i pay 10$ and i'm connected through LAN with my ISP (like most users in big cities)

the difference in internet plans is set only by external bandwidth:
Silver - metropolitan: 100 Mbps, external: 10 Mbps, 10$
Gold - metropolitan: 100 Mbps, external: 15 Mbps, 14$
Platinum - metropolitan: 100 Mbps, external: 20 Mbps, 24$
Extra - metropolitan: 100 Mbps, external: 30 Mbps, 40$

http://ilink.ro/rezidential/internet.html

* > USA

Internet is per definition "external". You have 10mbit, not 100.

maybe, but inside my country i get up to 10 MB/s.. so i'm covered for heavy downloading

also forgot to mention ISPs here host torrent trackers for their customers.. mwhahahaha ^___^

All these facts may be true, but you live in fucking Romania.

The end.

at least Romania is a real country in the middle of Europe, rather than nowhere

middle of Europe?

so I guess Mongolia is the border?

"Romania is a country located in South-East Central Europe.."
calling it Central was more of a gross exaggeration on the North/South axis..

but i dunno what self-centered geography are teaching you in Germany..

only because people copy and paste the same sentence into every single travelblog does not make it true ;)

but I just checked and wiki admits that sometimes Central Europe may include Romania. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Europe

But then again you are not part of the CET ;)




Also, Germany was always biggest, best and most central of everything :<

Europe borders are pretty shady with dozens of classifications :)

i wonder how people of Georgia must feel? :D

They have lots of peaches.

east of germany = eastern europe

hinter Helmstedt beginnt die Steinzeit

xD

Hinter Huchting ist ein Graben
Der ist weder breit noch tief

Song: 'Delmenhorst', Band: 'Element of Crime'

Written especially for becks?

yes, I hear they are huge fans

Some people feed their pets. Some their illusions.

and some their ego?

Some?

stop speaking "nazi"

The nazis are not too happy about those quotation marks

I wouldn't call dog shit a country. Soz m8.

shit country stopped teaching evolution etc

some US ISPs also have caps

and most have throttling, lulz

internet on my cellphone is almost better than their plans

Only recently have they tried bandwidth caps out, and they've already abandoned them due to complaints.

can only think of time warner abandoning it (for now)

Who else? Pretty sure comcast didn't and I know charter didn't.

http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2008/08/it...ober-1.ars

fail.

Also, USA uses some weird routing if you consider it for ping, could have been much better.

its generally pretty well in localized areas (e.g. west coast, east coast, chi, tx) but the large distances just kill ping from say east to west

Things are indeed fine localized.

While I was in the states it was the routing between east-central, east-west etc that I checked out, it would go between major hubs instead of a more direct routing which added a great deal of distance, significantly increasing ping.

ya good examples would be places in the inland northwest going to seattle and then to chicago and other weird stuff. lots of people just dont seem to realize how big the us actually is and between the west coast and east coast there arent many major population centers (particularly past the mississippi river). you have chi, denver, and dfw for most of the routing

still pisses all over the uk internet =)

I just want more upload speed tbh.

20 mbs does me fine, but the .7 MB/s upload is a bottleneck and does not seem to be scaling with the download speeds that are being offered.

stop torrenting pirate!

I'm in Louisiana.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/414318182.png

This costs 40 bucks a month.

so it's like sweden except 1/5th the upload and 10 times the ping!!!

It's 300 miles away.... Is ANYTHING 300 miles away in Sweden?

edit: I'm not saying my internet is anywhere near Sweden quality. I know all too well, I'm in the business. I'm just saying, it's a decent connection by North American standards.

sweden is a bit larger than california :)

It's 1000 miles from north to south.

sweden obviously got it all wrong, bloody communists.


free ze markets!

Nah, let's just dig into your pockets and spend it on commodities that aren't acute necessities to anyone. Want food, healthcare, security? Fuck that, everybody has to be able to download porn 100x faster!

[-]

...because?

Actually it is the socalistic countries who pay the most of their connections - because the government forces people to pay more of their bandwith than they are willing to, the outcome being market being divided ineffectively.

Obviously you don't think swedish government can go to ask the magic fibre fairy to summon them the connections, they have to take the costs from somewhere. The article conceals the true costs, which are multimillions, if not billions. What if you don't need bunch of expensive wire routed to you?

Why can't the government subsidise the people directly with money transfers and let them decide for themselves, whether they want to spend it on broadband, hip surgery, violent korean tentacleporn or mortgage? Or atleast use some service bill kind of solution?

It makes far more sense for the government to own and develop infrastructure and then to lease out the usage of it.

It doesn't.

Yeah lets have every company who wants to provide fibre dig up the country to put in their own lines.

And a private organization cannot lease their fibre because...? Are you able to postulate real arguments or will this be just you making statements you pulled out of your ass?

So your solution is to force companies to lease their fibre to other companies?

Why would it be? For example my connection is built by one company, and leased to another. What is the point of company keeping unused bandwith instead of selling it? Even if your connection would be only one company's monopoly, the company has to set the price into a level, which is the optimum a customer from that area is willing to pay in order to get the most profit.

Markets will direct the company also to allocate their resources effectively, because there is no point of building expensive million euros infastructure to one customer that isn't willing to pay anything, like one grandma in a shack. In reality, where would the fibre connections dug be set into a number of 1<? I would say even 0 is more truthful, because of low demand compared to true costs.

High speed fibre connection and the infastructure involved are involved in competition. They compete against adsl(copper), cable, satellite, dial-up and in the future against the other technologies developed by private sector. The government only distorts this competition and slows down the progress in long run because the companies are prone to use the solutions handed over by the government instead of finding truly the most cost-effective solutions.

There is no incentive for a company with a monopoly on important infrastructure to lease it out to other companies. The amount of spare bandwidth they have is an indicator of how many customers can afford or want the product. The remainder isn't worth going after, least of all for another company who will have to pay an expensive price to lease of the company with a monopoly.

BT own all the phone lines in the UK, they have to be forced to lease it out and they aren't allowed to offer services at as cheap a price. They have no incentive to upgrade to fibre quickly, as all the money they put into it will just result in other companies getting free fibre and cheaper prices for consumers.

They have one real competitor, Virgin, who own their own cable line network and are the only cable company. Unlike BT they are under no obligation to lease off their lines and they don't, even when they have spare bandwidth.

Pricing and service quality for both are poor at best.

Most old technologies cannot be considered true competition as they are either totally redundant (56k, ISDN), or are only still in use as they are yet to be replaced by the new technology. It's waste having both coper wire networks and fibre networks just to create competition.

Much of the new important technologies are actually heavily publicly funded, rarely does the private sector produce totally new technologies without any public funding.

I just don't get it if you're so unhappy with the situation and know for a fact that there is a high demand but low supply for fibre connections and profits to be made, why don't you or someone else take the idea and make yourself a millionaire?

Much of the new important technologies are actually heavily publicly funded, rarely does the private sector produce totally new technologies without any public funding.

This is just a complete lie.

It's not a complete lie by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of money goes from the public to private sector in order to fund research projects et cetera which leads to the development of new technologies.

I think you'll find people aren't just allowed to dig up the streets and install fibre optics, it's also extremely expensive to do so which is entirely why it should be public funded.

The population easily benefits and it makes the whole thing relatively cost effective while ensuring public benefit.

And where exactly does the costs disappear if you publicly build the infastructure? Again you're going for the magic fibre fairy?

In your banal rhetorics the idea of cost-effectivity seems to be taking the bill and making someone else pay it or taking future debt. In a nutshell you're just hiding the costs from the public and making decisions without asking their permission.

I still don't understand by what right do you decide that the entire United Kingdom has to pay for it, even though it isn't a primary need nor are they willing to pay the price in freemarkets.

It's not a complete lie by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of money goes from the public to private sector in order to fund research projects et cetera which leads to the development of new technologies.

Yes, it is. I love it how that's the only guarantee you need in order to say that: "Much of the new important technologies are actually heavily publicly funded, rarely does the private sector produce totally new technologies without any public funding" ?

Which makes it seem as there would be massive presence of public funds in every invention ever created with companies just taking the profits; when the reality is the exact opposite.

I didn't say the costs disappear, where did you get that idea from?

The costs are not hidden at all, everyone understands the concept that publicly funded projects are publicly funded.

The public own the land that is required to be accessed for installation, therefore no rights or planning permission must be gained by any outside organisation in order to carry out this work (Time and money saved).

You can then go two ways, public run in which case all money received should go towards maintaining the system and covering the costs of running. Alternatively it can be leased out to private companies who then compete through low prices and quality of service only because they are on an equal platform.

All Public profit should go to clearing national debt and lowering costs/tax elsewhere.

In your banal rhetoric the idea of cost effecivity is for someone else to pickup the bill then everyone pay for it anyway, but with less competition and on unequal platforms (High costs, worse service).

The permission to make those decisions is given by the public through elections, the public nominate who they want to make decisions on their behalf based on their manifestos. The public are willing to pay for it in a free market, the public sector is just acting as a player in that market.

