Socialism

Kid Curry

I cringe when I hear US television reporters and journalist use the term socialist, and then go on to describe all western European countries as socialist countries. Canada is also a socialist country by their standards.

I just can't get over how a journalist/News reoprter can say something so profound and make such inaccurate statements so publicly without knowing what it means and not being pulled up on it.

Memnoch

Don't mean to drag this into a Fox news debate, but they have had a large part to play in this. I mean they've practically turned the word socialism into some kind of an insult or curse word to the point that American fear Socialism to be just as bad as some kind of soviet communist dictatorship. The video of Glen Beck berating the advent of what he describes as socialism with a Nazi march playing in the background is a perfect example of this.

The supreme irony of course is that socialist principles are designed to help precisely those poor, disadvantaged and uneducated masses that form a large part of the conservative base.

Same goes for words like progressive or liberal. It's like people have forgotten what these things actually mean or stand for.

Disclaimer: Not saying I'm a socialist or agree with all socialist principles, it's simply a tool of governance, no better or worse than any other in the hands of capable administrators.

Amerika

Here, this might (or might not) brighten your day and make you feel better (or worse).

“This morning I was awoken by my alarm clock powered by socialist electricity generated by the public power monopoly regulated by the US Department of Energy. I then took a shower in the socialist clean water provided by the municipal water utility. After that, I turned on the socialist radio to one of the FCC- regulated channels to hear what the socialist National Weather Service of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration determined the weather was going to be like using socialist satellites designed, built, and launched by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. I watched this while eating my breakfast of socialist US Department of Agriculture-inspected food and taking the socialist drugs which have been determined as safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

At the appropriate time as kept accurate by the socialist National Institute of Standards and Technology and the US Naval Observatory, I get into my socialist National Highway Traffic Safety Administration-approved automobile and set out to work on the socialist roads built by the socialist local, state, and federal departments of transportation, possibly stopping to purchase additional fuel of a quality level determined by the socialist Environmental Protection Agency, using socialist legal tender issued by the Federal Reserve Bank. On the way out the door, I deposit any mail I have to be sent out via the socialist US Postal Service and drop the kids off at the socialist public school. If I get lost, I can use my socialist GPS navigation technology developed by the United States Department of Defense and made available to the public in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, who issued a policy directive declaring socialist GPS to be a dual-use military/civilian system to be managed as a national socialist asset.

After spending another day not being maimed or killed at work thanks to the socialist workplace regulations imposed by the Department of Labor and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, enjoying another two meals which again do not kill me because of the socialist USDA, I drive my socialist NHTSA car back home on the socialist DOT roads, to my house which has not burned down in my absence because of the socialist state and local building codes and socialist fire marshal’s inspection, and which has not been plundered of all its valuables thanks to the socialist local police department.

I then get on my computer and use the socialist internet which was developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Administration and browse the socialist World Wide Web using my graphical web browser, both made possible by Al Gore’s socialist High Performance Computing and Communication Act of 1991. I then post on Freerepublic.com and FOX News forums about how SOCIALISM in medicine is BAD because the government can’t do anything right.”

http://jesharris.wordpress.com/2009/09/18/the-evils-of-socialism/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Interesting statistic. I'm not sure that %of GDP spending however equates to socialism.

Would you for example consider the expenditure on the military and the Iraq and Afghanasthan wars to be examples of socialism?

You seem to be making the argument that ANY form of government or taxes = socialism. I'm not sure I agree with that.

However, I do feel that a certain level of social intervention is necessary for the creation and maintenance of civilization. Things like education, health and ironically defence cannot run effectively on for profit principles.

kev9100

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would argue that the majority of that spending is Defense expenditure. Surely you don't think increasing defense spending is Socialism, do you? If so, Ronald Reagan was a Socialist President.

Manic Moran

Kid Curry wrote: »

I cringe when I hear US television reporters and journalist use the term socialist, and then go on to describe all western European countries as socialist countries. Canada is also a socialist country by their standards.

