those in the US, UK, Germany, Japan, etc. anytime soon. Maybe several decades from now, especially when the command-and-control economy is replaced by a generally free enterprise, the system that allowed the US, UK, Japan, etc. to develop more than a century ago.

But the sheer size of the population and consumers make China, along with India, Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Philippines, etc. become a magnet for local and foreign enterpreneurs to invest in those big population countries.

That is why government-sponsored population control policies are wrong. People are assets, not liabilities. The real liabilities -- thieves (private and public), murderers, other criminals -- government should get them. That is the main reason why government was invented in the first place.
-----------

See also:
Population Control 17: China's Depopulation and RH Law, March 03, 2013
Population Control 18: Billions of RH Services Even Without an RH law, July 28, 2013
Demography 19: Top 30 Countries in Population by 2050, August 05, 2013
Demography 20: Presentation at ILS, DOLE, on Population and Growth, November 19, 2013

Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Demography 20: Presentation at ILS, DOLE, on Population and Growth

Yesterday, I was one of three speakers in a forum by the Institute for Labor Studies (ILS) of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) on "From Challenges to Dividents: A New and Healthy Discourse on Gender, Employment, Population and Development" held at The Bayleaf Hotel, Intramuros, Manila.

Special thanks to a friend, Bryan Balco, focal point person of ILS on Gender and Development (GAD), for inviting me. The two other speakers were Dr. Juan Antonio Perez, Executive Director of the Commission on Population (PopCom), and Dr. Ramon Benedicto Marcelino, Director for Research, Planning and Development Center, San Beda College, Manila.

My 24-slides presentation is available in slideshare. It is composed of four major points: (a) Demographic deficit, demographic dividends; (b) Some say that big population is scary; (c) Labor and gender issues; and(d) Concluding notes.I am showing half of those powerpoint slides here. I started with Barun Mitra's slides when he gave a talk here in Manila sometime in 2011.

One illustration on young vs. an ageing population.

I showed two charts from a report made by S&P last March.

Demography 19: Top 30 Countries in Population by 2050

* Notes: (1) I changed the subject series name from "Population Control" to "Demography" starting this paper. And (2) This is my article today in thelobbyist.biz.

---------

While many people in the Philippines are alarmed by the country’s big population (no. 12 worldwide) and fast population growth (about 1.8 million people a year, net of death and migration), other countries are getting paranoid with their fast ageing population and slow growth or even negative/depopulation trend in some countries.

Here is one projection of the evolving global demography. By 2050, ranked #9 Russia and #10 Japan in population size this year, will be out of the top 12. The Philippines currently #12 will rise to #10 by 2050. Meanwhile, African countries Congo to rank #12 and Ethiopia to rank #9, and India will overtake China as #1 by 2050.

Figure 1. The World’s 12 Biggest Countries in Population Size, 1950, 2013 and 2050.

Source: The Economist, The world’s population.

It implies that the population of the currently poorer countries is expected to expand fast while the population of the currently rich countries will plateau, if not slowly decline. In the minds of people bent on instituting population control, this scenario looks terrifying to them.

More details here. From one estimate, the worldometers, this year, 10 Asian countries are in the top 20 – China, India, Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Japan, Philippines, Vietnam, Iran and Thailand. Four are from Africa – Nigeria, Ethiopia, Egupt and Congo. Three from North and South America – US, Brazil and Mexico, and three from Europe – Russia, Germany and Turkey.

By 2050, there will be nine from Asia (Thailand will be out), six from Africa (Tanzania and Kenya in) three from the Americas and only two from Europe (Germany will be out).

Table 1. Most Populous Countries, 2013 and 2050 Projections

Source: http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

In another data, some 10 percent or higher of the total population of Japan, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, will be 80 years or older by 2050. An even higher percentage will be people who are 70 and older. For these countries, they will get more robots, or more humans, to take care of their oldies and economies. From where? From countries with many "unwanted pregnancies" and "surplus/unwanted children", like the Philippines.

Table 2. Percent of Total Population who are 80 years or older, 2013 and 2050.

Source: The Economist, Longevity and Economic Growth

Meanwhile, the National Statistics Office (NSO) estimates that there were about 96 million Filipinos as of mid-2012. The US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) says there were 103 M that year. Perhaps the CIA counts Filipinos working and studying abroad, hence it bloated its data by 7 M.

Table 3. Asian Population as of 2012, CIA data.

