berger
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 months ago
in Naomi Klein on Will Wilkinson
The use of Rorty here is priceless. If there's one thing that Rorty is not doing in this essay its offering a logical argument refutating Marxism - the very idea of such a refutation is antithetical to his whole epistemology...so what does it say about the philosophical defense of Milton if it has to turn to Rorty and his many narratives?
Tthere seems to be little attention here not only to Rorty's actual thought (particularly the role of literatire in it) but also concern for the meanings of words banal and untheoretical (though by the end of his complaint Will comes around to what R had in mind).
Tthere seems to be little attention here not only to Rorty's actual thought (particularly the role of literatire in it) but also concern for the meanings of words banal and untheoretical (though by the end of his complaint Will comes around to what R had in mind).
1 reply
4 months ago
in No Dice, Pickens! on Will Wilkinson
I don't quite see how Pickens is an economic illiterate speaking nonsense. Will seems to object that he isn't telling the whole story, that he doesn't appreciate how "the reason Americans bought all this oil from abroad was that they had no way to get more energy bang for their energy buck," but Pickens isn't really interested in this point - or he's speaking passed it. I take it that Pickens' point is that, esp. over the long term, our investment in foreign oil isn't mutually beneficial.
If we were to pay now and invest in locally produced energy sources the cost would be dramatic, at least in the short term - but Pickens (as I understand him) seems to suggest that such short term costs are worth it, economically but also in terms of the environment and national security.
This would obviously put some strain on the ability to create certain types of jobs ("stifling creativity") but why exactly wouldn't it help create others again? Does the money just get flushed down the toilet?
I am an economic illiterate so any help here is appreciated.
If we were to pay now and invest in locally produced energy sources the cost would be dramatic, at least in the short term - but Pickens (as I understand him) seems to suggest that such short term costs are worth it, economically but also in terms of the environment and national security.
This would obviously put some strain on the ability to create certain types of jobs ("stifling creativity") but why exactly wouldn't it help create others again? Does the money just get flushed down the toilet?
I am an economic illiterate so any help here is appreciated.
1 reply
Ak Mike
berger - Pickens says:
But I mean, here with $700 billion going out of the country, and let’s say that we could cut it in half — $350 billion in the United States, can you imagine how that would multiply for jobs here. I’d much rather that gonna $350 billion was being used here than to give some for foreign oil.
There's nothing in there about environment or national security. And it is nonsense. It is on the same level, economically, as saying let's stop buying backhoes from Japan, because we could create all these new jobs for Americans to move dirt with shovels and pickaxes. Whether the money is expended inside the country or outside the country is irrelevant. The only question is whether the expenditure improves efficiency.
If Pickens were claiming that spending on the wind farms would ultimately reduce our total energy bill and give us more energy for less money, that would not be nonsense (whether that would be true is a different question).
But that isn't what Pickens is saying. He's saying that even though we wind up spending more money on our energy, and thus depressing our standard of living, that is a good thing because we're giving the money to Americans. That statement is nonsense.
But I mean, here with $700 billion going out of the country, and let’s say that we could cut it in half — $350 billion in the United States, can you imagine how that would multiply for jobs here. I’d much rather that gonna $350 billion was being used here than to give some for foreign oil.
There's nothing in there about environment or national security. And it is nonsense. It is on the same level, economically, as saying let's stop buying backhoes from Japan, because we could create all these new jobs for Americans to move dirt with shovels and pickaxes. Whether the money is expended inside the country or outside the country is irrelevant. The only question is whether the expenditure improves efficiency.
If Pickens were claiming that spending on the wind farms would ultimately reduce our total energy bill and give us more energy for less money, that would not be nonsense (whether that would be true is a different question).
But that isn't what Pickens is saying. He's saying that even though we wind up spending more money on our energy, and thus depressing our standard of living, that is a good thing because we're giving the money to Americans. That statement is nonsense.
Thank you for noting how off-target Will and his commentators are in their assessment of Rorty, his ideas, and his language. Indeed, as you recognize, Will criticizes Rorty by all but plagiarizing the terminology and thrust of Rorty's own claims.
If one cannot see that "banal" is a positive term in Rorty's vocabulary -- precisely because it is pragmatic and not theoretical, reformist and not revolutionary, based on the struggles of consensus and not on the revelations of apocalyptic Truth (secular, sacred, or ideological) -- then a closer reading is definitely in order. Rorty is nothing if not deflationary. His is a liberalism of doubt, not dogma.