I can't speak to Canada, but Ireland is a socialist country. Look at all the various entitlements one gets, from free education through university to the national healthcare system. Pretty much any political party which wants to have a shot at being in office in a European country needs to be socialist to one extent or another. Memnoch has a point that the word has been used in some circles interchangeably with 'evil', which is a little over the top, but that's not to deny the nature. Irish socialism can be considered to be a good thing, what's the problem with calling a spade a spade? It's not single-party, state-run communism with a centrally planned economy, after all. That's something different again.

Some people from the left will view the term 'conservative' with the same disdain as 'fascist'. Both are to the right of the political spectrum. I don't see that usage as being any different really from American usage of the word 'socialist': In both cases, the word is used do describe something considered to be politically/morally unacceptable to them. Calling most European systems socialist is arguably correct, and calling them communist is arguably incorrect. Similarly calling the American system generally conservative is arguably correct, but going to 'Fascist' is arguably incorrect. It's all a matter of perspective.

NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

whynotwhycanti

Manic Moran wrote: »

I can't speak to Canada, but Ireland is a socialist country.
NTM

I agree we have some socialist ideals, from welfare to education, but we are not a socialist state in comparison to examples of socialist states in the world today i.e. Cuba. We are far closer to a social democracy i.e. capitalism with elements of social responsibilities, than a socialist state outright.

amacachi

TBH I think Ireland's location makes us forget how socialist we are. Just because we don't do some things like France doesn't mean we're right in the centre.
While I'd prefer to avoid socialism I do sometimes wonder if our small size makes it somewhat desirable, compared to America where government involvement over the last few decades has just gone beyond a joke.

Memnoch

India is a very bad example. Yes there is a lot of progress and great economic prosperity. But there is a massive divide between the rich and the poor, and all of this wealth isn't just filtering down. The middle class is burgeoning, that's great, but the poor and that's a LOT of them continue to suffer.

I'm not entirely against private schools. But if you rely on them exlusively the result is that many people WILL go without, and that's what is happening in India.

India is also a bad example because it does have strong socialist beliefs and supports, such as the reservation system for lower caste and for women.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India

Passed by the Constituent Assembly on 26 November 1949, it came into effect on 26 January 1950.[1] The date 26 January was chosen to commemorate the declaration of independence of 1930. It declares the Union of India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty and to promote among them all fraternity; the words "socialist", "secular" and "integrity" and to promote among them all "Fraternity"; were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps I should have been more precise. I don't have a problem with the existence of private schooling. (I went to them most of my life myself).

The question of superiority is a double-edged one. I'm sure if you compare individual private schools to individual government schools, then yes, obviously the "for profit" schools will do better because they have more resources. This is indeed one of the primary underlying disparities between the social classes. The availability of good education, leading to a more prosperous future, leading to the continuation of social inequity and the denial of equal opportunity.

The question is which system is better for a nation? India APTLY demonstrates that relying on private education while great for those who can afford it can and does leave far too many people in the mire.

Are you saying that if all education in India was privately run this would somehow improve the standard of education for the hundreds of millions of India's poor and lower classes?

Of course if you put enough money in something it will be better. As such any private system can run better than any government system, but only to the benefit of those exclusive enough to be able to avail of private services. Healthcare in America, for example, isn't really an issue if you have money.

Edit: So to sumarise: What I mean was that education cannot run effectively on for-profit principles as a SYSTEM of education.

Kid Curry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So you've been socialist for years???

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

A public school is ultimately democratically accountable.
Not so a private one.

Can you just imagine a school the likes of McDonalds or Microsoft would create?

A state education, peppered with plenty of state-sponsored propaganda is one thing, but a corporate one is another monster altogether.

Oh, are we still going to have state-run education criteria? Like Leaving Certs?
Or should that be decided by "market forces" as well?

Memnoch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And who gets to decide who is left in the mire? Who is sacrificed for the proverbial greater good? What is that Philip K Dick wrote in "A Scanner Darkly," : To sacrifice someone, without them ever knowing it. Not a principle I accept or will ever condone. Because these sacrifices, these decisions are always taken by those who will never be subject to the brunts of their effects. That being said, I don't have a problem with the existence of private education. I just don't think you can rely on the private sector to educate your entire country, because it's not within their interest or remit to do so. The government run system needs improvement, that is true, but that is not an excuse to say, we'll just leave X hundred million people uneducated and illiterate.