Source: http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?r=as.

Rich but low and/or ageing population Asian countries -- Japan, S. Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore -- they will soon be begging for more Filipino workers to help run their economies, from managers, engineers and nurses, bus and train drivers, house helpers and factory workers.

Some people people shake their heads when those "surplus children" are still small because they appear to be “underfed and underclothed.” When those children later become adults, other people will soon be referring to them as drivers, car mechanics, electricians and plumbers, construction workers, yaya for their kids. The better schooled among these children become office workers, while the more entrepreneurial will have carinderias or fishball stalls or driving their own jeepney or taxi, that people patronize.

One test for people who dislike more “unwanted pregnancies” and hence, support government-sponsored population control, is to ask the security guards, janitors, electricians, etc. in their building, how many siblings they have. Most likely they will give answers like 4, 7, 10 or more. In the minds of the population control advocates, some of those children should have never been born because they were "unwanted pregnancies" and "surplus or unwanted children". They dislike if not demonize "surplus children" when these kids are still small. But they cannot function properly in their comfortable offices and buildings if those security guards, electricians, building cleaners, etc. are not around.

People are assets, not liabilities. More people, more assets. The real liabilities – the thieves, murderers, rapists, extortionists, corrupt officials -- government should get them. The bad guys can be everywhere, in poor and rich households, in private and government offices. From most disappointment of the people, in the Philippines or elsewhere, it is directed more to those in the government than in the private sector. It is not wise to keep expanding government.

-----------

Sunday, July 28, 2013

Population Control 18: Billions of RH Services Even Without an RH law

This poster has been circulating in some friends’ facebook wall, like new but good friend, Butch Cabanban. I made this comment on Butch’s wall,

Ako naman Butch, Ethell, anti-RH but for zero religious reason, pure econ and pol philosophy lang. No one prohibits people from donating their own resources to distribute condoms, pills, etc. for free to the poor. Gawad Kalinga (GK) or Books for the Barrios (BftB) or Rotary Homes, etc. did not say that they needed a GK bill or BftB bill to become a law first before they will build a single house or distribute books to the poor. If people help, fine. If not, fine too. And maternal care, child care, is part of the DOH, UP PGH, AFP hospital, LGUs hospitals, PNP hospital, etc etc mandates, nothing new.

Someone has a "very bright" idea. That he will give a big portion of his wealth to people in calamities like victims of heavy flooding. But he needed a law first, say a "Calamity assistance law" with fines, penalties and imprisonment provision, for those who do not help during calamities, before he will help. That is one example of a lousy thinking, but that guy thinks his idea is "very bright" and must be imposed on everyone else in the country via a law from congress.

Then Butch’s friend Nathan commented,

No budget to support programs mean it will just fail. That money is called investment in a better future --- one that has less mouths to feed and more sustainable. Saying no money shd be spent for it is like not willing to put into roads and education. Pretty short -sighted.

By calling my idea “short sighted”, I returned the favor and made these counter-comments.

"No budget to support programs" is an idiotic statement. Even without an RH law, DOH has a budget of P42B in 2012, P52B in 2013 approved even before the RH bill became a law. A big portion of those billions of pesos are already in maternal and child care. Then there are billions of pesos more for PGH, AFP hospital, LGUs hospital, also for maternal and child care.

People are liabilities, thus there should be "less mouths to feed" is another stupid and short sighted statement. Those bus and taxi drivers, office workers and pub school teachers, yayas and drivers of the middle class and the rich, etc., many of them come from households with 5 or more children, they are "surplus" and hence, "unwanted children" because they come from "unwanted pregnancies." Yeah, those people should have never been born.Lousy and idiotic thinking.

Many people are ignorant of numbers and they just want to open their loud mouth because of emotionalism. The 2013 DOH budget of P52 B was approved in Dec 2012 or one year before the RH bill became a law, Dec. 2013. In that 2013 budget, DOH already included P2.539 billion for various RH services alone, of which P538 million is for FP supplies and contraceptives alone -- even without an RH law.
http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/09/health-spending-6-dohs-proposed-2013.html

LGUs also have their own RH services in their respective provincial and city hospitals. PGH has RH services in its P2 billion annual budget -- even without an RH law.

