There's entirely too much "you seemed" in your reply. I'm sorry, but I don't "seem" to say or mean anything. I say what I say and if you want to interpret that in some extreme, nonsensical way or another, that's YOUR business (or problem as the case may be).
Do I "seem" to you to advocate destruction of the social system for its own sake, to have the delusion that things do not exist or to deny all established authority and institutions? Those are the definitions you gave in support of your assertion that I "seem" to be going down the road to nihilism. Those are reckless and groundless accusations, Jim. They don't "seem" irresponsible -- they ARE irresponsible. Did I "reject statistics altogether" by pointing out that the susceptibility of GDP to policy gaming renders it inoperative as a meaningful summary metric of economic performance. Would it be rejecting baseball altogether to argue for stripping A-Rod of his baseball records? Try this exercise: engage with what I say without distracting yourself with the straw men of what I "seem" to mean. "You seem" is projection. It's ventriloquism. Stop it, please. On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandwichman wrote: > > Swami Antonio, if you please, Jim... What I meant is that you've got > "your > > optimism of the will, pessimism of the intellect" beanie on backwards. > > It helps to use concrete referents rather than cliches. > > > And > > where did I say anything at all about unemployment, let alone "deny the > > existence of involuntary unemployment"? > > You seemed to be denying the existence of the difference between > actual and potential real GDP, which (under capitalism) is linked to > the existence of involuntary unemployment. (Workers suffer when > capitalism has indigestion.) Or perhaps you were instead simply > avoiding the issue. > > > I would say that the statistical > > measurement of unemployment becomes increasingly suspect to the extent > that > > employment becomes more precarious and unstandardized. That's another > story. > > Sure, there are problems with the statistics. A lot of them. But it's > empirical nihilism to reject statistics altogether. > > For example, the statistics about the number of hours that people work > for pay during a period such as a year or a month is increasingly > suspect (since employers like to get more work without more pay partly > by sneaking in unpaid hours), especially as employment becomes more > precarious and unstandardized. Does that mean that we should stop > considering the role of paid work-hours and drop the issue of > work-hours altogether? No, it means that we have to be careful and > critical in our use of the work-hour statistics. > > > Down the road to nihilism? So you're saying GDP is God, then? If that's > what > > you're saying, I'll gladly go down that road. GDP ain't just pining for > the > > fjords, man. It's dead. > > "Nihilism" is not just opposition to religion. Some web definitions: > > -- a revolutionary doctrine that advocates destruction of the social > system for its own sake > -- nihilistic delusion: the delusion that things (or everything, > including the self) do not exist; a sense that everything is unreal. > -- complete denial of all established authority and institutions > (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn) > > -- Nihilism (from the Latin nihil, nothing) is a philosophical > position which argues that existence is without objective meaning, > purpose, or intrinsic value. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) > > -- Extreme skepticism, maintaining that nothing has a real existence; > The rejection of all moral principles; etc. > (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Nihilism.) > > The kind of nihilism you seem to be approaching is the old one that > says "don't confuse me with facts." > > _Of course_ GDP ain't God (as I've said many times -- but who > listens?) However, we have the unfortunate fate of living in the belly > of a beast whose health is measured by (real) GDP and that punishes us > when it over-indulges, etc. As I said before, workers suffer when > capitalism has indigestion. GDP may be "dead" in your mind, Tom, but > it's not dead for the capitalist system and its inmates. To declare > GDP "dead" without paying attention to the system of power which > apotheosizes it simply adds more legitimacy to that system. It's like > declaring the US war on Iraq a "victory" (the way the Wall Street > JOURNAL has done) even though that's not true. > > When the system's health collapses and mass unemployment rises, there > are some who say "let's keep it that way, because it will solve the > environmental problems" (just like the fall from the 1920s to the > 1930s did) just as there are those who say "workers are paid too much > and spend too much, so we have to stop this over-indulgence." > -- > Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own > way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > -- Sandwichman
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