If by primary needs you mean in order to survive, then you are right it isn't a primary need. However in that case, technologically advanced infrastructure is up there with Health case and Education in importance (But as we can see, you don't value education or health care for everyone anyway).

Scandinavia wouldn't have such a good reputation throughout the world for standard of living if it wasn't for public spending and it certainly wouldn't have such good infrastructure.

In your banal rhetoric the idea of cost effecivity is for someone else to pickup the bill then everyone pay for it anyway, but with less competition and on unequal platforms (High costs, worse service).

The permission to make those decisions is given by the public through elections, the public nominate who they want to make decisions on their behalf based on their manifestos. The public are willing to pay for it in a free market, the public sector is just acting as a player in that market.

If by primary needs you mean in order to survive, then you are right it isn't a primary need. However in that case, technologically advanced infrastructure is up there with Health case and Education in importance (But as we can see, you don't value education or health care for everyone anyway).

I don't get the first paragraph. Can I have it with a tiny bit of sense?

There is no such thing as public sector acting as a player in the market. Public can't act without distorting the market, because there is no competing fairly against the government.

It is you that don't value education or healthcare, if you would rather spend it on 100 mbit fibres. Only thing I'm offering to people is freedom to choose instead of government tyranny.

Your boring old idea of cost effective is that the private sector picks up the bill and then everyone ends up paying for it anyway (which can get quite costly per person in some instances). The problem with it is, for large scale industries and infrastructure the market becomes dominated by one or two players on a totally unequal footing to the rest (See BT and Virgin for internet providers in the UK).

The public sector can act as a player without distorting the market. The market isn't the be all and end all of economics anyway, it certainly hasn't proven itself to be perfect by any means.

100mbit fibres will benefit education and health care as well as all sorts of other industries which is why infrastructure is an area where the public should have ownership.

The government isn't tyrannical. I agree that governments do seem to want to control too much but providing Education, Healthcase and Infrastructure is exactly where it should be using its power as the benefits of these are truely beneficial for everyone.

A 100mbit line is not waste in comparison to the sums spent on the military for example.

Your boring old idea of cost effective is that the private sector picks up the bill and then everyone ends up paying for it anyway (which can get quite costly per person in some instances). The problem with it is, for large scale industries and infrastructure the market becomes dominated by one or two players on a totally unequal footing to the rest (See BT and Virgin for internet providers in the UK).

Yeah surely independent freedom to decide from one's economic choices is "old and boring" compared to the new and refreshing civil servants decide for you, whether you like it or not.

The public sector can act as a player without distorting the market. The market isn't the be all and end all of economics anyway, it certainly hasn't proven itself to be perfect by any means.

It cannot. This whole paragraph doesn't really strike me as a writing of someone who is in touch with the subject. It's just stupid.

The government isn't tyrannical. I agree that governments do seem to want to control too much but providing Education, Healthcase and Infrastructure is exactly where it should be using its power as the benefits of these are truely beneficial for everyone.

But this is not what you're debating. You're debating whether everybody including those, who don't use 100 mbit connections, should pay the infastructure for everybody who do, so you would benefit and get your slice of their pie. I actually would be surprised if education and healthcare doesn't already have 100 mbit or similar fast connections. They do here. And if they don't, why can't that be addressed in their economic frames?

Your opinions on this matter are no more original or fresh than my opinions so stop with that ludcirous notion.

That is what I'm debating, yes I do believe that everybody should pay for the infrastructure including those who don't use 100mbit connections. Because even if they don't directly use a 100mbit connection they indirectly benefit from it.

Imagine you have two cities one in the south of a country and one in the north, if a train line is built between the two, the citizens of both cities benefit regardless if they ever use the train line to travel to the other city because the economic impact it has in increasing trade and communication speeds up development of all sorts of things.

Having a high speed information network is an important development for any nation, it benefits everyone, even those who do not wish to use it and therefore the public should fund and own the network.

In the same way, everyone benefits from public education, health, transport and infrastructure even those who never use such things. That is why these are the things heavily funded by the public and why things such as the retail aren't.

That is what I'm debating, yes I do believe that everybody should pay for the infrastructure including those who don't use 100mbit connections. Because even if they don't directly use a 100mbit connection they indirectly benefit from it.

Imagine you have two cities one in the south of a country and one in the north, if a train line is built between the two, the citizens of both cities benefit regardless if they ever use the train line to travel to the other city because the economic impact it has in increasing trade and communication speeds up development of all sorts of things.

Having a high speed information network is an important development for any nation, it benefits everyone, even those who do not wish to use it and therefore the public should fund and own the network.

In the same way, everyone benefits from public education, health, transport and infrastructure even those who never use such things. That is why these are the things heavily funded by the public and why things such as the retail aren't.

And I say that everybody who lives in real world instead of your imaginationland knows that it doesn't benefit you one bit unless you get one of those connections yourself. Goverment already carries their own connections, which do the specialized job.

Ferris wheels benefit everyone, but everyone knows that it would be retarded to take people's money and build ferris wheels everywhere. That's why you need to prioritize or let people decide for themselves which commodities they need. Obviously high speed connections for the regular people are in the bottom of that list.

I think you would make an excellent civil servant for government.

a) You know better than the people themselves what they want
b) You are ready to spend other people's money without expecting actual results
c) You live in an imaginationland instead of real world

You're starting to clutch at straws here due to your inability to see the wood for the trees. Your Ferris Wheel example is just hopeless.

I've never stated that high speed internet infrastructure was the priority of government, just that it was a highly important service that should be built and owned by the public.

Maybe you should provide this list of yours so we can see what you consider most important?

I don't recall anyone claiming that money should be spent without expecting actual results. I guess I'll just put this down to your baseless belief that the state cannot possibly provide good results but the private sector always can.

Just so you know, Civil Servants don't really make decisions on things, they simply implement government policy.

I've never stated that high speed internet infrastructure was the priority of government, just that it was a highly important service that should be built and owned by the public.

Here's how it went:

- First you lied or assumed that government needed them, but I corrected you.

- You chanted the same mantra about it being a high priority, but you cannot name a group whose high priority it is. Which makes me wonder if it really is on anyone's high priority list rather than only yours and you just assume it for everybody else.

Maybe you should provide this list of yours so we can see what you consider most important?

I'm listing the ones which are in dire need of money right now

Healthcare: Nurses, Youth mental healthcare, pedagogic administration, and increased need for all of the services because living standard diseases are increasing. The lines are long and the staff underpaid. People don't give a shit about their health yet it's everybody who pays the alternative costs.

Court of law: Again, "Everything". The lines are long and there's a lack of civil lawyers for the accused. (I don't believe the court of law should be privatized, I wouldn't know how for one)

Police: We need more squad cars & field cops. The alarm services can't really do anything. Imo this is partially government inefficiency, but there's too many fat ass morons doing nothing in the administration when they should be in the field. Less white collar cops, more blue collar.

Energy: I would rather have us build alternative energy, there's no point in having high bandwith if there's no electricity. We are heading for an energy crisis and peak oil. If I would make a government program, this would be imo ten times better investment than high fibres. The need is more or less infinite and the unused energy can be contained and sold.

I don't recall anyone claiming that money should be spent without expecting actual results. I guess I'll just put this down to your baseless belief that the state cannot possibly provide good results but the private sector always can.

You seem to never claim anything after that I have a taken an example of it in the real world and shown that it doesn't work.

Just so you know, Civil Servants don't really make decisions on things, they simply implement government policy.

And implementing government policy doesn't involve decisionmaking? What does the government consists of, if not civil servants? Durrrr.

I didn't lie about anything, I'm fine with you saying I assumed, but your position is just as much assumed as mine is. We've both claimed plenty of things, just you keep believing I've claimed things which I haven't and then proceed to correct me without any real world examples (Or was that Ferris Wheel a real world example?).

I didn't say that the public should pay for anything and not expect to see results or value for money, that is your invention based on your belief that the government doesn't ever get results.

It is of high importance to the whole country, from any branch of government (Including health/education et cetera) to all sorts of different industries most important of all being the technology, retail and services industries which is where most people are employed in most "advanced" nations and it also benefits small businesses and the general population.

So where did I say that it is more important than any of those things?

I agree that all the things you listed are important and require public investment but you can't just focus all the money on those things and neglect other things totally.

The implementation of government policy involves very minor decision making, since civil servants aren't elected they are not at liberty to make any big decisions. The government consists of Members of Parliament and Lords in the UK, then civil servants work on implementing government policy.

I didn't say that the public should pay for anything and not expect to see results or value for money, that is your invention based on your belief that the government doesn't ever get results.

Then will you for the love of god tell us what is that you claim?

It is of high importance to the whole country, from any branch of government (Including health/education et cetera) to all sorts of different industries most important of all being the technology, retail and services industries which is where most people are employed in most "advanced" nations and it also benefits small businesses and the general population.