Yes. Indisputably. Researchers from the University of Newcastle have studied urban slums in India where two-thirds of children are now in private schools. These children are demonstrably breaking generational cycles of poverty.

I can't really comment on the research without having read about it in detail, so I'll accept this at face value for now.

A "private school" is not necessarily some exclusive preppy establishment such as Eton. Many private schools are small, unassuming establishments, run on shoestring budgets. They charge modest fees, but have dedicated teachers who know that they must compete for business—and thus do a much better job that teachers in government-run, unionized systems, which are frequently hotbeds of corruption and incompetence. Professor James Tooley's 2009 book The Beautiful Tree: A Personal Journey Into How the World's Poorest People Are Educating Themselves gives much more on the success of private education in the developing world. It truly is the engine of growth that impoverished peoples have been waiting for.

I think that there are certainly lessons to be learned in India. If there are schools that are doing a good job on a shoe-string budget, then their principles should be adopted and integrated into government schooling as well. That sounds like an interesting book, I'll see if I can grab a copy somewhere.

Also, Blue Planet makes an excellent point above. Quite apart from the issue of the economics of education is the issue of the integrity of it. We already have schools in America teaching Creationism and other such nonsense. I think there's enough brainwashing of young minds as it is without turning over entire educational systems to the enterprise.

PeakOutput

americans simply dont understand what socialism means and think everything more left then them is socialist

we dont have a socialist goverment or a socialist country

some things like free healthcare education etc are socialist ideas but low corporate tax rates and minimum financial and market regulation are not

we have both

we have close to the best of both worlds

oh wait that would put us somewhere near the center were most reasonable people say the answer to how to run a country lies, what a coincidence

rightwingdub

Europe is very socialist when compared to America, even the socalled "centre right" parties in Europe would be considered left wing in America, for instance most British Tories are strong supporters of the NHS especially David Cameron, In France Sarkozy supports a generous welfare state same with Merkel in Germany. I find it quite amusing when parties in Europe claim to have centre right economic policies when in reality they are very left wing in America. The democrats would have more in common with the British tories than the Republicans would.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kid Curry

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here here.

None of us would be socialists if we could afford it. I think anyone who the option of sending their children to private school would do so.

Manic Moran

Mr Donegal, on occasion we may find ourselves on opposing sides of an argument, but on this instance, I find myself much impressed by your argument.

NTM

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

rightwingdub

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The problem is the teachers will never cooperate with necessary reform of the education system here in Ireland, they are a bunch of ME feiners who only care about themselves.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Meh, you're just trying to cite the worst examples.
Publics across the globe are happy to administer state-run school systems. Every system can improve. No education systems are frozen in place forever, they have to change with the times.

John Stossel is a rightwing hack that misrepresents things, takes things out of context and relies on highly selective quotes; he is not going to be taken seriously by anybody but tea baggers. He doesn't even believe that the earth is warming which puts him firmly in the Flat Earther catagory in my book.

Oh, look: socialised education in Finland.

Finland has consistently been among the highest scorers worldwide; in 2006 Finnish 15-year-olds came first in science and second in mathematics and reading literacy, in 2003 Finnish came first in reading literacy, mathematics, and science, while placing second in problem solving. In tertiary education, the World Economic Forum ranks Finland #1 in the world in enrollment and quality and #2 in maths and science education.
There are private schools but they are made unattractive by legislation.

Valmont

BluePlanet wrote: »

Publics across the globe are happy to administer state-run school systems. Every system can improve. No education systems are frozen in place forever, they have to change with the times.

BluePlanet wrote: »

John Stossel is a rightwing hack that misrepresents things, takes things out of context and relies on highly selective quotes; he is not going to be taken seriously by anybody but tea baggers. He doesn't even believe that the earth is warming which puts him firmly in the Flat Earther catagory in my book.

