Jim, Your inferences from what I said are so extreme and ad absurdum that tacking on a qualifying "you seemed" hardly rates as a courtesy. It looks to me more like you take it as a license. Why should I have to deny agreeing with stupid opinions I never stated? Thanks but no thanks for giving me that "out".
But I will deny that I "reject statistics that don't fit with my world-view." I reject statistics when I know enough about their construction to have documented reservations about their truth status. And I categorically deny your baseless claim that I am "perfectly willing to accept the totally flawed and likely severely biased statistics about the work load faced by working-class people." Where do you get the gall to just MAKE SHIT UP about what I reject and what I accept? Oh, I guess it would have been O.K. if you had instead said I seemed to reject or accept? With regard to GDP, the gaming I refer to is not in the numbers. I have seen no evidence that the numbers are falsified. It is simply that the GDP aggregates things that don't add up to a coherent picture of "utility". To take the simplest example, increased congestion adds to GDP (see Fred Hirsch's Social Limits to Growth). Can you explain to me in what way increased congestion benefits even the "success of a fundamentally exploitative, alienating, and undemocratic economic system" (other than augmenting tax revenues). On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Sandwichman wrote: > > 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). > > OK, you didn't "seem." You _did_ miss the fact that people (and not > just I) use the phrase "you seem to have that opinion" in order to > give you an out, so you can deny agreeing with stupid opinions. > > It's not just a rhetorical matter, however: since I have an extremely > hard time reading anyone's mind, I don't like to assert that anyone > have such and such opinion unless I can find a direct quote which > makes that clear. You didn't "seem" to miss this; you _did_ miss this > point. > > All of this use of the word "seems" was aimed at avoiding a pointless > flame-war. Oh well... > > > 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. > > I used the quotes about the web definitions of nihilism in order to > get away from your narrow definition of nihilism totally in terms of > religion. It wasn't a narrow definition you "seemed" to use; it was > one you used. > > As I "seemed" to make clear (to those who can read), I was talking > about a very specific kind of nihilism, the root-and-branch rejection > of empirical statistics. The key passage: > > I said: >>The kind of nihilism you seem [sic] to be approaching is the > old one that says "don't confuse me with facts."<< > > However, you made it clear -- and make it clear in the paragraph below > -- that you do not reject statistics. Instead, you reject statistics > that don't fit your world-view. You are perfectly willing to accept > the totally flawed and likely severely biased statistics about the > work load faced by working-class people. You do not accept GDP at all, > even though it's quite possible to have a more sophisticated and > intelligent interpretation of those numbers without buying into > capitalist ideology [see below]. > > > 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. ... > > GDP numbers aren't "gamed," at least not in the U.S. That's crap. It > doesn't merely "seem" to be crap. The powers that be do not want to be > deceived by their own stats; it's not like anyone's election or stock > option hinges on the value of GDP numbers. > > The basic problem with GDP numbers is that they measure the success of > a fundamentally exploitative, alienating, and undemocratic economic > system. The tragedy is that we're forced to live under that system, so > that improvements from the system's point of view (rising real GDP to > reduce involuntary restrictions of work-hours) actually are _good_ for > people. (Looking at matters from the inside, most working people see > it as good: they want "jobs, jobs, jobs.") > > Contrariwise, persisting high involuntary unemployment is _bad_ for > people (and I care about people rather than seeing them as mere > targets for slogans). It does not just "seem" bad for people: Dr. > Harvey Brenner and others have shown that rising unemployment is > associated with increased deaths due to murder, suicide, etc. > Stagnation (persistently high unemployment) isn't good for people > either. > > It's like living in a prison camp, where an improvement in its > organization can benefit not only the guards and the warden but also > the prisoners. If we avoid the organizational improvement, it can mean > severe pain and even death for the inmates. > > >Would it be rejecting baseball altogether to argue for stripping A-Rod > > of his baseball records? > > No, obviously not. However, it would be a mistake. A-Rod's use of > steroids was part of Major League Baseball's system: everyone winked > at steroid use, including the Leagues and the managers. (Why else did > MLB face the steroid problem long after other professional sports > did?) Under this system, athletes who didn't use steroids were > punished -- because it gave them a relative disadvantage. > > So it's a mistake to punish A-Rod alone. It makes more sense to take > the big money out of sports. This would help undermine the incentive > to use steroids. (It's not enough to ban their use.) > -- > 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
