It used to be one of the world's great certainties, like the Iron Curtain and free school milk. American television - mindless pap, British television - simply marvellous. But the Iron Curtain was torn down and we all know what happened to free school milk. There is still mindless pap on American television but fortunately most of it does not get imported by our schedulers. After all these days they have plenty of mindless pap of their own.

But if you think British television still rules the world you should, as the saying nearly goes, get out less. The American hit rate, particularly in what is called ''long-form drama'' and comedy, is consistently high. If anyone knows anything better than CSI, Frasier, The West Wing, Will and Grace, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, 24 or, latest to join, Six Feet Under, on at the moment, please let me know.

More interestingly, perhaps, let me know why. Because, there is something about how television gets created in the different countries which touches one some long,cherished ideas about art, imagination, creativity, capitalism, and cash. Public service, that very Presbyterian idea of John Reith's, has been the key philosophical idea behind broadcasting in Britain from the very beginning. In America, there has been no such philosophy. Making or broadcasting TV is a business like any other. The objective is no more complicated than making money. Sometimes the discussion is sublimated into ratings but in the end ratings are only about how

much you can charge for the

advertising slots.

So the first thing to note is that, just as in the movies, making programmes for profit does not necessarily prevent them from achieving the highest

standards. There is also the sheer weight of numbers. They do after all make many hundreds of hours more television in America than we do here. The base of the pyramid is wider so the tip is higher. Whether, as a proportion of total output, their hit-rate is higher than ours would take a rather more complex study than we have time for here. I suspect the answer may be not, but that doesn't stop the good stuff being very good indeed.

Nor is it just the number of programmes. There is also the number of dollars and pounds spent on each episode. Producers are coy about this but the Casualty production team reckons that ER spends around $1.5m per episode, approximately three times as much as they do. (Both programmes are the same length if you leave out the adverts).

The actors in Friends are well documented as having demanded and got $1m per episode for the final series though obviously they started on a lot less. A British sit com actor would consider (pounds) 20,000 an episode very good going. American actors are often more practised at and better trained for screen acting than our own. There is still a respect for the ''legitimate'' theatre here in drama schools which may be one reason why theatre standards here are still higher than they are there.

However, it is not generally the price of the actors which costs the money, certainly not for new series. It is the writers. And here we come to the most intriguing difference of all, one which reaches down to some profound ideas about culture, imagination, and invention. In Britain, and in Europe generally, writing is seen as a solo - or occasionally dual - act of creation. Look at the credits for most of the top- line comedy and drama and you will see one name - Amy Jenkins (This Life) John Sullivan (Only Fools and Horses) Stephen Moffett (Coupling) Mike Bullen (Cold Feet) and so on. It is one person's vision, a process which goes on inside a writer's head and as such it is endowed with mystical, even numinous properties. Six Feet Under, the startlingly brilliant new American import about a family of undertakers which started this week, is extremely unusual - indeed possibly unique in American

TV history - in crediting one writer as its sole progenitor. In this case it is Alan Ball who won numerous awards for his original screenplay for American Beauty.

Normally there are teams of writers, the whole process is approached entirely unsentimentally, they go on until every line, every cutaway, is honed to perfection. Half a sentence from one writer may be bolted on to another from someone else entirely. Nothing is left to chance and the guiding creative intelligence is frequently the producer figure; Steven Bocho (NYPD Blue), David Kelley (Ally McBeal), Aaron Sorkin (The West Wing) and so on.

In Europe there is a tendency to deride this system as mechanistic, industrialised, even dumb. It is only used here regularly on the soaps. But the evidence from across the water is piling up to indicate that it is anything but. Indeed, more and more often, it is simply better. Does this diminish the act of creation? Can the vision of many working together be more inventive than the vision of one working alone? There is an argument that the real skill of American television is taking an idea or a format and pushing it to its limits rather than having the idea in the first place.

I'm not sure there is a definitive answer and perhaps it is healthy to have two such different systems operating. But it's a good job they don't apply themselves to football in the same way.