South Korea has state owned infrastructure, not state owned providers.Cybargs wrote:
best example is taiwan. the no.1 telco is state owned and our internet has been stuck at 10meg up/2meg down (no bandwidth limit though) and has been that way for about 3 years... need moar companies to gimme better internets.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.Turquoise wrote:
That hasn't happened in South Korea's telecom market. It's flourished. Also, it offers the fastest broadband available on a mass scale.
Turquois: S Korea works so well because their whole economy is based on star craft.
Sounds like the same in Taiwan. Chungwha (50% state owned company) is utter shite and they won't let other providers use their good lines. As I said turq, SK's economy is based on star craft.Turquoise wrote:
South Korea has state owned infrastructure, not state owned providers.Cybargs wrote:
best example is taiwan. the no.1 telco is state owned and our internet has been stuck at 10meg up/2meg down (no bandwidth limit though) and has been that way for about 3 years... need moar companies to gimme better internets.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.
Turquois: S Korea works so well because their whole economy is based on star craft.
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.Cybargs wrote:
Sounds like the same in Taiwan. Chungwha (50% state owned company) is utter shite and they won't let other providers use their good lines. As I said turq, SK's economy is based on star craft.Turquoise wrote:
South Korea has state owned infrastructure, not state owned providers.Cybargs wrote:
best example is taiwan. the no.1 telco is state owned and our internet has been stuck at 10meg up/2meg down (no bandwidth limit though) and has been that way for about 3 years... need moar companies to gimme better internets.
Turquois: S Korea works so well because their whole economy is based on star craft.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.
I find it hilarious the lack of realism that people have in the US. People think that all the problems in this country are going to be fixed overnight - it's impossible. Fixing problems as big as those in the US take time.Harmor wrote:
Source: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010 … ion-obama/New Your Times wrote:
An African-American woman who described herself as a chief financial officer, a mother and a military veteran said she was disappointed that Mr. Obama had not lived up to her once-lofty expectations.
“I’m exhausted of defending you, defending your administration. … I’m deeply disappointed where we are right now,” she said, adding that when she voted for Mr. Obama, she thought he would change Washington. “I’m waiting, sir. I’m waiting. I don’t feel it yet. … Is this my new reality?”
Ever wanted to hear a bunch of cult members finally realize their Messiah is a phony? This is probably as close as you're going to get.
I'm going to go to hell for this, but this really lighten by day. Wow, these guys were so fooled by this man its sad. I hope everyone here isn't drinking the koolaid still.
They're probably slimmer in Korea's market, but that's true of any market with a lot of competition. However, that's a good thing for consumers.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.Turquoise wrote:
That hasn't happened in South Korea's telecom market. It's flourished. Also, it offers the fastest broadband available on a mass scale.JohnG@lt wrote:
When you force competition the consumer ultimately suffers. You end up with a bunch of weak companies always on the verge of bankruptcy like the airline industry.
I believe society is served best when conditions are optimal for consumers, not suppliers.
Unfortunately, suppliers seem to have the advantage more often.
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none. SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.Cybargs wrote:
Sounds like the same in Taiwan. Chungwha (50% state owned company) is utter shite and they won't let other providers use their good lines. As I said turq, SK's economy is based on star craft.Turquoise wrote:
South Korea has state owned infrastructure, not state owned providers.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
No, it's a terrible thing for consumers. Profts lead to risk taking that leads to superior products down the road (as long as there is some competition). Lack of profits means stagnation and an utter fear of taking any risk whatsoever.Turquoise wrote:
They're probably slimmer in Korea's market, but that's true of any market with a lot of competition. However, that's a good thing for consumers.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.Turquoise wrote:
That hasn't happened in South Korea's telecom market. It's flourished. Also, it offers the fastest broadband available on a mass scale.
I believe society is served best when conditions are optimal for consumers, not suppliers.
Unfortunately, suppliers seem to have the advantage more often.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
There is plenty. There is pressure from both the companies themselves and from consumers -- both of whom involve voters.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.Cybargs wrote:
Sounds like the same in Taiwan. Chungwha (50% state owned company) is utter shite and they won't let other providers use their good lines. As I said turq, SK's economy is based on star craft.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.
A large part of why the interstate highway system has suffered is due to the fact that our government, unlike South Korea's, has gotten involved in a lot more aspects of living than just infrastructure. We've also squandered billions on interventionism.JohnG@lt wrote:
SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.
Also... the larger your country is... the harder it is to maintenance every inch of your territory effectively under one government. It is quite possible that the Interstate system would be better managed under state governments. Perhaps, it should be handed over to them.
When I used South Korea as an example of where government involvement worked for infrastructure, I wasn't assuming that our federal government should run all telecom infrastructure. I think state governments or maybe city governments (for more metropolitan areas) could manage it best.