Considering I'm reading a book on logic at the moment: we have here an argument that contains more than a few vaguely optimistic platitudes, an ad hominem attack with some red herring on the side. Do you expect anyone here to take you seriously when you can't even properly contest the points you disagree with? Usually, when I can't properly contest something I disagree with, I check my premises and adjust if necessary. Over and over again, the defenders of socialism simply refuse, deny and avoid any rational evidence or arguments placed in front of them. Why? It isn't part of the program.

Ironically, that is my issue with Libertarianism; championing rationality in an demonstrably irrational world. Although that is for another thread.

censuspro

When medicare and social security was introduced they were described as socialist policies.

Valmont

censuspro wrote: »

When medicare and social security was introduced they were described as socialist policies.

They are socialist policies.

20Cent

The whole idea of applying an ideology to every issue is pretty stupid and lazy imho. Some things that a society needs don't work well when they are just for profit, schools, transport, healthcare are a few that spring to mind, others are better when they have the competition of the private sector. Most successful countries operate with a mixture of left and right.
It is easy to dismiss an idea as Socialist and therefore inherently wrong rather than to debate it on its merits like happened with the Health care bill in the US. Vested interests have been using the reds under the beds scare tactics to have people vote against their own best interests and for those of big industry since McCarthy.

BluePlanet

Valmont wrote: »

Do you expect anyone here to take you seriously when you can't even properly contest the points you disagree with?

Did he actually make any points?

Finland is a socialist country where 80% of the population have membership in a Trade Union.
Finland's public school system ranks as one of the world's best.
Donegalfella's pet rant that unions and public schools are automatically bad is shown to be false.

Should Ireland desire to be more like Finland or India?

I'll wager that the irish public would have our education system modeled after Finland's rather than India's.

But donegalfella will conveniently ignore all "socialist" successes and soapbox Ayn Randisms.

Manic Moran

It's a fair point, though I'd also argue caution about saying that just because the public system works in Finland that it can work just as well in Ireland or anywhere else. Finland is one of those morally rather conservative countries with a 'work ethic' which doesn't really match up with that in Ireland, they seem to take personal responsibility rather seriously. Nothing seems to be taken for granted there, it's a country where even taking your driver's test makes the Irish system look like a pathetic giveaway. Almost everyone has a gun, and is expected to be able to use it: Ask the Russians. They have an attitude of self-reliance which I just don't think many Irish people have. Or many Americans for that matter.

I have a very strong feeling that the success in the Finnish education system has a lot more to do with the Finns and their attitudes than the administration of their system: If it were private, I'd wager they'd be scoring about as highly. It is also to be noted that the 'scores' don't say anything about the cost-efficiency of their system. Though I presume they do all right, they seem to have money left over for things which the Irish budget doesn't.

NTM

southsiderosie

Public schools can work and work well. However, when the do tend to work it is because they have 1) strong leadership that challenges the status quo and 2) highly motivated and involved parents. That's why so much of the data on charter schools' superiority to regular public schools in the US is skewed: there is some selection bias in terms of what kids are enrolled in these schools, since their parents are more interested and involved than average.

Looking at India, little works well through the public sector. The same could be said for neighboring Pakistan. But let's take a closer look: Pakistan's reliance on private schools, i.e. madrassas, have radicalized an entire generation of children. Schools play an important role in the socialization process; in many countries schools are critical to the development of citizenship. Handing over the education of children wholesale to private interests may therefore be against the interests of the nation (and I deliberately use the word "nation" here, not the state).

Ultimately, the fact that schools are private does not make them inherently good; rather it is a combination of motivated and involved students, parents, and administration. That said, I think that teacher unions are a huge part of the problem with public schools. And I say this having grown up in a union household and worked for a labor union. It is almost impossible to fire a bad teacher; the New Yorker has also written about this extensively. The ability to get rid of bad teachers and to demand more of students and parents could go a long way towards improving public schools.

Anonymous1987

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The government bailouts are understood to be a temporary measure and were not exactly favoured by government but were rather a reaction after witnessing the consequences of letting Lehman Brothers go. I'm not aware of any motor companies being nationalised?

I haven't looked into it so I'm open to correction but I'd imagine the US government expenditure versus Canada is more a reflection of the poor expenditure decisions rather than a measure of how socialist it is. There is some substance to the argument that government is inefficient in the US (look at medicare and medicaid) but IMO that's down to poor policy making rather than an argument against government in general.

IMO its naive to think that the market alone will allocate all resources efficiently although most of the time it does a pretty good job. That said government has a role to ensure all it's citizens have access to Healthcare and Education, which are prerequisites to productivity (you can't get a job if you're sick or can't read or write) as a right. Then you can claim equal opportunities for all which is a very American ideal (i.e. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), no?

Getting back to the original topic of why socialism is a dirty word in America. I think it goes back to the cold war days when the Soviet Union was battling it out the US for world influence. Communism and socialism were equated with the Soviet Union and to be communist or socialist in America was to be a traitor. They even set up a commission to investigate suspected communists. Anyway the point is that this has been engrained in American culture. Socialism is seen as unpatriotic and evil and the left has been linked with outside influence with a certain paranoia (reasonable at the time) that it may destroy America hence the fear of doing anything the that Europeans might be doing such as universal healthcare.

Manic Moran

I'm not aware of any motor companies being nationalised?

Surprised you missed it, it caused quite a furore at the time. Ever since the Obama administration fired Rick Wagoner, the US Goverment was officially in the car-making business. In effect, GM and Chrysler are semi-state bodies.

Currently the majority shareholder of General Motors is the United States Treasury. The company was removed from the Dow in June of last year because the Dow's policy is not to include nationalised companies. The US Government only owns 8% of Chrysler, but five out of nine of the board of directors are government. (Four US, one Canadian). (The others are three FIAT, who own some 35% of the company, and one UAW).

Until this changes, the success or failure of these two companies is ultimately now the US Government's responsibility.

NTM

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You've drawn the wrong conclusions.
Brian Clowen's desire for a "knowledge economy" is contrary to your let-the-market-decide Ayn Rand philosophy. Indeed, you are basically calling for government interference to steer people into particular industry, which sounds a lot like a Planned Economy. The reasons that only 16 percent of students took higher level maths is precisely because "the market" has not attracted people to that area.

During the boom, scores of students got into Architecture. I wish i had the hard numbers but believe me when I say that Architecture Technician courses were crammed.
Now that has all evaporated.
This is an example of letting the market decide.
People will identify a gravy train and they'll queue to get onboard.

Wishing for a "Knowlege Economy" is not the same thing as "letting the market decide". It's idealism and it's aspirational. Those things fall neatly into a Planned Economy.

BluePlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

I have a very strong feeling that the success in the Finnish education system has a lot more to do with the Finns and their attitudes than the administration of their system

Yeah possibly.
HOwever, when those systems fail is it the fault of the Finnish character and their attitudes or is it bankrupt system?

censuspro

Valmont wrote: »

They are socialist policies.

Point is that the US was not a socialist country after the introdcution of medicare and social security.

censuspro

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a fair point, though I'd also argue caution about saying that just because the public system works in Finland that it can work just as well in Ireland or anywhere else. Finland is one of those morally rather conservative countries with a 'work ethic' which doesn't really match up with that in Ireland, they seem to take personal responsibility rather seriously. Nothing seems to be taken for granted there, it's a country where even taking your driver's test makes the Irish system look like a pathetic giveaway. Almost everyone has a gun, and is expected to be able to use it: Ask the Russians. They have an attitude of self-reliance which I just don't think many Irish people have. Or many Americans for that matter.

I have a very strong feeling that the success in the Finnish education system has a lot more to do with the Finns and their attitudes than the administration of their system: If it were private, I'd wager they'd be scoring about as highly. It is also to be noted that the 'scores' don't say anything about the cost-efficiency of their system. Though I presume they do all right, they seem to have money left over for things which the Irish budget doesn't.

NTM

If the student has good grades they're a smart student, if they have bad grades it because they have a bad teacher.

Ludo

censuspro wrote: »

If the student has good grades they're a smart student, if they have bad grades it because they have a bad teacher.

