Talk:Anglo-Saxon model

Move suggestion

Maybe this article should be moved to Anglo-Saxon capitalism to avoid confusion with the economy of the Anglo-Saxons.--Bkwillwm 18:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I was also confused when I first came across the article. I'm going to put in a redirect from Anglo-Saxon capitalism to this article (since the phrase couldn't mean anything else... I'm imagining hordes of accountants in animal skins!). However, I suspect that normally one would come across this article via a contextual link. Presumably, then it would be clear. Rswarbrick (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of unemployment

Doesn't mention anything about the unemployment rates of young people, immigrants, etc., in Franc. Blima3000 21:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Should we? And in what context would it be relevant to the article as it now stands? From the sound of it, when this comment was left, the article merely stated Vive la France! I'm not sure that we should bash the French economy specifically in this article (or anywhere!) Rswarbrick (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about bias

Seems pretty biased

Why mention the oil and gas bonus? Since France has a bigger agricultural sector than the UK why not mention an agriculture bonus? It seems specious to mention it in a comparison as if it's not real GDP. I agree with the previous comments: this article is biased, the POV is either French or pro-Continental model economy BaseTurnComplete 11:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I believe this comment is now out of date. Rswarbrick (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Now I see why the POV has developed in this article. Looking at the history log, 213.132.131.71 appears to have taken umbrage at Blima3000's introduction of statistics into the comparison that present France in a less than shining light, and therefore has removed them and added other (irrelevant) statistics to tilt things in France's favour, and has removed text that points out that there could be other factors at play rather than just the effects of the economic model. Grow up, 213.132.131.71.

I've edited things to re-introduce a bit of balance into the article.BaseTurnComplete 15:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The exsistence of an "Anglo-Saxon" economic system itself is disputed; thus, adding OR research attempting to make an arguement in favor or against "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism is completely out of place here (Well, actually OR research is always out of place). Signature^brendel 23:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Some criticism to the article

I'm sorry but I think that it's practically impossible to define univocally the economy of anglosaxon world. In fact should be noted that UK invented the first modern welfare state and the attempt of New Labour's ideas is to demonstrate that a liberal, free-marked economy is not against a wider conception of "wealth for all" but, on the contrary, it is possible.

The UK is far more comparable to its European counterparts than the U.S. in terms of well-fare state. The real difference is between the U.S. and Europe, not English-speaking countries and Europe. Signature^brendel 23:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully, that's now reasonably clear from the article. Of course stating "The real difference..." is presumably a point of view so not allowed. Hopefully, the facts presented speak for themselves. Rswarbrick (talk) 01:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Protestantism

"in the case of the UK, some form of Anglicanism"

Surely a major input into the UK's prosperity in the past has come from English nonconformists, especially Quakers, and from Scots people, predominantly Presbyterians?

--PeterR 12:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, few, few, few -if any- contemporary economists believe in a relationship between protistanism and economic prosperity (Weber's book was written in and largely about 19th century Germany). Besides, agonsticism tends to be more common among wealthy nations (and those with higher incomes within those nations) than in developing countries. The modern day UK, like most of the developed world -though unlike the U.S.- is quite secular. Signature^brendel 23:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Dead link without clear replacement

The following was included in the References section, which would have appeared in External Links with the rearrangement of content: United Nations Development Programme: Human Development Indicators. The Internet Archive was not much help in quickly finding a replacement. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 22:00, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Subheadings

Whew, I've said a lot above, but one comment on a new topic: I reasonably extensively restructured the article to eliminate some of the repetition and plonk that actual content below the table of contents. But I think the subheadings aren't really correct/applicable now (or ever?). So I'd be grateful if anyone could think of a better way to name them. Rswarbrick (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider deletion again

This article is not justified as almost no one writes of "Anglo-Saxon" economies. Its very existence as an economic system has not been established. The racist term "Anglo-Saxon" is offensive to people in Ireland who are not Anglo-Saxons and neither of those two groups ever settled in Ireland. The whole article is bogus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrodesIII (talk • contribs) 11:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Google book search ... --RA (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Timeline

I doubt Anglo-Saxon model of capitalism emerged from nowhere in the 70s, it is possible that the 70s 'shaped' that model in a way or even named it but 'emerged'... --Aleksd (talk) 10:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)