English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

To be more clear, i'm interested in knowing how the US developed into becoming one of the economically strongest countries in the world. Pls. note that i want to know how the rural regions of America's past developed into becoming cities and towns in the context of applying this knowledge to finding ideas abt. how other countries can use this learning to develop their rural, semi-rural areas. How does a country improve its infrastructure, distribution mechanisms and further real economic improvement in the rural citizenry? I know that the first step is the roadways & travel/distribution pathways , the general infrastructure like raw material, power and water reqd. for industrial development, etc - but what i'm really looking for is why other countries which also have some of these attributes have not been able to develop as well as most parts of the United States... for example, Australia or India?

2006-08-11 00:50:44 · 4 answers · asked by Will D 1 in Social Science Economics

4 answers

Australia is a desert island with a few coastal cities on the edges. It can't be compared to America. India is so crowded and poor that it just cannot develop the same way.

America was a new land with vast resources 300 years ago. Crops like tobacco, cotton and sugar gave America a great start. A high percentage of educted people began America and kept their work ethic alive through a deep common belief in Christianity. Later, America was on the winning side of World Wars and profited from rebuilding other parts of the world.

I think that India and Australia will have to follow a different model to succeed.

2006-08-11 01:00:43 · answer #1 · answered by Texas Cowboy 7 · 0 0

Australian's are stupid. This can be seen by looking at the below example of Macquaries bank.
Macquarie bank sees that most government operations (which was funded fully by tax payers) run at cost for the benefit of society. Hence in market terms the government operation is underpriced, as it could make money if it were to run efficiently. Macquarie Bank offers to run the business more efficiently, buying at its current market value (which is almost nothing to its start up cost as its current plan is to never make money, and the present value of zero is always zero!). M.B. then doubles the value of the company by asset stripping, and setting perato efficient prices. M.B. then sell the company back to the public, but retain rights to manage the company. The new owners get a low annual percentage return, and any cream on top goes to Macqaurie bank. As all government operations are critical to society, and most are a monopoly's, there is always much excess cream for companies like M.B.. From the Australian publics perspective they are now offered less, and are required to pay more for the service.

If an american saw this happen in the U.S., they would shoot the politicians and business men. Australians give Macquaire Bank rewards and praise for doing such a good job. (as was seen with the NSW premier turned M.B. employee Bob Carr)

This is happening in all the australian sectors, and is why australia is backward.
You'll have to ask an indian for why india isn't at the level of the U.S.

2006-08-11 01:13:17 · answer #2 · answered by tzeentchau 2 · 0 0

We came out on the winning side of two world wars. Since, we were not directly involved in either war at the beginning, and since we were the creditor to most of the European nations we didn't build up the same sort of war debt that the European powers.

And while Europes industry was destroyed by the war with bombings and massive loss of manpower, ours was built up but investment in new capital stock to build the weaponary.

By the end of World War Two this left the US in the power position.

2006-08-11 15:12:16 · answer #3 · answered by MikeD 3 · 0 0

I have the same question!!!

2006-08-11 00:58:57 · answer #4 · answered by luckyfriend26 1 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers