The point is that these terms are widely used and keep coming up. An example, DowneastDem put up a diary while we were discussing the term "Anglo-Saxon", pointing us towards a think-tank study that uses the Scandinavian model, the Continental model, and the Anglo-Saxon model as terms of reference. (No criticism is meant here of either DowneastDem or the study). I'm simply saying that the terms are often used.
It's a question of representation, then of perception. Experts, scholars, think-tankers, pundits, invent these constructs to simplify their discourse, no doubt also the better to sell it to the media. The journalists pick the constructs up and pass them on. People's perception is modified by them. Conventional wisdom is formed. Since we live in democracy, that is ultimately a political process. It's against that CW-forming process that we have been protesting here.
I think all talk of models should be dropped. However, if we went all the way along the lines you suggest, we would only recognize countries as economic units. It's true that our countries, over their one-two-three centuries of existence as modern states, have developed idiosyncracies, some of them well-adapted to this or that country's circumstances, some even partly determining the nature and character of the country. But, though it may take time, we can go beyond that, at least partly. To think otherwise would be simply to accept nationalism as a fatality and to give up on the EU right now.
As for "corporate capitalism" as an expression, you seem to disapprove of it because of an association with Galbraith, and because Paul Krugman says big corporations have declined in importance in the US economy. It may be that this has come about as they have outsourced and offshored, becoming transnational. Major corporations (US or not) still seem to me to be very big players.
I would suggest parts of New York are more closely linked to parts of London than they are to Arkansaw.
Is there any doubt?
You're right about the idea of the "US economy" being nonsensical. I usually use the national terms for simplicity of comparison, but I guess it's no less ridiculous than the idea of a "model". Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
Apologies -- as you were... Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Well that's not quite true, because the linkage between NYC and Arkansas includes federal tax rates, the regulatory environment, and free travel of labor and enterprize between the two. The linkage between NYC and London is the big city culture, which applies as well to Singapore and several dozen other large cities.
I disagree. I think what Colman is picking up on is the financial ties. New York and London have been, arguably, the world's two financial centers for nearly a century, and there is a great deal of interdependency between the two. (Interdependency is what we're really talking about, when we discuss economic ties. New Yorkers have money in London, and vice-versa.) The connections you're drawing are political (governmental) ones rather than economic ones. There's much more to the London-NYC connection than simply big-city culture.
Even setting aside the fact that NYC is a big city, and that the largest city in Arkansas is only a small fraction of NYC's size in terms of population, NYC and Arkansas have very little in common, other than falling under the "USA" label. The Arkansas economy is ruled by agriculture, manufacturing, and maybe a few high-tech jobs (probably connected with the university towns). New York is a well-developed global center of economic activity. (Try owning a farm in New York in this housing market.)
I'm sure there are exceptions. There are probably a few very large Arkansas-based companies with offices in New York. But it still doesn't compare with London. Remember that you also have major ports in the Northeast, too, which connect the area with Europe. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. - George Carlin