My ferris wheel example was because of this rhetorics. You can justify absolutely anything by saying somebody needs it. But the fact is that there are alternative costs to things, which I've been trying to tell you the whole time. If you invest in high speed connections for regular people, then the alternative cost is that someone leaves without a hip surgery, someone has to wait in line, or someone gets mugged to death because there is no police.

I agree that all the things you listed are important and require public investment but you can't just focus all the money on those things and neglect other things totally.

If you invest in lesser things, then you neglect the important things. We have to rationalize someway, therefore the ferris wheel example. Are you really that stupid that you don't understand the basic principle of priorization and alternative costs, even after I've already said the same thing over and over again?

The implementation of government policy involves very minor decision making, since civil servants aren't elected they are not at liberty to make any big decisions. The government consists of Members of Parliament and Lords in the UK, then civil servants work on implementing government policy.

You can just say that I was right, and you were wrong.

The reason why you don't understand here is that I didn't even mention expectation of results or value for money in anything I have said (Until you decided I had said so) due to it being a rather obvious expectation to have.

I believe that the public should expect both good results and value for money for all publicly financed projects/services.

Your Ferris Wheel example doesn't work. If I don't use the Ferris Wheel then there is no benefit to me at all (directly or indirectly), but with a road for example I do benefit from it even if it is indirectly (Same goes for an educated, healthy population and for digital infrastructure).

You can't focus your entire public spending into just a select few sectors and not provide any investment in others. Your emotional appeal while touching doesn't work as an argument against mine since I am not saying that digital communications infrastructure should be financed to the detriment of those things.

So far you've failed to provide any arguments for why it would be beneficial for private companies to have ownership over digital communications infrastructure. Just that you don't want to have to pay for it.

The reason why you don't understand here is that I didn't even mention expectation of results or value for money in anything I have said (Until you decided I had said so) due to it being a rather obvious expectation to have.

I believe that the public should expect both good results and value for money for all publicly financed projects/services.

And how does that work in the free world? You can chant that as many times you want, it doesn't mean it will come true. I can say that I am expecting you to be smart but obviously that isn't working. Your imaginationland and reality, two different places.

Your Ferris Wheel example doesn't work. If I don't use the Ferris Wheel then there is no benefit to me at all (directly or indirectly), but with a road for example I do benefit from it even if it is indirectly (Same goes for an educated, healthy population and for digital infrastructure).

Yes it does. 100 mbit connection doesn't help that grandma in a shack everywhere else except your imaginationland. You saying it does only tells us that you're delusional. Your rhetorics are as far away from real world as the ferris wheel example. Which was the whole point of the example.

I can say that ferris wheels will benefit construction firms, schools, children, and children's happiness will reduce the stress of their parents. They are important part of children's growth and will make them more wellbeing adults.

You can't focus your entire public spending into just a select few sectors and not provide any investment in others. Your emotional appeal while touching doesn't work as an argument against mine since I am not saying that digital communications infrastructure should be financed to the detriment of those things.

Why can't you? Alternative costs and prioritization aren't emotional appeal, they are basic economics. If you interpret them as 'emotional appeal', that only tells us that you are uneducated and stupid, not that you're right.

So far you've failed to provide any arguments for why it would be beneficial for private companies to have ownership over digital communications infrastructure. Just that you don't want to have to pay for it.

Because it is a secondary need and a personal choice and there are better ways to spend the money in public sector. You cannot tax people infinitely, therefore you need to prioritize. I don't understand how this concept is so hard for you.

It works by the public expecting good results and value for money from publicly financed projects, products and services. You're making the assumption that it is impossible for this to be true.

When I said "emotional appeal" I was clearly talking about your ramblings about hip surgery and theft/manslaughter and not alternative costs and prioritization.

The reason you can't just ignore things like digital communication infrastructure is because it is important for economic growth of the whole nation and of the majority of industries.

The most important thing is that it is publicly owned and developed on public terms, if finance is provided by the private sector then so be it.

It isn't just a secondary need, it's an important technological step for the economy. A Ferris Wheel is just a secondary need as it has limited impact on the economy as it doesn't even act as a stimulus.

In the more remote places, it's impractical to provide the infrastructure so they are unlikely to be taxed anyway (Region based taxes) or a tax break could be provided for those who can clearly show it's of no benefit to them.

There's one response to something that I didn't attach as reply on the bottom of the thread

It works by the public expecting good results and value for money from publicly financed projects, products and services. You're making the assumption that it is impossible for this to be true.

No, I'm making the real life observation that it's a waste of money and the results are poor at best, also there being a much better way to do it.

There's no way public can realistically influence publicly funded university or corporation research even if they wanted to. If I take your money and invest it, what are your options if I've already spent it? To expect results in this case is rather a reaction to already happened than an incentive in order for something to happen.

You can also answer the question why cannot the people invest in the projects they want freely, perhaps in the stockmarket?

When I said "emotional appeal" I was clearly talking about your ramblings about hip surgery and theft/manslaughter and not alternative costs and prioritization.

Which was an example of alternative costs and prioritization. If I choose an example of prioritization, to me it's 'common sense' rather than 'emotional appeal' for it to be from something important, not mundane.

The reason you can't just ignore things like digital communication infrastructure is because it is important for economic growth of the whole nation and of the majority of industries.

It isn't just a secondary need, it's an important technological step for the economy. A Ferris Wheel is just a secondary need as it has limited impact on the economy as it doesn't even act as a stimulus.

As a claim, the majority of England's industry being located in internet-transmitted services that will benefit greatly from people's ability to receive digital information over the speeds of current broadband, sounds not very realistic.

- Can you walk us through how the fibre connections will be an important part of economic growth of majority of industries? By all means you can use Sweden as an example.

- What is so special about this step when we have steadily improved our networking over around twenty years that internet has been consisted?

- Did you make this argument when we stepped from dial-up to broadband?

In the more remote places, it's impractical to provide the infrastructure so they are unlikely to be taxed anyway (Region based taxes) or a tax break could be provided for those who can clearly show it's of no benefit to them.

I'm totally fine with it, If you tax only those who want a connection and are willing to pay the price.

I'll make the real life observation that there is a lot of money wasted with very poor results on all the privatised industries in the UK.

Funding for research would see a dramatic decline if there was none provided by the government.

You can argue about those things without the need for such drastic examples, why did it have to be a mugging and a murder if not for the dramatic emotional aspect of the argument?

- Why don't you go and ask a bank or a big company if they could continue to grow or even run with a 56k connection.

- Who has provided this steady improvement of networking?

- Were you arguing how great Milton Friedman's views on economics was when you were a kid?

Scandinavia wouldn't have such a good reputation throughout the world for standard of living if it wasn't for public spending and it certainly wouldn't have such good infrastructure.

Scandinavia would be on the top with Canada, Ireland and likes if we would be more liberal(European meaning). Our wealth was generated before 70's reforms, and because of those reforms we only have few giant companies which we smooch on. All the reforms did was slow down the progress and increase the gap between rich and the poor, creating incentive traps while taxing labour and workers to death.

The buying power of educated people in Scandinavia is amongst Europe's lowest. Our salaries are small, and the taxes are high. We are doing good despite of socialism, not because of it. I will predict that Sweden and Finland will sink lower in the 'best places to live' where as Estonia will climb to the top because of their liberalism reforms. Just watch.

Please provide me with evidence that the wealth of Scandinavia (Not that wealth is the be all of quality standard of living) was generated before the 70s reforms as this claim just seems stupid to me when as far as I can tell the economies of Scandinavia have always grown from year to year.

Do you really expect a group of countries with relatively low populations to produce lots of giant companies or have economies that can rival countries with much bigger populations (Without the insane natural resources of some countries)?

Slow down the progress of what? Having quality public services which are the envy of the majority of the world? Having some of the best standards of living, education and life expectancy in the world?

The gap between the rich and poor will always increase unless you tax the rich only and not the poor.

As for Estonia, well we'll just have to wait and see but what exactly are these reforms they have made?

Please provide me with evidence that the wealth of Scandinavia (Not that wealth is the be all of quality standard of living) was generated before the 70s reforms as this claim just seems stupid to me when as far as I can tell the economies of Scandinavia have always grown from year to year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbTEzhaXZ3w&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ2t7xFdDoA&feature=related

"The post-war boom propelled Sweden to greater economic prosperity, putting the country in third place in per capita GDP rankings by 1970." - Wikipedia.

I read this first from my economics book in university though, and the same thing applied to Finland. The standard of living also raised in North Korea, Soviet republic every year. I can't help it if you're stupid enough to say that it must be because of good public policy rather than raise of productivity that has absolutely nothing to do with what government fucked around.

Do you really expect a group of countries with relatively low populations to produce lots of giant companies or have economies that can rival countries with much bigger populations (Without the insane natural resources of some countries)?

The most prosperous countries GDP has a lot of smaller countries in it. THe prosperity and the percentage of enterprise does not correlate with amount of population. All the countries that have been climbed up have been introduced libertarian policies, like Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland and Australia.

Slow down the progress of what? Having quality public services which are the envy of the majority of the world? Having some of the best standards of living, education and life expectancy in the world?

