2007-03-11 04:45:17 · 10 answers · asked by kamamakoo 1 in Social Science ➔ Economics
throughout History it seems Military victories are a judge of good sucessful countries
2007-03-11 04:48:16 · answer #1 · answered by Samantha 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The peoples quality of life is the only accurate measurement of a country's success. A country can have a rich economy which is not shared with the general population , but rather the wealth is held by a relatively small percentage of the population. Unfortunately, this rich, closely held economy will ultimately fail due to a lack of popular support.
If the general population is not made a part of the prosperity, the people will ultimately turn their backs on the economy. Black market economies will arise to fill the needs of the people, and the rich economy will begin a period of stagnation and decline.
A countries success is measured in the individuals quality of life as is measured by their ability to participate in the economy.
2007-03-11 05:08:15 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, 'success' depends on what you're trying for -- different people would have different criteria.
Forced to choose between the two options you give, I'd say quality of life.
I, myself, think the most successful, or perhaps healthiest, economy is the one with the least difference between the richest and poorest.
The US is increasingly unhealthy, as the chasm has been growing alarmingly between a very, very few have everything's and the vast majority, who have less and less.
2007-03-11 11:59:40 · answer #3 · answered by tehabwa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's people's quality of life - but, that usually comes with a rich economy.
2007-03-11 04:47:40 · answer #4 · answered by ra63 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Since you didnt ask about a country's wealth, I would say the success of a country should be measured by the quality of life of its poorest and most vulnerable citizens.
2007-03-11 04:48:35 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The only account I can think of is Gross Domestic Product. A nations with a strong GDP will have a higher standard of living ( material definition) which then can afford them a better quality of life (non material definition). It would be foolish to think we could have a high quality of life (good health care, education, peace of mind, freedom from terrorism) without first having some degree of economic strength thru the productive efforts of our country which we measure thru GDP.
2007-03-11 04:52:36 · answer #6 · answered by econgal 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably both along with world opinion. Canada was top for nine out of ten years in the nineties and early 21st C according to the UN and just recently we were number one in a BBC poll which rated negative and or positive impressions of countries.
Although if you asked alot of Canadians if they though Canada was tops in the way the average Canadian is treated or has been treated by governments in the past, both provincial and federal you might get a different review.
2007-03-11 04:55:16 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The average intelligence level of the country compared to others. The US fails miserably.
2007-03-11 04:54:22 · answer #8 · answered by Life Is Illusive 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
To me, the both interact. To have a good people, you must have a good economy.
2007-03-11 04:48:09 · answer #9 · answered by Guess Who 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i would say both cuz with the price of everything you gotta have the wealth to pay for the health
2007-03-11 04:47:23 · answer #10 · answered by bnd 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