B. Estrade wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 07, 2008 at 11:44:13AM -0600, Dennis J Harrison Jr wrote:
>
>> Also Finland has one of the highest rates of social mobility over a
>> lifetime. Meaning you can go from dirt poor to affluent there much
>> easier then here :)
>>
>
> Finland is also "slightly smaller than Montana" in land area with nearly 1/60th the population of the US.
>
> https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fi.html
>
> Do you think you can rightly compare the two?
>
> Brett
>
>
>
Size difference of the 2 countries are brought up almost always brought
up immediately. While it does contribute to some issues, there are many
others it really does not matter. When related to the original
statement, I believe the size of the country makes very small
difference. I think more determining factors are the attitudes towards
change and eagerness to move forward.
Actually I believe the size of the Finland is against the statement.
Let's say you have a product you want to sell to everyone in Finland and
the product is worthy purchase. The pool you are selling to is only a
bit over 5 million. Here on the other hand, the pool is 320 Million +
all illegal immigrants. Then on the other hand, there are issues here
which naturally make selling the product more difficult. To mention
couple, a distribution due to the size of the country, mega corporations
which do not allow you to enter on their turfs, or at minimum, make you
pay hefty share to them.
One would also expect some common things such as broadband be a lot
cheaper here due to the quantity of homes and businesses using it, then
how come this same commodity is faster and cheaper in many other,
smaller countries? (Including Finland.) The rules of supply and demand
does not seem to work....
Per capita could be more appropriate way of measuring things in
different countries.
Petri
___________________
Nolug mailing list
nolug@nolug.org
Received on 12/07/08
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : 12/19/08 EST