All of these are funded off our economic increase that has been occuring despite of our government policy, not because of it. The only difference is that we get much less back than we produce. The standard of living, education and life expectancy of Finland could be the best in the world if we just used the money more effectively.

The gap between the rich and poor will always increase unless you tax the rich only and not the poor.

Sounds reasonable, but that's exactly the opposite what ie. we are doing. We tax labour and not the enterprises, making the gap bigger. Denmark I believe is an exception.

As for Estonia, well we'll just have to wait and see but what exactly are these reforms they have made?

They have introduced flat tax and basically the PM has used Milton Friedman's teachings as a guidance in their public policy.

You've got all muddled up with what I'm actually arguing.

I'm not arguing against liberal economics, for unfair tax systems or waste of that money and I certainly don't want more state control.

I just believe that it is important that the public should own (Not even necessarily finance or run) certain services and infrastructure. This includes health care, education, energy, legal institutions and infrastructure (Both transport and communication).

I just felt saying that Scandinavia was essentially living off pre-1970 wealth was stupid as it implies that the area hasn't been making anymore wealth which isn't true.

I didn't mean to imply that the economies can't be successful just that you can't expect them to be as big in terms of scale with lots of big companies and the like.

While I don't know a lot about the other three, Irelands economy isn't as great as it seems. It's very reliant on foreign investment (Mostly from the USA and UK) and it was heavily exposed to the construction industry and as a result was the first EU country to enter recession. It's also benefitted greatly from exploiting the EU.

You say it's despite government policy, others will say it's due to reform and for all we know the economy could have collapsed without timely reform. I don't really have an opinion on that, I think both systems work and both have major problems.

Estonia financed its digital communications infrastructure (Which is very important to its economy) through public finance (Tiigrihüpe).

You've got all muddled up with what I'm actually arguing.

Yes because you don't take any responsibility or stance, only express myths in open questions and make me correct them for you so you can say step back and change your position.

I'm not arguing against liberal economics, for unfair tax systems or waste of that money and I certainly don't want more state control.

...it is just the outcome of your policies? It doesn't matter what you want in the drawing board, what happens in reality is what matters.

I just believe that it is important that the public should own (Not even necessarily finance or run) certain services and infrastructure. This includes health care, education, energy, legal institutions and infrastructure (Both transport and communication).

Even if they should own they should be prioritized, I gave you many examples of how to slice the pie so it goes more effectively to basic needs.

I just felt saying that Scandinavia was essentially living off pre-1970 wealth was stupid as it implies that the area hasn't been making anymore wealth which isn't true.

What you generally wanted to know is why is the living standard so good in Scandinavia, and I effectively rebuked the myth that it was because of the government. I apologize if you got the idea that no-one in this area has done anything at all ever since.

I didn't mean to imply that the economies can't be successful just that you can't expect them to be as big in terms of scale with lots of big companies and the like.

How about writing what you mean the next time.

While I don't know a lot about the other three, Irelands economy isn't as great as it seems. It's very reliant on foreign investment (Mostly from the USA and UK) and it was heavily exposed to the construction industry and as a result was the first EU country to enter recession. It's also benefitted greatly from exploiting the EU.

Refine your argument so I don't misrepresent your position. Are you arguing that Iceland would be better off without foreign investments? Atleast that's absurd.

You say it's despite government policy, others will say it's due to reform and for all we know the economy could have collapsed without timely reform. I don't really have an opinion on that, I think both systems work and both have major problems.

Who says that? The economy did collapse because of that reform and we had recessions in the 1990's. We needed to tone down the government to get out of it.

Estonia financed its digital communications infrastructure (Which is very important to its economy) through public finance (Tiigrihüpe).

On what basis it is 'very important'? Again, you've been pitching this statement all along, but I am not seeing a study where people put it before the other needs. Even you don't admit that, you just live from the idea that public sector is seemingly infinite in resources.

My position was and always has been that it is important for the public to own things such as health care, education and infrastructure and for them to be developed on the terms of the public. See the first post I made on the matter if you don't believe me.

You've not proven that inefficiency and unfair tax is the outcome of my "policies" (beliefs?). Feel free to attempt doing so though.

You haven't provided examples of how to slice the pie, you gave a list of things that you believe are more important. I'm not arguing about what is a priority and I have no intention of commenting further on that matter since it doesn't affect my position.

It's not my fault you misunderstood what I said and took it to mean I was talking about GDP when I was clearly talking about size.

Ireland is overly reliant on foreign investment and that without it, it would be a complete wreck. Obviously foreign investment is good, but if that's all you've got it only takes a small change and all that investment moves elsewhere.

The UK economy had a recession in the early 1990s and that was due to a government who increasingly privatised everything and now again, we're in a recession and the New Labour government has increasingly liberalised the markets and attempted to seek private finance et cetera.

So it's not so clear cut that the government, public funding and state control hold back the growth of the economy and standard of living.

It's not about people putting it before other needs, if you can't see the benefits of a modern advanced digital communications infrastructure to the economy then you're living in the past. I don't need a tractor, I've got a sickle!

My position was and always has been that it is important for the public to own things such as health care, education and infrastructure and for them to be developed on the terms of the public. See the first post I made on the matter if you don't believe me.

My position is that because all those things are important, that's exactly why they should absolutely NOT be in the hands of something as incompetent and careless as the government.


You've not proven that inefficiency and unfair tax is the outcome of my "policies" (beliefs?). Feel free to attempt doing so though.

Fine, you didn't design our system.

You haven't provided examples of how to slice the pie, you gave a list of things that you believe are more important. I'm not arguing about what is a priority and I have no intention of commenting further on that matter since it doesn't affect my position.

Why can't you just insert one of them into the slice that is in your pie reserved to fibre connections? The entire point of this argument is the priority. If you don't prioritize, then I don't understand on what grounds can you even debate about things. Shouldn't it be the same to you whatever happens?


It's not my fault you misunderstood what I said and took it to mean I was talking about GDP when I was clearly talking about size.

Well why would I have assumed that you would measure success that stupidly? Why would you compare entire economies in the first place to measure success?

Ireland is overly reliant on foreign investment and that without it, it would be a complete wreck. Obviously foreign investment is good, but if that's all you've got it only takes a small change and all that investment moves elsewhere.

Obviously it's still better than a complete wreck.

The UK economy had a recession in the early 1990s and that was due to a government who increasingly privatised everything and now again, we're in a recession and the New Labour government has increasingly liberalised the markets and attempted to seek private finance et cetera.

So it's not so clear cut that the government, public funding and state control hold back the growth of the economy and standard of living.

I don't believe that's a good description of what happened, but i can't really say that about mine either. The causality of depression works on much more complex and varied mechanisms than we both give out. One could debate that without liberalization the economic growth might've never even occured in that degree.

It's not about people putting it before other needs, if you can't see the benefits of a modern advanced digital communications infrastructure to the economy then you're living in the past. I don't need a tractor, I've got a sickle!

And I believed that was the entire foundation of economics, the consumer decisions of humans with infinite needs compared to finite resources to satisfy them. I see the benefits of doing it, but in a broader picture is see the greater benefits of not doing it.

"I need a tractor, therefore everybody needs a tractor. Let's buy everybody tractors!"

Some governments may be useless but it doesn't have to be that way, that is simply how it is currently.

You keep going on about priority but you've yet to use it to counter my points. I didn't make any claims that it was more important that the things you suggested or that priority should be given to it.

I wasn't talking about how successful the economies of Scandinavia were, I was talking about the size.
It was in reply to this:

Our wealth was generated before 70's reforms, and because of those reforms we only have few giant companies which we smooch on.

So I brought up the point that due to the population size it was silly to think they could be as big as countries with bigger populations and have lots of giant companies.

I was trying to "show" that Irelands economy isn't as rosey as it may look to you on paper. In the long run it may ride its luck and pull it off but at the same time it's like building a house on sand, it only takes one storm and it's all gone.

I NEVER COMMENT ON ESR.

but now i have to, because i am an Estonian. This is very off-topic, but it is seriously offensive to read a post like that.

RANT START

All the "successful statistic" in Estonia in the past 15 years in thanks to Sweden lending/giving us money, not because we are good at ANYTHING at all. And all of that money was more or less wasted anyway. But that is good, because now we are a buffer state who owe you money, instead of being another fail buffer state with no hope at all. Now when a real crisis comes, instead of the emo puny thing right now, and when Sweden sees there is no hope in getting their money back, Estonia will "happily join" the new Soviet Union! I can't see that not happening within my lifetime.

We are doing "good" despite of liberal economics, not because of it. In fact the parties who support liberal economics are not in power thanks to their economical plans, but rather, thanks to their political views of being against Russia/Soviet Union.

There is a saying spoken ever since the Soviet Union times, it goes something like this:

1. Declare war on Sweden.
2. Have Sweden send troops to Estonia.
3. Surrender
4. Live happily on

RANT OVER

IF you ever see someone saying that Estonia is a good example of liberal economics, please say to them: someone from Estonia told me on quake forums, that it is a bad example.