The act of actually providing broadband would still be private, however.
Ah yes... like the oil industry, right?JohnG@lt wrote:
No, it's a terrible thing for consumers. Profts lead to risk taking that leads to superior products down the road (as long as there is some competition). Lack of profits means stagnation and an utter fear of taking any risk whatsoever.Turquoise wrote:
They're probably slimmer in Korea's market, but that's true of any market with a lot of competition. However, that's a good thing for consumers.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.
I believe society is served best when conditions are optimal for consumers, not suppliers.
Unfortunately, suppliers seem to have the advantage more often.
What is the point? Why have the front of being capitalist? Why allow rent seekers to exist? Why not just have the government do everything from the front of the house to the back? You're holding these people up as an example but they're completely inefficient. The whole system is doomed to failure and the consumers will be the big losers in the end.Turquoise wrote:
There is plenty. There is pressure from both the companies themselves and from consumers -- both of whom involve voters.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.A large part of why the interstate highway system has suffered is due to the fact that our government, unlike South Korea's, has gotten involved in a lot more aspects of living than just infrastructure. We've also squandered billions on interventionism.JohnG@lt wrote:
SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.
Also... the larger your country is... the harder it is to maintenance every inch of your territory effectively under one government. It is quite possible that the Interstate system would be better managed under state governments. Perhaps, it should be handed over to them.
When I used South Korea as an example of where government involvement worked for infrastructure, I wasn't assuming that our federal government should run all telecom infrastructure. I think state governments or maybe city governments (for more metropolitan areas) could manage it best.
The act of actually providing broadband would still be private, however.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 12:00:32)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
More speculation without evidence. Nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
What is the point? Why have the front of being capitalist? Why allow rent seekers to exist? Why not just have the government do everything from the front of the house to the back? You're holding these people up as an example but they're completely inefficient. The whole system is doomed to failure and the consumers will be the big losers in the end.Turquoise wrote:
There is plenty. There is pressure from both the companies themselves and from consumers -- both of whom involve voters.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none.A large part of why the interstate highway system has suffered is due to the fact that our government, unlike South Korea's, has gotten involved in a lot more aspects of living than just infrastructure. We've also squandered billions on interventionism.JohnG@lt wrote:
SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.
Also... the larger your country is... the harder it is to maintenance every inch of your territory effectively under one government. It is quite possible that the Interstate system would be better managed under state governments. Perhaps, it should be handed over to them.
When I used South Korea as an example of where government involvement worked for infrastructure, I wasn't assuming that our federal government should run all telecom infrastructure. I think state governments or maybe city governments (for more metropolitan areas) could manage it best.
The act of actually providing broadband would still be private, however.
Right, and you've got fuckall evidence to support its being feasible long term.Turquoise wrote:
More speculation without evidence. Nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
What is the point? Why have the front of being capitalist? Why allow rent seekers to exist? Why not just have the government do everything from the front of the house to the back? You're holding these people up as an example but they're completely inefficient. The whole system is doomed to failure and the consumers will be the big losers in the end.Turquoise wrote:
There is plenty. There is pressure from both the companies themselves and from consumers -- both of whom involve voters.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none.
A large part of why the interstate highway system has suffered is due to the fact that our government, unlike South Korea's, has gotten involved in a lot more aspects of living than just infrastructure. We've also squandered billions on interventionism.
Also... the larger your country is... the harder it is to maintenance every inch of your territory effectively under one government. It is quite possible that the Interstate system would be better managed under state governments. Perhaps, it should be handed over to them.
When I used South Korea as an example of where government involvement worked for infrastructure, I wasn't assuming that our federal government should run all telecom infrastructure. I think state governments or maybe city governments (for more metropolitan areas) could manage it best.
The act of actually providing broadband would still be private, however.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
maybe profits lead to that. maybe profits lead to upper echelon managers/controllers of the company giving each other ludicrous raises and incentive packages, which leads to financial insolvency. Maybe lack of profits mean the company looks for more streamlined operations, outsourcing certain aspects of labor/management/supply chain, expelling unprofitable divisions.JohnG@lt wrote:
No, it's a terrible thing for consumers. Profts lead to risk taking that leads to superior products down the road (as long as there is some competition). Lack of profits means stagnation and an utter fear of taking any risk whatsoever.Turquoise wrote:
They're probably slimmer in Korea's market, but that's true of any market with a lot of competition. However, that's a good thing for consumers.JohnG@lt wrote:
Now compare profit margins and employee salaries to the rest of the market.
I believe society is served best when conditions are optimal for consumers, not suppliers.
Unfortunately, suppliers seem to have the advantage more often.
real world vs. theory.