No counter-argument from him. I also posted the first comment on other rabid RH campaigners like Tonton Contrereas of DLSU and Oscar Picazo of PIDS. Tonton replied,

The state has an obligation to spend for women's health because it is their bodies that are worn out just to reproduce future members of the labor force and to think that most of the work they do rearing these future workers are not being paid by the capitalist system. Put that in your equation Nonoy Oplas.

I replied,

"The state has an obligation to spend for women's health..." is off tangent as it assumes or implies that the state has NOT been spending on RH services. Wrong. Even without an RH law, the DOH, PGH, LGU hospitals, etc. have been spending on RH services already for many years.

Take the DOH 2013 BUDGET, approved in Dec. 2012 or one year before the RH bill became a law. Of the P52 B total budget, P2.539 billion alloted for various RH services alone, of which P538 million is for FP supplies and contraceptives alone -- even without an RH law.

http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2012/09/health-spending-6-dohs-proposed-2013.html

And you mentioned the capitalist system, among my favorite topics J. Capitlaism gave us facebook, youtube, google, yahoo, twitter, samsung, apple, black berry, cars, buses, restaurants, hotels, private schools and universities. Capitlaism is a wonderful system, it creates revolutionary products and services that even socialists or other anti-capitalist groups so love and patronize. It gives jobs to people, and people feed their children. What looked like undernourished or underclothed children running in the streets will soon be the bus/taxi/office/familyi drivers, office workers, yayas for kids of people including the anti-capitalism ideologues, NGOs, media and academics alike.

That is why people are assets. More people, more assets. The real liabilities -- thieves, murderers, rapists, extortionists, kidnappers, land grabbers, etc. -- rich and poor, in private or public offices, government should get them. That is the main purpose of having government, to protect people from those criminals, especially the armed and organized ones.

----------

Sunday, March 03, 2013

Population Control 17: China's Depopulation and RH Law

* This is my second guest post in antipinoy.com, posted the other day.
-----------

China’s depopulation has begun. While it’s true that they still have a big number of younger workers, they also have a rising number of ageing people who need more healthcare, more pension and other retirement benefits. So the burden of taking care of the ageing people will really fall on the shoulders of the younger population.

The China communist government cannot simply dispatch its hundreds of millions of bureaucrats, or robots, to take care of their oldies.

A friend noted that the “inequalities in the distribution of the benefits of the fruits of its development will make China implode.” While this may be true, “more equitable” European societies are also slowly imploding. They sustain their forced equality only via endless borrowings, but those huge debts are now calling the kettle. For countries with declining working age population, there are three solutions: raise the retirement age from 60 to 65-70, more migrants, and/or more robots.

I read that in the US, there is no more retirement age, people choose when to stop working. This is good, encourage people to stop being “employee forever” and become start up entrepreneurs and job creators themselves. While it is relatively easy to do this in the US, it is more difficult in in socialist China or some near-socialist European economies as government taxes and bureaucracies are high.

Is big population a liability to more economic growth?

The advocates of the recent RH law said YES, that is why they supported more government coercion — more taxes, more sex education, more forced but free services by OB professionals, etc. — to control the country’s population, especially that of the poor. The debate ended in favor of the lovers of more government coercion, but implementation is another issue.

The Malthusian alarmism of “we will have less land, less water, less food and even less radio spectrum bandwidth per person” as the population expands is wrong. There is zero limit or constraint to vertical space. Too many people die every year because there is too much rain water and flooding not because there is lack of it. And the main health concern now is more fat, more obese people than undernourished ones because there are lots of food and drinks. The number of cell phones and laptops are rising and yet internet speed is rising.

So the Malthusian population alarmism is pushed always by statists. Control inequality, control prices, control businesses, control population.

People are assets, not liabilities. The real liabilities — killers, rapists, thieves, land grabbers, carnappers, extortionists, etc. — both in the public and private sectors, that’s the proper role of government to control, to implement the rule of law. If the poor become construction workers or public market vendors or department store cashiers, so be it. They are working, they produce various goods and services. Government should not penalize and over-bureaucratize the poor if they become self reliant and independent.

Those construction workers, bus and taxi drivers, security guards of expensive buildings, malls, shops and villages, etc. – those useful people, they normally do not come from 1 or 2 children households, but from 4 or more children households. And the RH camp demonize the fast growth of the population of the poor.

Population control or population expansion, leave it to civil society and individuals. Government should step out of that concern. Instead, government should over-bureaucratize, over-regulate, over-control and over-penalize criminals ,whether rich or poor, whether in the private or government sectors.