It's hard to take your post very seriously. How can the money be wasted away and be the root of all your unquestionable good growth at the same time?

What I said implies that the public funds new technologies heavily, which it does. I didn't say the private sector provides no finance itself and just takes the profit. I'll tone down my comment if that makes you feel better.

The public sector provides funding for a large proportion of new technologies alongside the private sector.

It is in the publics interest to help develop new technologies, be it entirely on its own or by helping the private sector.

Don't you have any problem with this? Isn't this a fine example of the poor funding the rich? By what right do they choose which to fund and which not? Nokia should be the last place where the tax euros should go in my opinion.

It's all done through research organisations/universities rather than directly giving money to companies like Nokia.

I don't have a problem with this at all, it does all benefit the poor as well as the rich, there may be some lag between when it benefits the rich and when it benefits the poor but it ultimately does do so.

And how is it better that you spend the poor people's money than they spend them for themselves? Why aren't the poor qualified to say what benefits them the most?

How realistic scenario it is that if you would give all the poor people 500e how many would go: "But hey wait, let me just invest that into couple of college students' invention or study about lesbian art"

No one. Why? Because it's retarded. Of course they would spend it on food or clothing or something more practical. You need to prioritize.

Maybe in Finland the poor have no food or clothes but pretty much everyone in the UK does.

In fact if anything the poor are worse off often due to the amount of money they spend on things they don't need relative to their incomes.

Maybe in Finland the poor have no food or clothes but pretty much everyone in the UK does.

Nice dodge. Just because the needs of the poor in your country may vary from ours, you can say for certainty that their needs are the same than yours or what you assume them to be.

In fact if anything the poor are worse off often due to the amount of money they spend on things they don't need relative to their incomes.

And again what qualifies you to dictate for others what they need?

Your view seems to be that nobody should have financial freedom, because you're the most qualified person to say for others what they value in life.

I'm not dodging anything there, obviously if the needs of the population are drastically skewed to more basic needs such as food, clothes and other basic requirements then that's where the overwhelming focus of investment should go (To enable people to meet these needs).

I was simply expressing my opinion that a great deal of poor people waste money on things that they do not need to survive (Smoking for example) which contributes to their situation, so simply saying "Let them decide" isn't exactly the best route to take as it would likely see a widening gap between rich and poor.

I have no desire to control what people spend money on except in circumstances where the product/service benefits the public as a whole (Education, Health, Infrastructure et cetera).

I think you both lost this argument

it's called economics of scale.

And why can't those who want a 100 mbit connection raise funds together and start a company or organization that provides them it? Why do I or that grandma in a shack have to pay for your connection?

mainly because they hate you.

of course it is also an attempt to reach the highest average or minimum welfare for the lowest cost.

Because, like you said, it's a multi million dollar project. The more remote places, instead of being provided with fibre can be provided with alternative technologies, such as Satellite until it becomes economical to install fibre.

There is a reason why the richest, most technoligcally advance nations are all heavily publicly funded and the poorest, least technologically advanced nations are not.

If you want to see what your country would look like without public funding, just look at Africa or what your country was like a few hundred years ago.

When you refer to the 'richest and most technologically advanced countries', are you now talking about Cuba, Former Soviet Russia, China or perhaps North Korea?

If you want to see what your country would look like with public funding, just look at Africa or what your country was like a few hundred years ago.

Hear, hear!

:D typo of course.

No, why would I be talking about them?

The key element of those systems in comparison to the ones I am blatantly talking about isn't public funding.

Besides it isn't cost effective to prodvide everything through public funding, but there are key things that work far better when they are.

Infrastructure, health care and education for example.

Actually all of those things are very ineffective to provide through public means. Government organizations have been liberated and privatized all the way to until this day in order to make them operate more effectively, because they run so ineffectively.

Everybody from say, Finland, knows how much public schools stink and how shitty public healthcare is. Because public healthcare is so ineffective the jobs I've had have had private healthcare assurance. If you live on crowded areas you may have to wait in line months even for a fucking appointment. Don't like the quality? Well, too bad.

Public college-education has effectively cast thousands of young people outside of education or jobs into outsiders. All the education is so fulfilled with applicants only a tiny fraction can get in. Usually this means the others have to wait in line and apply again. Our students start their jobs later and later.

If there was no public health care and it was all private there would be no difference in waiting in line, the only potential difference is that people can't afford to go to the doctor/hosipital to get care they need so they don't or people with more money get to skip the line. That sounds like a great system that provides for everyone who needs it in a fair and equal manner, oh wait no it doesn't it is biased against the lucky people who are rich.

Public health care is certainly not perfect and is in need of refining but private health care is not the solution.

Before public education there was private education and no education. Those who aren't educated can't get good jobs, they can't get money and they can't get education for their kids and the circle continues.

Why is it bad that more people are educated?
Public education is certainly not perfect, but neither is private education.

It's why you have both systems.

If there was no public health care and it was all private there would be no difference in waiting in line, the only potential difference is that people can't afford to go to the doctor/hosipital to get care they need so they don't or people with more money get to skip the line.

Objection! The witness contradicts himself!

That sounds like a great system that provides for everyone who needs it in a fair and equal manner, oh wait no it doesn't it is biased against the lucky people who are rich.

Public health care is certainly not perfect and is in need of refining but private health care is not the solution.

Private healthcare does not mean it cannot be available for everybody or that it has to make profit. It simply means owned by someone instead of faceless government. Government could supply bums and people with no family ties with service stamps or some insurance-kind of solution. Of course public hospitals interfere in the whole picture, by dividing resources ineffectively. Today public healthcare is up shit creek facing employment crisis, becaus they can't get anybody to work for them for the salary they offer.

Before public education there was private education and no education. Those who aren't educated can't get good jobs, they can't get money and they can't get education for their kids and the circle continues.

Why is it bad that more people are educated?
Public education is certainly not perfect, but neither is private education.

It's why you have both systems.

Didn't think your example through, did you? If all the people are educated these days, and educated people are able to supply their kids, then your imaginitive circle has already broken.

I didn't totally contradict myself but I'm sure you understood what I meant, just because it's private doesn't guarentee that lines would go down and it would be more efficient. The only definite way it would be more "efficient" would be at the cost of full and fair service for everyone.

Do you mean like the system they have in Germany(?). If so then I agree that it is a good system, however I still believe it is in the interest of the public to own the system which can be leased out and privately run. In fact, this is where everything seems to be heading in the UK now, Public ownership but run by the private sector.

The circle would still continue because the people who are in these situations can't afford private education, even if it was a lot cheaper than it is now (It's very expensive over here, £10k per term etc.). It doesn't help that these people have the most children either, but that is an other issue.

The circle would still continue because the people who are in these situations can't afford private education, even if it was a lot cheaper than it is now (It's very expensive over here, £10k per term etc.). It doesn't help that these people have the most children either, but that is an other issue.

If their parents cannot pay, I do think again one could think of sort of a 'rainyday' fund kind of solution.

HAHA, ye, private schools/hospitals/etc are there to make everything more effective, not because big businesses wants a piece of the pie. Look at private hospitals only accepting the patients that will benefit them, and private schools making every plausible cutback and so on, not to mention segregating society by, just as private dentists/hospitals only accepting the cost effective students.

Another good example of how well the private sector runs the previously public sector is the privatizing of swedens electricity, prizes has skyrocketed and service has declined.

Right now they are talking on the radio about closing a school in a socially weak part of my town, this will cause lots of problems because that school is highly active in that part of the towns community and it is a result of public schools taking students and thus funding from that school.

Of course theres always exceptions but this is how Sweden looks to me right now, and I dont think the solution is giving more control to the ever benevolent Market.

HAHA, ye, private schools/hospitals/etc are there to make everything more effective, not because big businesses wants a piece of the pie. Look at private hospitals only accepting the patients that will benefit them, and private schools making every plausible cutback and so on, not to mention segregating society by, just as private dentists/hospitals only accepting the cost effective students.

Which way should I look? Into your imagination? In Milton Friedman's presentation private can produce better education for cheaper. It also provides people with options and enables specialization. Of course there's also student loans to provide anyone with the college education they want. In Finland nearly all of those who go to college are kids of richer families, so atleast here the poor funds the rich.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxeP-krUrdU

Obviously no hospital turns people away if they're not full. Why would a hospital take your money in advance? That's absurd.
In my scenario the most unfortunate would still be able to get the better private health care, if you set up 'rainyday' fund.

The public healthcare atleast here isn't free nor does it have infinite resources, so everybody are bound to be treated in the economic frames the parliament has set. If there is more acute need for medical services in some area, or for specialized services, government cannot just build another hospital without it going long bureacratic route.

Another good example of how well the private sector runs the previously public sector is the privatizing of swedens electricity, prizes has skyrocketed and service has declined.

Err... Where's the first one? You didn't really give me an example, only descripted some situation that nowhere in the world exists.

