🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <C1F01w.HG4@newcastle.ac.uk> Adrian.Waterworth@newcastle.ac.uk (Adrian Waterworth) writes:
>irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Brent Irvine) writes:
>
>	[ The ongoing discussion about the US and being "No. 1". ]
>
>>I wouldn't think so at all!  IMNSHO, it would be the sheer power of the
>>US in economy and military.  Despite the recent "catch-up" played by 
>>other nations, the US is still *the* economic giant, with an 
>>INCREDIBLY person-oriented service economy, with services and goods
>>available that tend to boggle the mind of nearly any arrival to the US
>>[including the 'developed' nations].
>
>	Hmmmm?  Military?  Perhaps, but that might just be a result of
>the fact that the US military typically has more money and resources to
>draw upon than the military establishments of most other nations.  For
>example, a large (and suitably patriotic) population from which to
>recruit and "good" budgets from the US Government.  (This aspect of

Yes, what makes the US military great is the money used to build it up,
however, the amount of discipline and cooridination shown by them
on the battlefield is something that no amount of cash can buy.
I would venture to say that even compared to the "Red" Armies, the
US had far more ability and coordination as well as top notch
equipment [because most of the battle is not the technology that
is available, but using it intelligently!].

But, yes, I agree the attention and philosophy paid by the gov't
allow the US its relative supremacy.

>resources to rely upon, although I assume that they would probably be
>more constrained in terms of budget.)

I would also say that their drafting soldiers doesn't help much either.

>	Mind you, having said all of that, the above factors do not
>necessarily make for a better military machine, just a bigger, somewhat
>better equipped, one.  Under the circumstances, I will leave questions
>of military effectiveness (or otherwise) to more knowledgeable
>contributors.

Well, money alone doesn't make the army, yes, and I would refer you to
my statements above.

>	Economy?  Now on that one, I really do have my doubts.  Having
>"an INCREDIBLY person-oriented service economy" does not seem to me to
>represent a sound indication of economic strength.  (To any economists

I meant to imply (and maybe I should have stated it explicitly) that
there is a "hidden" growth in increasing efficiency and personability
in the services economy.  In the last 10 years I have observed an
enormous change in prompt polite and efficient service which makes
life easier [and thats what all these "economic indicators" try to
measure, no?].  

One measure of personability would be the drive away from the "Mass
Market" in the media and other areas.  For instance, radio and
TV have specialized into specific listening styles and watching
styles, allowing the individual to tailor in-home entertainment
to his/her liking [any MST3K fans out there?].  That is one OVERT
example, but there are thousands everywhere, and UNFORTUNATELY 
it is not measured in economy.

>out there, is there a correlation or not?)  As for the availability of
>different goods and services, I find it hard to believe that the range
>of products available in the US is so much greater than those in any
>other developed nation.  From a personal point of view, I cannot think

I was not referring to the availability of consumer goods [but now
that you bring it up, how about cellophane tape that doesn't vellow
and fall off in about 2 months! :)].  I was talking about the efficient
*service* available that is both quick and (unless inthe NYC area! :)]
polite.

>of anything significant that I might want to obtain that I couldn't
>obtain here in the UK.  So, I think that this issue may present a much
>stickier wicket.  Particularly when one considers the economic strength
>that can be found in the far East - e.g. Japan.

While Japan and others show remarkable growth, the horrid state of 
affairs when it comes to land prices, high consumer good prices,
silly trade barriers (Which *do* affect domestic services and goods
adversely), and non-personal oriented economy, the citizens don't
share as much in the prosperity as they could or should.

[A bad example was Russia's huge growth rates in the 50's-60's was
NOT shared by its citizens for the most part!]

>>THAT, when compared with what a resident here sees of other nations,
>>makes the US as Number 1 very real.
>
>	Ah...but in the general case, how much of this particular
>"Weltanschauung" (as it might be called) can be attributed to sound
>evidence, obtained from personal experience of other nations, and how
>much can be attributed to simple prejudice on the part of the subject. 

Ach!  The implications of your statement!  No, cutting through the
flowery prose {as we Americans are famous for! :) :)}, I have
travelled and found the efficiency of many of the economic systems
as they relate DIRECTLY to the consumer less satisfying as in the
US (higher prices, slower shopping, less service oriented clerks
UNLESS you are in a hugely high priced store!).

>>While most people know recent immigrants, I doubt it has much impact
>>upon the self-image of the US.
>
>	That one I don't know.  Any USA-nians (sorry!) want to comment
>on that?
 Yikes, please call us by what we call ourselves: Americans!


BTW- Britain is a wonderful nation, and I always look forward to
returning someday!  Scotland is lovely as well, and the service there
is excellent!
-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+
| Brent L. Irvine         | For a mere $50 these personal  | Ak! Its 1992 tax|
| irvine@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu | opinions can also be yours!    |  season! Yuck!  |
+-------------------------+--------------------------------+-----------------+