Daniel Davies wrote, > I have never, ever, in any series at all, been > aware of a single area of > macroeconomic statistics in which the USA is > not head and shoulders above > the rest of the world in terms of timeliness,
My understanding was that Statistics Canada is the best in the world, overall. I don't know if this holds for macroeconomics specifically. Sometimes I've found BLS series more useful; other times not. Speaking of statistics, I would like to mention two books that I use frequently. One is _Statistics for Social Change_ by Lucy Horwitz and Lou Ferleger, published by South End Press, 1980. It gives a good popular account of how statistics are used in argument and what are the pitfalls. The other book is _The Taming of Chance_ by Ian Hacking, Cambridge University Press, 1990. Hacking traces the historical development of the concept of probability and how that interacted with state institutions. I find it frustrating to be always arguing the "honesty" and "accuracy" questions, which in my view are beside the point(s). One of the points (Hacking) is that the things statististics measures have been shaped historically by their position vis-a-vis the state and its statistical apparatus. It becomes a cycle -- this is important because it is measured and it is measured because it is important. It also changes and those changes are a function of its importance and measurability. The other point is that statistics are inevitably part of arguments and the misuse of statistics in arguments is so pervasive it was already a truism in the 19th century -- there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Good statistics -- in the sense of accuracy, timeliness and comprehensiveness -- in themselves do not innoculate us from bad arguments that use those good statistics. And by "bad arguments," I don't mean only other people's bad arguments. If one assumes that phenomena gauged by state statistics are simply facts that are out there independent of the role of the agency that gathers them, then one eventually becomes swept into the discussion about how to fine tune (and only fine tune) this marvelous machine -- the best of all possible machines. As an after thought, another book I would suggest is _Labor Statistics and Class Struggle_ by Marc Linder, International Publishers, 1994. Linder takes a closer look at the institutional politics and history regarding specific BLS series and class issues. Linder shows that the "class struggle" inherent in labor statistics not a matter of top-hatted capitalist meanies rubbing their hands together and cackling as they think up clever accounting tricks to deceive and enslave the workers. Nor is it a matter of noble, slightly to the left of centre civil servants stoically cranking out an objective, politically neutral account of the facts for the edification of all. We hear so much about "preemptive self-defence" these days, it may be seeping into the rhetorical strategies on this list. Either that or I missed the message where someone recklessly attacked the intelligent, scrupulous use of statistics by other people on the list. By the way, notwithstanding Michael's not seeing "any reason for the nastiness," there may indeed be a reason. And that reason may also help explain the "we're having big fun over here on the right" phenomena (http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/41/on-powers.php). I did a quick scan of the fun guys on the right and spent a little more time looking at one particular fun guy on the right and noticed one distinctive feature that contrasted with left discourse. There was a lot of jocular "kill talk." Not all of it was graphic. Some was euphemistic, like "take out Saddam." But the kill talk seemed to me to be playing a crucial role in bonding between the righties. There are obstacles to a comparable kill talk on the left. For one thing, many of us hold the opinion that killing is not sport and that talking about killing doesn't advance progressive politics. There are also possible legal complications if people on the left routinely made jokes about killing people _we_ don't like. We're not on a level playing field with the right in regard to kill talk. They can rhetorically murder with impunity. Before anybody concludes that I'm calling righties a bunch of blood-thirsty cretins, I want to clarify that I don't take the kill talk literally. There is, of course, always the danger it may get played-out literally in some psychopathic spectacle of "preemtive self-defence" but I don't see that as an integral part or inevitable consequence of the rhetoric. What I do see as an integral part is the bonding that takes place around the kill talk. Nietzsche wrote that "all instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward." And it may be worth asking whether the internal rancor of the left may have something to do with the self-imposed and societal constraints that the left feels about rhetorical violence. Remember I am talking about *rhetorical* violence. In his _Rhetoric of Motives_, Kenneth Burke questioned what the literary function of suicide and murder was in a number of texts, among them Milton's Samson Agonistes. To make a long story short, Burke saw these themes as figuring change. I don't know if my short story does justice to Burke's long one, but the point is that kill talk projects a metaphor for profound change that people can identify with (can, not necessarily will). Sorel was saying something similar (although not identical) with his theory of social myths. Rhetorical violence, taken literally, may well be the mother of all weapons of mass destruction. Let's ignore it and hope it goes away. On second thought, haven't we tried that? Tom Walker 604 255 4812