What do you base this on? Again, I have hard time believing that the price of electricity has raised because of this. When Finland privatized, we had several companies offering us cheaper electricity. Now we even have the option to consume green electricity. Of course the price of energy has raised everywhere during the last years because of increased demand.

Right now they are talking on the radio about closing a school in a socially weak part of my town, this will cause lots of problems because that school is highly active in that part of the towns community and it is a result of public schools taking students and thus funding from that school.

And the argument would be? That public distorts the market even though there is a demand for private education, causing ineffective market situation?

Of course theres always exceptions but this is how Sweden looks to me right now, and I dont think the solution is giving more control to the ever benevolent Market.

That is precisely the answer.

Im of work in 10 min so this probably will be my last post in this matter, also I had no real intent of entering a discussion, I just thought your belief in the markets power to solve issues were laughable.

Sure private schools provide options, but like I said, I think ;) cba to reread what I wrote, they only accept the profitable students, leaving the public schools to pay for those that require more help. The same of course goes for all of the things I mentioned before. As for the hospitals/dentists, not every patient is profitable to treat, so its an easy decision to send the expensive ones to the public venue. This equals money in the private sectors pockets that couldve gone back to the tax payers, I personally dont see the benefit of such a system.

Ill agree to some extent that the poor funds the rich when it comes to education, mainly because children from academic families have such an advantage over those from poorer families, <-- this is the problem though, not that our countries offer cheap education to its citizens.

Anyway, I dont have time/and or answers for the rest, you can count it as your win if you like.

holy fucking shit, you're batshit insane

No one ever said that public healthcare should be exclusive of private healthcare. Regardless, I've heard the horror stories of month-long waits from several others, but what's funny is that those people are in the United States. If I'm going to wait for hours in the emergency room either way, I'd rather not pay for it. ;)

About public education, wouldn't it make sense to discriminate applicants based on their academic performance, and not how much cash their mommies and daddies bring in? You would end up with a much smarter educated section of society that way, rather than an elite oligarchy that's moreso based on bloodlines.

Your education idea is certainly better than only private :P

In the UK we have Private (Known as Public schools), Comprehensive (For everyone) and Grammar (For people who pass tests).

The idea was that Comprehensive schools would teach more basic skills and practical skills and Grammar would be more classicly academic.

Well yes, that's the difference between training citizens to become good workers and teaching students to think for the overall progress of the society or even for knowledge's sake. I'd say you need a little of both.

Not that I disagree with you, but to really make it about more than bloodlines (overall) you have to somehow counterweight the advantage children from academic families receives from home as opposed to those who might not think so high of the school system or of their own capabilities.

A good way would probably be to require higher education of kindergarden teachers and not allowing larger groups than around 10-14 in schools. Of course these days you dont even have to be a teacher to teach in swedish schools so spending more on the schools rather than less doesnt seem likely.

Intelligent/better-read children aren't necessarily from ivory tower families and ivory tower families don't necessarily make a lot of money (at least in the US). Regardless, if the ones that test the best happen to be from said families, then I don't see what the harm is.

I think that by accepting students based on who can pay and not who is smart is unwise for society overall. If the smart ones also happen to be rich, then so be it.

About public education, wouldn't it make sense to discriminate applicants based on their academic performance, and not how much cash their mommies and daddies bring in?

I believe there are tests to colleges and different kind of grands. If a private school takes morons like G.W. Bush, that doesn't benefit them in the long run, because at the same time that has an impact to their atmosphere, results and prestige. If a school's "worth" is measured in results for the customers, then it makes sense for school's to compete from pupils by their academic performance. If the pupil or parents doesn't have the initial money, they can take a student loan. In second grade education I believe normally a student pays it back in a year.

This doesn't mean though that corruption and bloodlines don't dictate alot in the business world or politics. Those countries where the corruption and 'bloodlines' dictate the most, are socialistic countries.

You would end up with a much smarter educated section of society that way, rather than an elite oligarchy that's moreso based on bloodlines.

No, you wouldn't, because the education doesn't provide the sufficient grounds or atmosphere for specialized needs of the students. Your first paragraph contradicts with this. If you believe that "richer" schools can provide better results, how could you possibly claim that public schools could provide better results at the same time?

If a school's "worth" is measured in results for the customers, then it makes sense for school's to compete from pupils by their academic performance. If the pupil or parents doesn't have the initial money, they can take a student loan. In second grade education I believe normally a student pays it back in a year.

Yes, but if you're arguing for the privatization of education, then it becomes foremost about selling a product and making a profit. We have loads of private colleges in the US and pretty much no one can afford them without taking out several thousand dollars in loans. Since a college degree is in such high demand (almost deemed a necessity), it has become the #1 fastest inflating product here; even faster than real estate.

Those countries where the corruption and 'bloodlines' dictate the most, are socialistic countries.

Are you sure about that? Oligarchy certainly has a massive influence in Westernized free market societies. The only difference is that it's legal here and 'hidden' over in Finland. What kind of government is that when it doesn't even try to control it? :/

No, you wouldn't, because the education doesn't provide the sufficient grounds or atmosphere for specialized needs of the students. Your first paragraph contradicts with this. If you believe that "richer" schools can provide better results, how could you possibly claim that public schools could provide better results at the same time?

How does the education not provide any of this? All I said was that if schools discriminated based on academic performance, then the outcome would be superior. What kind of "specialized needs" are you talking about?

I never said anything about "richer" schools and I wouldn't even know how to quantify that. Private schools do not necessarily produce more well-learned students. A lot of it depends on the country and how those public/private schools are run. The most elitist private secondary schools in the US could never compete with the public secondary schools in say, Sweden.

Yes, but if you're arguing for the privatization of education, then it becomes foremost about selling a product and making a profit. We have loads of private colleges in the US and pretty much no one can afford them without taking out several thousand dollars in loans. Since a college degree is in such high demand (almost deemed a necessity), it has become the #1 fastest inflating product here; even faster than real estate.

How does the education not provide any of this? All I said was that if schools discriminated based on academic performance, then the outcome would be superior. What kind of "specialized needs" are you talking about?

In Finland everybody doesn't receive a college education. Is this because we have lesser demand for it than people of USA? No. It's because the government cannot answer our demand. As I said, most of those who do receive a college education, are kids of rich parents, possibly because they have received different kind of upbringing. Obviously this is not the intention of our system, but it is the result. The outcome is that the rich benefit from the poor. Our system also spawns trends like finnish kids going to Estonia for education or intensive preparation courses provided by private companies in order to give advantage for the entrance tests.

Now you said that you would rather have a system that gives education for those, who have inherited smarts instead of wealth, and it's 'superior'. But if we would debate what's fair, shouldn't the less intellectual people actually need education the most, because they have not received the gift of wisdom by birth? Is it any more fair that someone is born Richie Rich than someone is born Ender Wiggin?

I never said anything about "richer" schools and I wouldn't even know how to quantify that. Private schools do not necessarily produce more well-learned students. A lot of it depends on the country and how those public/private schools are run.

Not in imagination world, but in real world they do. Private schools run more effectively because the management of the school has more power. This principle is widely loaned into the public sector in order for the public organizations to work more effectively.

The most elitist private secondary schools in the US could never compete with the public secondary schools in say, Sweden.

What are the schools in Sweden that provide better education than Harvard or Yale? I have really hard time believing this.

Are you sure about that? Oligarchy certainly has a massive influence in Westernized free market societies. The only difference is that it's legal here and 'hidden' over in Finland. What kind of government is that when it doesn't even try to control it? :/

If you think about freemarket principles, it is counter-productive to not hire the best person for the job (less profit) or take the less smart for school (as I explained in my previous post - it inflates the 'worth' of school). Government that allows people to inherit freely wealth believes the side effects of the control will lead into a less desirable outcome, than the uncontrolled. You will just end up with another form of elitism, where always to this day the common man and the poor has had it worse than in freemarket society.

How is it that it is more fair to inherit wealth in form of monetary wealth rather than intellectual or beauty or creativity or physical strength? In my opinion if everybody would be the absolutely same no matter what happens, there would be no point in living anyway.

Harvard and Yale are universities not schools.

Well actually I don't even have to go further because Sweden itself has actually switfted towards independent schools, and here's the doom and gloom that has been following:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1435386/How-c...weden.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/aug/...e-schools/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/featu...tion.thtml

http://www.economist.com/business/displaystor...d=11535645

http://www.sweden.se/eng/Home/Education/Basic...e-schools/

Those schools are entirely public funded but privately run and they aren't allowed to charge extra fees. Basically the change was really about being able to choose which school you went to rather than them being privately run.

Because the schools aren't then guarenteed income, they have to compete more which would have happened even if there were no privately run schools.

There would be nothing to stop the Swedish government simply copying the techniques in all of their state schools and seeing potentially equal results if the schools are totally outperforming all the state run schools.

That's simply a case that the current state school curriculum, teaching practices and general management has become old and inefficient and that being allowed greater choice on where you go drives results.