We should have pay scales for everybody.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
maybe profits lead to that. maybe profits lead to upper echelon managers/controllers of the company giving each other ludicrous raises and incentive packages, which leads to financial insolvency. Maybe lack of profits mean the company looks for more streamlined operations, outsourcing certain aspects of labor/management/supply chain, expelling unprofitable divisions.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
sorry, missing your point...
So your lack of evidence in assuming failure is somehow better than the evidence that it has worked for several years now?JohnG@lt wrote:
Right, and you've got fuckall evidence to support its being feasible long term.Turquoise wrote:
More speculation without evidence. Nice.JohnG@lt wrote:
What is the point? Why have the front of being capitalist? Why allow rent seekers to exist? Why not just have the government do everything from the front of the house to the back? You're holding these people up as an example but they're completely inefficient. The whole system is doomed to failure and the consumers will be the big losers in the end.
If we're gonna go after profits because they lead inevitably to 'overpaid executives' then why fuck around? Let's put a salary cap on each job and each position in society. Can't have unfairness now can we?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
sorry, missing your point...
You're missing the point anyway. A company that doesn't profit does not generate interest from investors. Without investors backing it, no company has the ability to expand nor take risks. The system over there as designed just puts a free market face on what is in reality a government company. The government controls the back end and charges rent. Any competition on the front end just means further cuts to their profitability since they don't have the option of streamlining that which they do not own.
I can see why a situation like this would appeal to people in this country and why it would work. Instead of paying government union wages to people to do the job efficiently (i.e. one company controlling sales, infrastructure etc) they could just front it, avoid the unions and outsource the sales jobs or hire people for minimum wage to do them. Brilliant.
Anyway, the entire system as designed is built on inefficiency after inefficiency. Why force taxpayers to pay for infrastructure upgrades? All that does is force people who aren't using the system to pay for its upgrades anyway. Sure, it spreads the cost around but the people that benefit the most from it aren't paying nearly as much as they would if the charges showed up on their monthly statement.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Now that's what's going on in Taiwan. Sure my internet is better than most of the world but it has not improved at all. prices still the same and phone bills still the same. fucking hell.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none. SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.Cybargs wrote:
Sounds like the same in Taiwan. Chungwha (50% state owned company) is utter shite and they won't let other providers use their good lines. As I said turq, SK's economy is based on star craft.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.
Instead of being on the cutting edge, henceforth you'll be relegated to third and fourth generation stuff, stuff that is only feasible when the price comes down tremendously from it's peak. That's when you'll see upgrades. If there is no profit, there is no motivation to improve until public outcry becomes overwhelming, just in time for that fourth gen stuffCybargs wrote:
Now that's what's going on in Taiwan. Sure my internet is better than most of the world but it has not improved at all. prices still the same and phone bills still the same. fucking hell.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none. SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
It's not all or nothing. Most measures that go to the extreme fail.JohnG@lt wrote:
If we're gonna go after profits because they lead inevitably to 'overpaid executives' then why fuck around? Let's put a salary cap on each job and each position in society. Can't have unfairness now can we?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
sorry, missing your point...
Oh really? So what about mineral rights? What about when the government charges property tax? When the state manages infrastructure like this, it's basically the same as a property tax. Should we get rid of all those too?JohnG@lt wrote:
You're missing the point anyway. A company that doesn't profit does not generate interest from investors. Without investors backing it, no company has the ability to expand nor take risks. The system over there as designed just puts a free market face on what is in reality a government company. The government controls the back end and charges rent. Any competition on the front end just means further cuts to their profitability since they don't have the option of streamlining that which they do not own.
Your argument would be valid if it weren't for the fact that our private system is already moving toward charging people for upgrades, so to speak. A lot of countries have tiered bandwidth caps, where they can only download up to a certain amount of data per month. The excuse most often given for this is that the infrastructure can't handle limitless downloading, and the amounts paid per month go toward upgrades over the long term.JohnG@lt wrote:
I can see why a situation like this would appeal to people in this country and why it would work. Instead of paying government union wages to people to do the job efficiently (i.e. one company controlling sales, infrastructure etc) they could just front it, avoid the unions and outsource the sales jobs or hire people for minimum wage to do them. Brilliant.
Anyway, the entire system as designed is built on inefficiency after inefficiency. Why force taxpayers to pay for infrastructure upgrades? All that does is force people who aren't using the system to pay for its upgrades anyway. Sure, it spreads the cost around but the people that benefit the most from it aren't paying nearly as much as they would if the charges showed up on their monthly statement.
Yet... we have seen very little upgrading by these companies.
Choose your poison, Galt. Your fears of government control are just as applicable to the private sector.