Singapore, Japan, some European countries now are into government-sponsored population expansion, but there are not much takers. The governments for instance give allowance per child until 18 years old (Germany, etc.).

We are far from what China, Japan, HK, Sing, Taiwan, Europe, are experiencing of greying population. And that is precisely our strength — we have a high and young population, many of those aged people in Europe, Japan, etc. would be feeble or dead by now without the Filipino healthcare professionals assisting them. But the government and the bleeding hearts say that high population is wrong and hence, government-sponsored population control should proceed.

It would have been different if population control is done by civil society and individuals themselves — they buy those condoms, pills and injectibles themselves and distribute for free to the poor, put their money where their mouth is. But they did not. They went for national coercion and legislation, so that even people who do not believe their “bright idea” are now forced to finance their actually stupid idea.

Another friend noted that there are plenty of “jologs” among the poor, they just multiply fast then ask the government to take care of their kids. There is some truth to this, and many NGOs and the foreign aid/consultancy establishments hype up the problem, to get more public funding for their various “save the poor” contracts and projects.

But it is also true that many of the poor want to stand on their own and do not want to run to government and politicians whenever possible as they are simply being used by many corrupt politicians. Problem is that government gives them various bureaucracies if they start some micro entrepreneurship projects, so they go for unregistered, informal businesses, and are subject to harassment and extortion by the barangay, the police, and/or city hall bureaucrats.

There are more jologs in government than in the private sector. The most opportunistic, the shrewd and cunning among the population, are always attracted to politics and government. The honest ones do not need politics nor government position to help others, or to create jobs for other people.

One indicator if an idea is bright or stupid, is if it requires new legislation and coercion. If it does, then 90-100% it is a bad or even stupid idea.

For instance, some people want to help the poor have more food, so they simply develop their farms, or they put up carinderia and other cheap sources of food. They did not require a single lobbying, a single peso of tax money, to help the poor. This is one example of a good idea. In contrast, the RH law is an example of a bad idea.

----------------

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Population Control 16: RH Bill as HR, Coercion as Choice

The Reproductive Health (RH) bill as a human right (RH) was passed on second reading at the House of Representatives early this morning. It was a close fight and debate, 113 Yes and 104 No. I did not expect that. I thought that it would be something like 150+ Yes and 60+ No, or other overwhelming figures in favor of Yes to RH bill. What happened?

Nonetheless, here are my pieces of small debates in facebook recently:

A friend Louie Montemar posted, "Ayon sa aking isang maaasahang Oracle, papasa ang RH Bill na yan. Manalig kayo mga kasama! :)"

I replied,
Ako rin, kumbinsido magiging batas yan. Sa dami ng Pilipino na ang pag iisip eh, bawat kembot ng buhay, ke lapis or libro or condoms man yan, dapat may gobyerno, magiging batas talaga yan. May momentum na ang pro-BIG government. Ke libro or medicines, kalsada, trains, ospital, condoms or pills, gobyerno dapat. Kaya puro tax-tax-tax, fees-fees-fees tayo nyan, sa dami ng mga nakatunganga kakahintay kung ano iaabot ng gobyerno sa kanila ng libre.

Pero madi-disappoint din yong maraming nakatunganga. Kasi bago dumating sa kanila ang daming hingi nila na libre, syempre dadaan muna sa milya-milyang burukrasya. From Congress to DOH and DepEd to LGUs to rural govt clinics bago dumating sa mga tao. Sa sweldo, meetings and junkets pa lang, di pa kasama nakaw at korupsyon, konti na lang matitira sa mga nakatunganga.

Then Ador replied,
Wow, never thought I would encounter a GOP/Tea-Party-ish anti-big-government argument. Here's a basic arithmetic question: What is more expensive? Spending on a pad of pills or raising a baby? A pack of condoms or lifetime HIV (hepa-B,herpes, etc.) treatment? Educating a couple about natural and/or artificial family planning methods or educating, feeding, treating, and supporting the welfare of additional children beyond their means?

And I replied back,
Wow, raising a baby like all of us once is now an "expensive" undertaking and by implicatiom, a liability. People are liabilities? Incl yourselves? thats news. In my book the real liabilities are thieves and plunderers, killers and rapists, kidnappers and carnappers, both in the private and government sectors. Government should go after these criminals,that's what our taxes are meant for, not to demonize new babies who will become the future workers , entrepreneurs, teachers, bus drivers, nurses, etc.