Complete over-simplification and generalisation.

hinault

If you lads want a bit of fun with the american reactionaries who calim that america is "goin' socialist" you should post here

http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/

Very very reactionary bunch.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course not. But those are issues for reform, not throwing the entire system on the scrapheap and hoping private industry pick things up.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's one opinion.
Lots of economists didn't predict it's collapse.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is there such a thing as a free-market knowledge economy?
It was Brian Clowen and the Fianna Failures that coined that phrase, at least in local use in this country. Those "industry leaders" are really only commenting on it from that point.

Besides, for such an endeavour to take root, don't you think we'll need better than 30% Broadband penetration, and actually have to invest heavily in fiber?
The state would be the ones building the infastructure.
Not Microsoft, Google nor Intel.

Manic Moran

BluePlanet wrote: »

Yeah possibly.
HOwever, when those systems fail is it the fault of the Finnish character and their attitudes or is it bankrupt system?

Good question.

I think it's fair to say that the state-run system is a lot less tolerant of deviation than a private sector system is: There are fewer checks in the system. Whereas private sector reprecussions in terms of cost or quality can be pretty immediate and would be relatively magnified.

If the student has good grades they're a smart student, if they have bad grades it because they have a bad teacher.

I never distinguished between them. I think it's fair to say that students worldwide have the same potential for learning and teachers worldwide have the same potential for teaching. The question is "how close to their potential do they get?" If the Finnish teachers need no additional motivating to be outstanding teachers, such as knowing that there are less than 86 steps to getting fired, or that there are few consequences for sleeping on the job, then great for them. The private sector, however, definitely keeps you on your toes a bit more and provides a lot more incentive for people to do good work who otherwise might be less inclined to do so.

If you wish to look at it another way, the 'bar for excellence' is going to be the same for both public and private, both have the same potential. But the 'minimum' bar for survival provides a narrower range band for the private sector.

NTM

BluePlanet

Manic Moran wrote: »

I think it's fair to say that the state-run system is a lot less tolerant of deviation than a private sector system is: There are fewer checks in the system. Whereas private sector reprecussions in terms of cost or quality can be pretty immediate and would be relatively magnified.

State-run systems are generally heavy on bureaucracy so there can be a lot more checks than private industry.
One of the benefits of state-run school systems is central administration and educational homogenization of the curricula.
No necessity to accomodate creationists, the "anti-science movement", sectarianism and religous idiosyncrasies. We can sideline them all in one fell swoop. Yes i know the irish system has a religious ethos but that is one of the things for reform.

Manic Moran wrote: »

If you wish to look at it another way, the 'bar for excellence' is going to be the same for both public and private, both have the same potential. But the 'minimum' bar for survival provides a narrower range band for the private sector.

Usually anyway. We've learned from the latest financial collapse this isn't always the case.
But i take your point. Yet it's still a case for reform.
But there is much i'd like to reform in education.
At least with a state-run system those reforms are made possible.

Not so with a de-regulated free-market one. If reform is needed there, it may require government interference to mandate change.
For example we may have to use civil rights legislation to insure gays and lesbians get to attend school. How would that sit with free-marketeers in Private Industry Schools?
Not very well i think.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Probably better than a patch-work of curricula where one private school concentrates on science while another on arts.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hand me the reins. Mandatory purchase orders anyone?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Correct, but is this a reason to scrap an education system? Hardly.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh sure. Competition has worked very well for us with Eircom, electricity providers etc. Hasn't it?

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

First example off the top of my head. But in the Bible Belt? You betcha.

Valmont

BluePlanet wrote: »

Competition has worked very well for us with Eircom, electricity providers etc. Hasn't it?

Are you suggesting that competition does not generally benefit an industry? Surely the success of capitalism in the west, and all it has allowed us to achieve suggests the opposite?

BluePlanet

Valmont wrote: »

Are you suggesting that competition does not generally benefit an industry? Surely the success of capitalism in the west, and all it has allowed us to achieve suggests the opposite?

No, i'm suggesting that privatising state-run institutions has not worked well for us.
We are a small island afterall.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluePlanet

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No, i am saying that the market here is too small to be profitable for large telephony companies or power generation companies to bother with us.

Unless we keep our prices artifically high to attract them. (but they haven't exactly taken the bait hereto).
And before you reply with O2 and Vodafone, i should state that i not referring to mobile telephony: "mobile broadband" has limited application.