4 ms·

Lets not fool ourselves. First and foremost the money is here and the business environment (capitalism) is the most favorable than any other region of the world

Lets not fool ourselves. First and foremost the money is here and the business environment (capitalism) is the most favorable than any other region of the world.

mch82 6y ago
It hasn’t always been this way. Prior to the 1900s the wealth was outside the US. Capitalism existed in the world before the US, possibly in more extreme forms. It seems like you’re discounting the possibility the US education system & government contributed to the current economic situation. To what do you attribute the change?
- exdsq 6y ago
  Didn’t the rise of the US as a superpower mainly came down to financial gains during World War 1?
  - boringg 6y ago
    Certainly helped but that is but one lens to look at it. Another lens is the US is endowed with incredible amounts of natural resources that have been utilized over the last century where as former super powers didn't have that same capability. A gross oversimplifications for sure but part of the equation.
  - spideymans 6y ago
    Pretty much. Their main geopolitical rivals in Europe imploded thanks to WWI and WWII. Had Europe not levelled itself, the USA likely would never have caught up in terms of economic superiority, and the USA would've remained a strongly isolationist middle power. (Now keep in mind that the prospect of a peaceful 20th century Europe is unrealistic. Europe was a warring tinderbox at the time, and even if WWI and WWII had not happened, a conflict of similar scale likely would've broken out in Europe regardless. Any number of destructive conflicts could've broken out, including a Soviet invasion of Germany and Western Europe. In short, it's really hard to construct a timeline where the USA wouldn't have been catapulted into superpower status due to war in Europe)
    - refurb 6y ago
      The US was the biggest economy in the world by the late 1800’s.
  - NineStarPoint 6y ago
    World War 2 was the one that really solidifed the US’s spot as a superpower, and in both cases it had as much to do with Europe’s losses from the wars as it did with anything the US gained. It also seriously helps that the US is a gigantic country filled with an abundance of natural resources. Europe destroying itself twice right as modern industrialization kicked into high gear, along with those resources, are what turned the US into a superpower.
    - kazen44 6y ago
      also, the US had a major advantage in terms of geography. the country is sided by two major oceans from both sides without any neighbour who could form a threat. compare this to pre ww1 Europe, which was a tinderbox thanks to multiple empires (with a major history of going to war with each other for resources or people) becoming rapidly industrialised and waiting to get back "their land/people" from a precious war.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    The US become the world's largest economy somewhere around the 1880s or 1890s. By that time, it was a world-leading innovator in several (but by no means all) technologies, perhaps railroads most of all (e.g., the US switched to automatic couplers in the 1890s; the EU is piloting switching to them now, 130 years later). However, despite its immense economic prowess, the US did not play a major part in international affairs, often explicitly choosing to stay out of European debacles. (This is often called isolationism, but that's not a wholly accurate description of foreign policy). For its part, Europe also generally ignored the US: a posting to the US would have been seen as a punishment rather than an honor, taking the person involved outside of the social circles of Europe. When WWI strikes, the US stays out of the war in the initial phases before changing its mind and getting involved. As the only party involved which didn't eviscerate its population by war, it gained a lot of leverage over the peace treaty... which it promptly squandered by going isolationist again and staying out of the European squabbles. During WWII, Roosevelt again takes a leading role in dictating the terms of the peace treaties and post-war diplomatic order, with the US actually staying in the role afterwards, unlike WWI. The term "superpower" is usually only used to analyze the roles of countries in the post-WW2 order, with the US and the USSR (and, briefly, the UK) afforded the role of superpower since they dominate the world political sphere. Before WWI, the analysis is in terms of great powers, and is mostly looking at their influence within the idea of the "Concert of Europe." Here, despite the US's economic strength, its noninterest in Europe renders it outside of most discussions of great power politics. And between the wars, pretty much the only analysis people care to do is in how the stage is set for WWII. This is a long-winded way of saying that the answer to your question is "no."
- desktopninja 6y ago
  This article best describes what I've trying to convey: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays And I think it will answer your question.
- ur-whale 6y ago
  > To what do you attribute the change? Socialist tendencies in the EU are a 20th century thing. Europe was far more capitalist in the 18th and 19th century.
Gimpei 6y ago
Having studied and worked in universities in the US, France, Russia, the UK, and Japan, this is closest to my experience. US universities like Harvard have a ton of money that they can throw around in order to get the best researchers. The one downside for professors is that since students are often paying so much, they expect a better teaching experience, meaning more lectures, more office hours, more feedback, etc. This is particularly the case in business schools.
- sjg007 6y ago
  Harvard has very small class sizes....

