Why does tiny Australia kick ass at the Olympics, while giant India flounders?

TimSmith said:
I thought Norway had a high GDP because of its North Sea Oil and low population? Wealth distribution is another story of course....

It's got some other good things going for it, many of which are organizational.

The economist had a review of a book that came out recently on the Scandanavian model. Pretty fascinating stuff if it's in any way correct.

Basicly claims that Norway and similar nations have put together incredibly effecient and sustainable tax codes, but that while they are much better for creating good funding for social services and supporting working environments they actually don't do that much for wealth redistribution.

Pretty interesting stuff.

What's even more interesting is how much the Economist has been mentioned in this thread already, Lord how I do love that magazine.

That and, to make things relevant, I think Australia also deserves a nod for hosting a very fine Olympiad. Athens has had its charms but Sydney was truly impressive.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Dr. Strangemonkey said:
What's even more interesting is how much the Economist has been mentioned in this thread already, Lord how I do love that magazine.

My favorite magazine as well (excluding RPG stuff of course)
 
Last edited:


Part of Australia's success is also due to the "post-olympic" effect. When a country hosts the olympic games there is more effort put in to creating a large olympic team. Because of the "home turf" more athletes are allowed to compete for the home country than would ordinarily be sent away. This provides encouragement and inspiration. The benefit of this carries on over the olympiad.

However, why the kiwis aren't doing any better, I have no clue. I guess their equestrians were put out to pasture, and their boatsmen sailed into the sunset.

An olympic sport I'd like to see is adventure racing similar to the Discovery Eco-challenge. Would be a great opportunity for the host nation to show off their nature. (and Kiwis are good at it too!)
 
Last edited:


The British and Australian militaries are just about the only ones in the work that can hang with (integrate command and control with similar quality material) the US Military.
 

rgard said:
The British and Australian militaries are just about the only ones in the work that can hang with (integrate command and control with similar quality material) the US Military.

Not if you believe the English press. I remember lots of stories regarding inadequacies in the British supply structure.

And as to the Australians... I have no real idea, but wasn't their only units in the Gulf area Naval or Special Forces? I could be very wrong of course.
 

green slime said:
Not if you believe the English press. I remember lots of stories regarding inadequacies in the British supply structure.

And as to the Australians... I have no real idea, but wasn't their only units in the Gulf area Naval or Special Forces? I could be very wrong of course.
Generally speaking, the only armed force that's big and good (well-trained, modern equipment, able to project a non-trivial portion of its force out of area), by American standards, is the US; the UK is small and good; Australia is tiny and good.
 

I dunno, but isn't this sort of dismissing Japan, which is only restricted by its constitution from oversea force projection, and other states which limit themselves politically, rather than militarily? France has a number of forces stationed overseas around the globe, and has a ready supply of expendibles in their Legionaires. No French mothers picketing the French presidency over those boys...
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top