You should see what internet access is like in some rural regions of America.Cybargs wrote:
Now that's what's going on in Taiwan. Sure my internet is better than most of the world but it has not improved at all. prices still the same and phone bills still the same. fucking hell.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none. SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.Turquoise wrote:
Yeah, but as I've said, Korea's model specifically opens up the infrastructure to all competition. It's why they have such good plans.
When the state removes expensive barriers to entry in a market, then competition can flourish.
I don't agree with property tax at all. Property tax means that the person who 'owns' the land is nothing more than a tenant of the state. The Founders did us a terrible disservice when they substituted 'pursuit of happiness' for property rights.Turquoise wrote:
Oh really? So what about mineral rights? What about when the government charges property tax? When the state manages infrastructure like this, it's basically the same as a property tax. Should we get rid of all those too?
There's plenty of competition. You don't have to use cable company service, use satellite or 3G. Use FiOS. Hell, use a fucking dialup modem for all I care. Unlimited bandwidth was a silly idea in the first place. They should've kept AOLs old model of charging by the minute or some arbitrary MB number. Charging a person that uses the internet a handful of times a month the same as someone that acts as a torrent hub all day is just silly.Your argument would be valid if it weren't for the fact that our private system is already moving toward charging people for upgrades, so to speak. A lot of countries have tiered bandwidth caps, where they can only download up to a certain amount of data per month. The excuse most often given for this is that the infrastructure can't handle limitless downloading, and the amounts paid per month go toward upgrades over the long term.
Yet... we have seen very little upgrading by these companies.
Choose your poison, Galt. Your fears of government control are just as applicable to the private sector.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Aren't you always crying for an end to farm subsidies? Why should I or anyone else subsidize internet for rural people? They choose to live in the sticks away from all connecting infrastructure.Turquoise wrote:
You should see what internet access is like in some rural regions of America.Cybargs wrote:
Now that's what's going on in Taiwan. Sure my internet is better than most of the world but it has not improved at all. prices still the same and phone bills still the same. fucking hell.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yeah, state owned infrastructure, companies pay rent to the state. Where exactly is the motive for the state to furnish superior infrastructure long term? There is none. SK may have superior internet now but lets revisit the situation in ten years time. At one time the United States had the best interstate highway system in the world. Now we have one of the worst. Everything looks good when it's brand spanking new.
Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-09-22 12:32:44)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
So, you'd rather have a monopoly develop in a small market than have something to foster competition... How free market of you.JohnG@lt wrote:
Aren't you always crying for an end to farm subsidies? Why should I or anyone else subsidize internet for rural people? They choose to live in the sticks away from all connecting infrastructure.Turquoise wrote:
You should see what internet access is like in some rural regions of America.Cybargs wrote:
Now that's what's going on in Taiwan. Sure my internet is better than most of the world but it has not improved at all. prices still the same and phone bills still the same. fucking hell.
I'm not 'going after' profits. I'm pointing out that you have a romanticised view of profits, that's all. Reading comprehension goes a long way. I didn't say profits inevitably lead to overpaid execs, I specifically used the word 'maybe'. As in, capitalism and/or any other ideology works in different ways in practice then they do in theory.JohnG@lt wrote:
If we're gonna go after profits because they lead inevitably to 'overpaid executives' then why fuck around? Let's put a salary cap on each job and each position in society. Can't have unfairness now can we?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
sorry, missing your point...
You're missing the point anyway. A company that doesn't profit does not generate interest from investors. Without investors backing it, no company has the ability to expand nor take risks. The system over there as designed just puts a free market face on what is in reality a government company. The government controls the back end and charges rent. Any competition on the front end just means further cuts to their profitability since they don't have the option of streamlining that which they do not own.
I can see why a situation like this would appeal to people in this country and why it would work. Instead of paying government union wages to people to do the job efficiently (i.e. one company controlling sales, infrastructure etc) they could just front it, avoid the unions and outsource the sales jobs or hire people for minimum wage to do them. Brilliant.
Anyway, the entire system as designed is built on inefficiency after inefficiency. Why force taxpayers to pay for infrastructure upgrades? All that does is force people who aren't using the system to pay for its upgrades anyway. Sure, it spreads the cost around but the people that benefit the most from it aren't paying nearly as much as they would if the charges showed up on their monthly statement.
You're missing the point my friend.
How do you know it's (Korean case) inefficient? Just a cursory reading of the last few pages, you haven't really demonstrated a great grasp on the way their economy/government is run, you're just responding to other people. Demonstrate that you understand their (S. Korea) private/public economic system and make your case.
PS - Cyborg don't be ignorant. If you think Starcraft is what their technology industry is reliant on then you need to do a research, noob. Certain factors that are unique to South Korea's geography and society allow their systems to work the way they do. Probably not as efficient as it could be, certainly. That doesn't mean that it doesn't work though.