Those schools are entirely public funded but privately run and they aren't allowed to charge extra fees. Basically the change was really about being able to choose which school you went to rather than them being privately run.

Which is basically the whole point of privatization and freemarket economy. In this model it's again the poor funding the rich model instead of direct intearction between customers and suppliers, which would happen in full privatization.

It's everyone supporting everyone.

If it works exactly the same, then what's the problem with it being state funded since you get the same results?

In a fully privatised education system, unless it had massive government regulation would become totally polarised, with cheap, poor education schools for the poor (Or just no education whatsoever) and expensive, quality education schools for the rich.

If it works exactly the same, then what's the problem with it being state funded since you get the same results?

They don't. Privatization allows the schools wider range of specialization and motivates both the supplier and the customer to get the best results with least input. It also allows the system to act quicker and allocate the facilities more effectively. If there's no children in some area, there's no point in having a school empty there.

In a fully privatised education system, unless it had massive government regulation would become totally polarised, with cheap, poor education schools for the poor (Or just no education whatsoever) and expensive, quality education schools for the rich.

First of all, I believe reproduction to be a life choice, not a need. As we are already overpopulated, I don't believe it's a branch we need to subsidize. If parents are to have kids I believe they should also have the means to support their offsrping's upbringing. It isn't fair for those who don't want to have kids to pay someone else's 5-6 kids. If you say that the society benefits collectively from this more, I don't think so. I think the collective benefit is greater in a situation where the both parties have the ability to reach for their own goals seperately. (Which is one of the most single important elements of libertarianism and why it works)

Again, if you're debating if it's fair, it's no more fair than having seperate schools for smart and stupid. I believe the collective quality and amount of education will raise, benefitting the collective more. If the poor can go to private school they will get better education than in public school, and if the rich can get better education in better private school it benefits us collectively in more amount of better education.

The problem with your example is that nowhere in the world has it happened, and it won't. You imagine the worst possible scenario, but you will come to see that what you imagine in the drawing board rarely comes to true in reality (This is why socialism fails in my opinion).

The problem with public funding is, that I believe in practise it will lead to overall quality of education declining. A school has to operate in frames of the government and they have no incentive to get the absolutely best results into the degree where they would in freemarket scenario. The customer has greater ability of directly making choices of education.

Why not save a step and give the power to the actual customer? If they take their money away and send their kid to another school it's much faster than the whole thing again going the bureacratic administration steps. In public model the customer is the government and the parents have to move it slowly and in exchange have less power. The allocation of resources is more ineffective and slow becasue of the government steps. Also the collective quality and amount of education declines. If the rich kids can go to a school of the richest, the collective benefits more than if they don't.

The exact same thing can be achieved publicly, it just requires less state control and more freedom in choices made.

I don't know why you assume that education will be better in a private system, nothing really suggests that is the case. It all comes down to education methods and the children/parents themselves. A public system can equal a private system, it just comes down to how quickly it adapts instead of being dogmatic and old fashioned.

An overly controlling and bureaucratic system is of course not desrible. In the UK at least, they do have incentives to get the absolute the best results they can. Just because something is funded publicly doesn't mean it has to be how it is at the moment or in the manner you describe.

In the same way I am looking at the worst scenario of your propositions you are looking at them from the best scenario and what you said is still true for you.

Socialism can "fail" for all sorts of reasons, as can free market economics and protectionism and any other system you wish to talk about.

The exact same thing can be achieved publicly, it just requires less state control and more freedom in choices made.

Why does the same thing has to be achieved publicly? Do you also use screwer to strike nails?

I don't know why you assume that education will be better in a private system, nothing really suggests that is the case. It all comes down to education methods and the children/parents themselves. A public system can equal a private system, it just comes down to how quickly it adapts instead of being dogmatic and old fashioned.

Nothing? I already gave you the swedish examples and even included the collective argument. In the Friedman's presentation the school used less than a normal public school. How can you say that nothing suggests that?

If you privatize all schools but they're publicly funded, what's the incentive for them to compete? If you now continue on to say that public can increase their funding, then what's the point of having the government in the soup in the first place? They have just reinvented the wheel and made it a freemarket system.

An overly controlling and bureaucratic system is of course not desrible. In the UK at least, they do have incentives to get the absolute the best results they can. Just because something is funded publicly doesn't mean it has to be how it is at the moment or in the manner you describe.

In the same way I am looking at the worst scenario of your propositions you are looking at them from the best scenario and what you said is still true for you.

Socialism can "fail" for all sorts of reasons, as can free market economics and protectionism and any other system you wish to talk about.

The single public work unit doesn't have to earn customer's respect. Public doesn't have to compete in fair terms. Public cannot offer people same salaries as private does. Public has to operate in the frames set by the government. Public doesn't have much more direction than few vague goals or a quota. Public cannot react as fast to changing environment. They don't have to work poorly, but looking at the groundwork you can predict that they will.

I don't think I'm sugarcoating for my theory to look something different that it is, I think the examples show that I'm looking for very realistic scenario.

The same thing doesn't have to be achieved publicly but it can.

The problem with the Swedish example is it isn't a truely private system. They had to take students on a first come first serve basis and they were not allowed to charge more than the state allocated fee.

The important change to the Swedish system was choice of school and the method of teaching which allowed them to compete with all the other schools and not the privatisation per se.

We have those types of schools here and a fair number of them have some very worrying teaching practices and ulterior motives than providing a great education (At least a couple of them are owned and run by churches and teach creationism et cetera).

Is your example of a great private education system the Swedish system or of a classic private system?

All of the points you made at the end aren't always true and need not be true.

nooo! spread ze wealth!

Depends on what type of internet really. Cable and DSL both have same prices, but cable has the fastest download speed MOST of the time. But, I rather have my old DSL connection, because I had something like 10mb download and 2-4mb upload. With Cable internet, it's a fucking joke. You'd get 10mb download and .5mb upload. Sure, Cable can have higher download speeds at times, but DSL is a guaranteed connection. I've seen the way DSL and Cable speeds are managed in the back end, I much rather have DSL.

Now, how is it in Europe? Are those speeds done through DSL lines or Cable?

I think the main difference is just the land size and government. The US is much bigger in land size compared to Europe. Plus, here we have awful connections, very old copper lines, and a government that doesn't know what a megabyte is. It would take a long time, but they could replace everything, but it would take a lot of money and work to do it.

I mean, a lot of companies are still trying to make high speed internet available in areas. I'm in Northern Ontario, and they're still working on getting DSL to customers more up north, and in other areas.

=\

The high-speed connections with high upload speeds are all fiber. Pretty expensive to dig down all the cables so it's pretty much only in metropolitan areas.

Cable and ADSL here.

The UK is terrible though, BT don't want to rush into upgrading to fibre everywhere because after sinking all the money into it they have to let all the other phone/adsl companies lease their lines and they aren't allowed to charge at competitive prices.

There's only so many lines pre-existing. Some of the oldest copper line is not of a high enough quality, and is too far out from our C.O., that we simply can't do a whole lot better than dial-up. And when you're the only person within a 5-10 mile radius, like some of our customers, then it's simply not economically feasible right now to run that much updated line for a mere $80 per month for the total cost of phone bill.
The same holds true for cable, but I primarily work with dsl. FTTP in some areas, also.

Seems to be the other way around here in Sweden, fastest dsl is currently at speeds 40-60/5-20 (800 meters from telestation) and 20-40/3-10 (800+ meters). Cable (Docsis3) on the other hand is 25-50/7-10 everywhere.

and then you have India where you are offered 16mbit plans with a 10 gig monthly traffic limit :<

I'm on 30mbit in Sydney, with a 25gb limit a month :<

5/500 for ~$40/month fuck yeaH monopolies!

Sydney
currently due to shit phone line 10Mbit / 1.8Mbit (up to 24 / 2.5) - 55gb a month - static IP = $110

100/100 fiber for free no limiting .. north of Sweden.

wtf go die!!!

stop complaining dammit.

I pay ~$27 for 512 ADSL, 1 gig cap after which i get 10 gig SA only cap.

luxury problems in the developed world :p

i got 10/10 fiber no cap, for free.. its baked into my rent, but the rent didnt go up when they "implented" it, so its basicly free.

I have a friend that pays 5sek (less than 60 cent) for 10/10

which is more than free :D

noted!

