The problem with bourgeois statistics is not that they are bourgeois but that ANY set of statistics can necessarily only give a limited perspective on the underlying reality. A further pitfall of relying on statistics is that their meaning can change when they become the targets of government policies. When governments seek to stimulate economic growth the composition of that growth changes qualitatively. When governments pursue full employment policies the nature of employment changes qualitatively. These qualitative changes don't show up in the established statistics. They can only be partially grasped by introducing new adjustments such as inflation adjusted GDP. And then the same process begins again with the adjusted numbers. I don't see how any "marxist" set of statistics could avoid this pitfall other than to exercise caution in using quantitative measure to investigate qualitative changes.
On 3/19/08, Patrick Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (By the way, all this banter is a reflection not of snarkiness - though > it may seem so - but frustration that old friend Doug still, after all > of this, seems wedded to bourgeois categories which prevents him from > discerning the system's underlying laws of motion.) -- Sandwichman _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
