Walter Hinteler wrote:Oh, Scrat, I really did neither want to make a joke nor to correct you!
I just thought that c.i. was referring to California as his local economy.
He may have been, but I think it's clear that when I wrote of "thousands" of local economies, I was not sharing his viewpoint. Though you do make a point... IF CI meant the CA state economy when he wrote of his "local" economy, then I have to back off a little on my response to him. I think of "local" as being the area I live in; a region defined by a couple of largish cities. The notion that a "local" economy as I use the term tells us anything absolute about the nation's economy is one I can't accept. BUT the notion that CA's economy is meaningful in looking at the economy of the nation... yeah, somewhat, I guess. As CI wrote, CA's economy is certainly large enough that it has to influence the nation's, even if CA's economy is ruled by different things than those of other states.
So CI, if that is what you meant by "local", please ignore my previous comments.