Lets not fool ourselves. First and foremost the money is here and the business environment (capitalism) is the most favorable than any other region of the world.

mch82 6y ago

It hasn’t always been this way. Prior to the 1900s the wealth was outside the US. Capitalism existed in the world before the US, possibly in more extreme forms. It seems like you’re discounting the possibility the US education system & government contributed to the current economic situation. To what do you attribute the change?

exdsq 6y ago
Didn’t the rise of the US as a superpower mainly came down to financial gains during World War 1?
- boringg 6y ago
  Certainly helped but that is but one lens to look at it. Another lens is the US is endowed with incredible amounts of natural resources that have been utilized over the last century where as former super powers didn't have that same capability. A gross oversimplifications for sure but part of the equation.
- spideymans 6y ago
  Pretty much. Their main geopolitical rivals in Europe imploded thanks to WWI and WWII. Had Europe not levelled itself, the USA likely would never have caught up in terms of economic superiority, and the USA would've remained a strongly isolationist middle power. (Now keep in mind that the prospect of a peaceful 20th century Europe is unrealistic. Europe was a warring tinderbox at the time, and even if WWI and WWII had not happened, a conflict of similar scale likely would've broken out in Europe regardless. Any number of destructive conflicts could've broken out, including a Soviet invasion of Germany and Western Europe. In short, it's really hard to construct a timeline where the USA wouldn't have been catapulted into superpower status due to war in Europe)
  - refurb 6y ago
    The US was the biggest economy in the world by the late 1800’s.
- NineStarPoint 6y ago
  World War 2 was the one that really solidifed the US’s spot as a superpower, and in both cases it had as much to do with Europe’s losses from the wars as it did with anything the US gained. It also seriously helps that the US is a gigantic country filled with an abundance of natural resources. Europe destroying itself twice right as modern industrialization kicked into high gear, along with those resources, are what turned the US into a superpower.
  - kazen44 6y ago
    also, the US had a major advantage in terms of geography. the country is sided by two major oceans from both sides without any neighbour who could form a threat. compare this to pre ww1 Europe, which was a tinderbox thanks to multiple empires (with a major history of going to war with each other for resources or people) becoming rapidly industrialised and waiting to get back "their land/people" from a precious war.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  The US become the world's largest economy somewhere around the 1880s or 1890s. By that time, it was a world-leading innovator in several (but by no means all) technologies, perhaps railroads most of all (e.g., the US switched to automatic couplers in the 1890s; the EU is piloting switching to them now, 130 years later). However, despite its immense economic prowess, the US did not play a major part in international affairs, often explicitly choosing to stay out of European debacles. (This is often called isolationism, but that's not a wholly accurate description of foreign policy). For its part, Europe also generally ignored the US: a posting to the US would have been seen as a punishment rather than an honor, taking the person involved outside of the social circles of Europe. When WWI strikes, the US stays out of the war in the initial phases before changing its mind and getting involved. As the only party involved which didn't eviscerate its population by war, it gained a lot of leverage over the peace treaty... which it promptly squandered by going isolationist again and staying out of the European squabbles. During WWII, Roosevelt again takes a leading role in dictating the terms of the peace treaties and post-war diplomatic order, with the US actually staying in the role afterwards, unlike WWI. The term "superpower" is usually only used to analyze the roles of countries in the post-WW2 order, with the US and the USSR (and, briefly, the UK) afforded the role of superpower since they dominate the world political sphere. Before WWI, the analysis is in terms of great powers, and is mostly looking at their influence within the idea of the "Concert of Europe." Here, despite the US's economic strength, its noninterest in Europe renders it outside of most discussions of great power politics. And between the wars, pretty much the only analysis people care to do is in how the stage is set for WWII. This is a long-winded way of saying that the answer to your question is "no."
desktopninja 6y ago
This article best describes what I've trying to convey: https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays And I think it will answer your question.
ur-whale 6y ago
> To what do you attribute the change? Socialist tendencies in the EU are a 20th century thing. Europe was far more capitalist in the 18th and 19th century.

Gimpei 6y ago

Having studied and worked in universities in the US, France, Russia, the UK, and Japan, this is closest to my experience. US universities like Harvard have a ton of money that they can throw around in order to get the best researchers. The one downside for professors is that since students are often paying so much, they expect a better teaching experience, meaning more lectures, more office hours, more feedback, etc. This is particularly the case in business schools.

sjg007 6y ago
Harvard has very small class sizes....