There is prevalent or dominant thinking that government is the only entity that can expand choice for couples, no one else, so everyone, whether they like it or not, should send more money to the government. This is pro-choice, cool.

That "RH is pro choice" argument is simplistic. Here's why.

a. Government to create more state universities in Metro Manila or in other provinces, funded by taxes of course. Then government will say, "It's up to students and their parents whether they will enroll in those new state universities or not, they are not coerced to do so. We are only expanding their choices in university education."

b. Government to put up a new bus corporation or a jeepney corporation or taxi corporation and offer rides at subsidized fares then declare, "It's up to passengers whether they will ride those government buses, jeepneys or taxis or not, they are not coerced to do so. We are only expanding passengers' choices."

And many other possible cases where government will provide a product or service at low or zero cost to the public and say that government is "expanding choices" for the public. Cool. People will grab freebies, no need to conduct a survey for that. But the only people who have zero choice, nada, zero, are the taxpayers, especially in the private sector, the fixed income earners. So, say that again: government is expanding choices to the people?

Anoter friend, Karla Montemayor of Akbayan posted,
Ayaw niyo ng contraception, huwag niyong gamitin! Pero wala kayong pakialam at poder sa katawan at buhay ng mga Pinoy.

My reply,
Eto rin. Kung gusto nyo mamudmod ng condpms and pills, bumili kayo. Bakit pati bulsa ng mga ayaw, gusto nyo lusubin? Bakit sila gawad kalinga, gusto nila build houses for the poor, e di naman humingi ng GK bill as precondition? Bakit kailangan sumipsip sa state coercion mga civil society?

Lovers of more government think that reproductive health or public health in general should be government responsibility and should not be dependent on charity or volunteerism. That's their disease, deep distrust in civil society volunteerism and high trust of government coercion, yet call themselves as civil society leaders, whew.

The DOH is actually spending a lot on RH ever since. In the DOH 2013 budget for instance, it has alloted P2.54 billion for various RH services, P539 M of which are just for pills, DMPA vials, IUD, etc. The DOH has enough leeway to spend on these things even without the RH bill.

I also think that there is over-spending in public health already. If you combine health spending of DOH + PhilHealth + LGUs + other national government agencies (UP Philippine General Hospital AFP hospital, PNP hospital, Veterans hosp, health clinics in almost all agencies) + PCSO + medical missions by other agencies, government funding is already big and not just 3+ percent of GDP, which I think refers only to DOH budget. UP PGH budget, about P1+ billion a year, is charged to UP budget, not DOH budget. The same for AFP hospital, PMA hospital in baguio, etc. which are charged to DND budget, PNP hospital charged to DILG budget, LGUs hospitals. Manila City govt alone runs about 7 hospitals. I read that there are about 618 government hospitals nationwide. These are not enough, all of them incl. DOH have little or no RH services to the poor, so there should be another legislation for more RH spending, cool.

Anyway, panalo na ang pro state coercion, as expected. Lahat gobyerno kung pwede lang. Ngayon kapag sila ay aangal sa more taxes (cell phone text tax is already waiting after the sin tax hike), more government fees, there should be something wrong with them. Government has no money of its own except what it takes by force from the productive sectors of society.

So, sige lang, gastos lang ng gastos. Where to find the money to cover for the ever-rising public debt, bahala na si Batman.

Meanwhile in the Senate, I think it will also be passed there and soon, bicameral conference committee meetings will be held to produce an RH law. One downside for the pro-RH camp is that some rigid provisions like mandatory sex education from Grade 5 to high school, mandatory pro-bono services for all OB professionals, something like at least 48 hours a year, and mandatory RH services for pregnant personnel in private companies, have been removed or will be removed. I think this is a good compromise, somehow.

So a new RH law will simply be formalizing and expanding what the DOH, PhilHealth, LGUs and other government agencies are already doing anyway. .
------------

See also:
Population Control 11: Church Coercion vs. State Coercion, August 12, 2012
Population Control 12: RH Bill will Become a Law, August 17, 2012
Population Control 13: Excess People are Liabilities kuno, August 25, 2012
Population Control 14: Lessons from the Cybercrime Law, October 08, 2012
Population Control 15: Debate, Debate, on the RH Bill, December 03, 2012

Government and Taxes

About Me