I did some calculations on this and it seems you're right. Sorry to have claimed otherwise

hehe :D

Su..5 dolla.. see your from Vännäs, only ~30km away :P
(Same here no increase so free.. Had 10/10 before.. 100 maybe not far off in Vännäs).

assuming you're from Umeå then.

for sure the prices over here are incredible, though if I want 100/100 in my current apartment, that'd mean like a 5-600kr raise a month on my rent.. so 10/10 suddenly feels so awesome. :D

Yeah :) And 10/10 is still "about" the standard. It's not like every place will start going at 12MB/s in 100. Normal surfing is about the same, maybe I would notice some difference switching back but not sure at all.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/456798268.png

30e/month, no limits or caps.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/456805261.png

8e/month, no limits/caps + 1 GB hosting + ISP torrent tracker

edit: oddly enough i got 98 Mbps with Bulgaria
http://www.speedtest.net/result/456810609.png

wtf :D

niceness

Fuck man. I live in Hamburg, and only have a 16.000 DSL connection :(
At work (where I'm currently at) it's way better, but not even close to your con.
http://www.speedtest.net/result/456853719.png

EDIT2: lol, hopefully you didn't hack into it now :P Here's the right link: http://img48.imageshack.us/img48/2696/aliceinhamburg.jpg

you gave a link to an email from your gmail account? fail. :D

see EDIT2 :P

http://www.speedtest.net/result/459241475.png

a little unfair distance, so...

http://www.speedtest.net/result/459243181.png

10/10mbit connection. Chosen for its routing and ping. 100/20 is possible for the same price but worse routing.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/459317780.png

Bleh upload but then again, it's 450 mi to the nearest server so the test isn't all that fair after all. Bascially free ($30-ish, I never read the bill so I dunno exactly), no limits or caps.

This is what about $20 a month (15e) gets you here in North America.

http://www.speedtest.net/result/459392874.png

bwhahahaha.. what a sham

For me living on my own, it's alright. As long as it's a high speed connection, my ping is fine. I just never get over about 200KB/s download speed.

this is what you get for 35 euros or 46$ us dollars in Portugal :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQINLHsW8E4

thus far i win this thread?
(cheapest and fastest - http://www.speedtest.net/result/459737574.png)

come on swedes, protect your myth!!

before I moved I had 65/35mbit for about 28€, and I was paying for 30/30mbit..

and pings were sub 20 over most of central europe and obviously lower than that for sweden.

besides, you have the norrlänningar further up in this thread who get 100/100 for free, they won :P

speedtest.net or it didn't happen.. and just because a few people have it free doesn't mean that's the norm for the whole of Sweden

Update

http://www.speedtest.net/result/459927720.png

Word.

yeye, deutsche telekom FTL
http://www.speedtest.net/result/459965485.png

fucking impressive m8s

Well, uh, since everyones doing it....
http://www.speedtest.net/result/460004366.png

http://www.speedtest.net/result/460062914.png

HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHFASIFNFFMF GO TURKEY


oh and, that costs around 30 euros.

Aaah Althought I got 100/100, far away speeds ofcourse isn't. I'ts easier to max BOTH dl/ul (~12.5MB) closer to home.
So this speedtest is unfair.
Closest good conn I can get is 450 miles away, still not bad.


Stockholm 300miles gives a bit higher upload then oslo. 81.16dl / 12.02ul. 6ms

30€ for the cable connection, phone flatrate and digital TV. best thing is the ping. i ping nowhere below 50 from ze uk to sweden to poland. mostly it's below 20.

iniiiiiiii vs Vernon Schillinger

[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/462668748.png[/IMG]

:'(

bump: http://speedtest.net/global.php#0

Download Speed
1. South Korea 31.21 Mb/s
2. Latvia 24.01 Mb/s
3. Netherlands 22.78 Mb/s
4. Republic of Moldova 22.01 Mb/s
5. Lithuania 21.74 Mb/s
6. Aland Islands 21.47 Mb/s
7. Romania 20.59 Mb/s
8. Japan 17.67 Mb/s <- LMAO
9. Sweden 17.60 Mb/s <- LMAO
10. Bulgaria 16.28 Mb/s
11. Switzerland 15.41 Mb/s
12. Germany 14.72 Mb/s
13. Portugal 14.59 Mb/s
14. Iceland 13.49 Mb/s
15. Denmark 13.49 Mb/s

suck it, iceland!

I prefer this one:

Upload Speed
+ Expand Full List
1 229,809 711,868 South Korea 18.59 Mb/s
2 422,503 3,784,238 Lithuania 13.34 Mb/s
3 357,094 3,654,196 Latvia 12.87 Mb/s
4 1,773 10,075 Aland Islands 10.65 Mb/s
5 3,822 17,246 Andorra 10.30 Mb/s
6 193,432 1,920,875 Republic of Moldova 9.20 Mb/s
7 517,606 2,001,615 Japan 8.69 Mb/s
8 1,818,275 13,198,595 Romania 8.52 Mb/s
9 654,431 5,658,859 Bulgaria 8.29 Mb/s
10 3,673 21,258 Kyrgyzstan 7.99 Mb/s
11 16,757 86,945 Ghana 7.25 Mb/s
12 37,514 172,212 Iceland 6.94 Mb/s
13 694,763 2,445,371 Sweden 6.85 Mb/s
14 521,470 2,581,732 Denmark 6.43 Mb/s
15 5,418,951 40,937,407 Russia 5.89 Mb/s

Sweden

9,074,055 (pop)

8,397,900 (users)

92.5 %

---
Romania

21,959,278 (pop)

7,786,700 (users)

35.5 % <--- lmao!

i bet you can get superb inet access absolutely everywhere in romania amirite? xDD

to be honest there's too many internet users here.. lots of idiots in this part of the world

Lithuania ftw!!!!!!!!!

i think regarldless of speeds the biggest loser in this thread is Aquashark cuz he is actually excited/happy about an internet speed (?) i live in a 3rd world country and pay 40 bucks for 2mb/0.34mb and dont have any complains, can stream anything smoothly and just leave stuff downloading overnight, i also ping 70 to GA, USA (~2150mi)
i can also get pure coke for 2.5 bucks a gram, Aquashark you are a huge nerd faggot.

lmao

http://www.speedtest.net/result/895008187.png
$25 per month
lmao@usa
sent men to moon, but this is the best i can get

usa is far, far, bigger than any european country, it takes a vastly higher amount of resources to establish infrastructure there

I know, but I am in a very highly populated city area, so you'd think internet here should be up to times. In fact, the apartments I live in were built in this millennium.

well, another problem is that the low-population areas are very heavily subsidized by the high-population ones, which also highlights the hypocrisy of a lot of 'free marketeers' from these states, leaching on 'unamericans'
but, overall, its a good policy, for the overall development. i can get 24mb broadband somewhere in the woods. Verizon FIOS is now also providing 100mb in a lot of remote areas as well, which is quite amazing, and it's spreading well.

The problem here in the US is that the lines are owned by like 50 different companies who all don't want one another using their lines.

It is a case where competition has a negative effect on the consumer.

Telia owns almost all the backbones/lines in NU. Any new infrastructure in this case is going to benefit most customers.

come back to holland, 120/10 interwebs incl radio/tv/phone for 65e/month <:

wow i thought i had the worst lolz



funny thing is i ping less to ga than people in california bad routing in usa lol

test done on a German server (~900 miles): http://www.speedtest.net/result/895015582.png

i recently switched ISPs and now i have 100 Mbps for 9€ + a free USB modem with unlimited wireless traffic (7.2 Mbps).
the SIM card from the USB modem works in mobile phones too, pretty cool

I'm currently on 100/100 for €20/month in Gothenburg with the option to get 1000/100 for €50/month. No limits :-)

[IMG]http://www.speedtest.net/result/895099465.png[/IMG]

http://www.speedtest.net/result/895099465.png

Currently paying about $65/mo for cable internet. That gets me about 1mb down, and 500kb/s up. On the plus side, when we first signed up for this internet (about 4 years ago), it was 600kb/s down and 25kb/s up. They upgraded the line with no extra charge about 6 months ago, which was surprisingly nice.

Denmark: 46,67 euro / month

There are probably cheaper ISP's though, for more bandwith. But im just to lazy to switch for a few bucks difference :<

some more.. (wider)
Mb/s dl/ul
88.08 / 43.25 250mi http://www.speedtest.net/result/896055147.png
87.69 / 33.23 400mi http://www.speedtest.net/result/895997823.png
52.84 / 69.79 300mi http://www.speedtest.net/result/895991521.png
61.36 / 44.63 350mi http://www.speedtest.net/result/896004427.png
42.40 / 32.45 600mi http://www.speedtest.net/result/895984112.png
41.89 / 23.20 1000mi http://www.speedtest.net/result/895982434.png
36.55 / 17.45 1550mi Rome http://www.speedtest.net/result/896025001.png
8.58 / 7.59 3850mi New York http://www.speedtest.net/result/896015047.png

http://www.speedtest.net/result/896152584.png


lmao@company connect.

Moscow Russia

20mbit download / 100mbit upload unlimited gb's and all that crap

Pay 28$/month for that.

I can have limited gb's at around45gbs/month and 100mbit up/down for the same amount of money.

As imon vacation, here's my summer home connection:
http://www.speedtest.net/result/896508341.png

Thats 45 km's outside Moscow. I pay 33$ / month - unlimited gb's and get tv with that aswell

http://www.speedtest.net/result/899235553.png

1 gbit but its capped at max 30mbit pr. user.
(multi-user research network)

I pay 15€ a year. (yes a year)

some freak with access to most of the bandwidth http://www.speedtest.net/rank/2195845968.png what a jackass :>