It is more important for the government to spend money on improving internet access than on public transportation. v.2

We are living in a skeptical era, but although some faiths in which our forefathers fervently believed have weakened, the belief that Internet plays an extremely important role in our society has never changed. So, as long as the issue that whether government’s budget should focus on Internet access improvement is involved, many citizens tend to agree with that. However, I, with more discretion, insist that we can ill afford to take this matter once for all since areas with different economic status should be taken into account. Without doubt, by no means should we neglect the fact that in some cases improving internet access enables people to collect different sources more conveniently, especially when it comes to advanced cities. Most of those cities are well-developed in transportation, medical and health care system and people living there enjoy a physically satisfactory life. So, little utility will entail if more money is spent on constructing better transiting system according to Utility Theory in economics. However, metropolis citizens are likely to put more attention to improving themselves by taking online courses or broaden their horizons by viewing news across the world. Therefore, only by providing them with better websites, can citizens with such demand be satisfied, which eventually increase welfare of the whole society. Hangzhou, one of the wealthiest cities in China, serves a good example to the point. Since ten years ago, the local government has launched a program with the aim to provide more stable Internet service with higher speed. According to a survey which was been done last year, the native citizens admitted that they had better resources for self-improvement and felt more easy to fulfill their demand. To my knowledge, despite the truth that offering more various and stable online resources benefit more than improving public transportation, it is irrational to take it for granted particularly for rural areas. Native villagers there rarely have advanced education and most probably have no idea what Internet is. They depend mainly on farming and live from hand to mouth. Sadly, they suffer from limited resources and bounded income because poor transportation systems eliminate trade opportunities with the outside world. However, if highways were built, local agricultural products could be traded to urban areas with higher prices, which would definitely accumulate more wealth for the whole area. Liangnong, a rural mountain village which I visited last year, vividly draws to this point. Before roads were built in the village, people there were extremely poor and led an almost primitive life. Luckily, thanks to government policy to improve public transportation there, now they directly benefit from selling commodity in higher price and buying products in lower price, i. e. comparative advantages. What is more, hundreds of tourists like me come to go sightseeing there, which brings a large fortune for this beautiful town. For the aforementioned analyses, we can safely come to the conclusion that the statement is biased. For well-developed areas, Internet access deserves more money from government. However, taking rural places into consideration, it can be easily seen that the statement is over-generalized.