ravi wrote: > > You may also have to take into consideration the other issue raised in > Jim's post: that indices are redefined so that the practitioners do not > have to practice dishonesty at all (his examples were unemployment and > the CPI). Perhaps the burden of proving (or at least demonstrating some > valid suspicion) that is the case, falls on Leigh, in this instance.
We began with a relatively narrow question: How much manufacturing is done in the u.s. The ideological/political needs of the "big bourgeosie" in this respect are quite simple: They need accurate figures. We were _not_ talking about the CPI -- which is clearly political down to the roots of its little toenails. We are talking about physical outpute (measured in exchange value) of u.s. manufacturing. As Doug pointed out, the 'populace' never has and never will pay any attention to these figures. Not even the editors of the Chicago Tribune pay any attention to them. Their _only_ purpose is to serve the servants of big business, and that service is provided only as long as they are as accurate as possible. What Leigh is pushing is another fucking version of Conspiracy Theory -- the Theory that holds (whether its believers are conscious of this or not) -- the Theory that holds that Capitalism would produce Heaven on Earth with no difficulty if we could only make the Crooks stop cheating. The points you are raising here are important -- perhaps more important than the original question: IF YOU WERE RAISING THEM IN ANOTHER CONTEXT. In this context they only contribute to confusion and nonsense, as "drift" in topic almost always does. Carrol
