Talk:James Howard Kunstler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Howard Kunstler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
  • The final paragraph before the external links is entirely accusatory. It requires balancing. 198.65.167.213
    • I suppose that's fair. I added the last graf based on conversations I've had about Kunstler, and attitudes toward him, with numerous faculty members at a large, ideologically diverse urban planning department (the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California). I welcome any modifications, and responses to his supporters explaining his attitudes. --Slightlyslack 20:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
      • It might be best to "pad" that a bit: A statement that's right on the end often carries a lot more clout than it would if it was elsewhere... Balance it with something? --Edward Wakelin 13:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


        • I'd add that the two snippets of Kunstler text (comments on suburbia) are taken so severely out of context as to lead the viewer of this entry to believe that Kunstler is an anti-American suburb-hater. In fact, Kunstler believes in America and Americans, but is trying to show how far adrift we are from reality with respect to how we've spent our resources and continue to do so, and showcases the suburb as Exhibit A. Kunstler indeed has no use for the suburbs, but as he thoroughly explains in The Long Emergency, this is because of the incomprehensible waste and unsustainability they represent. In other words, it's the waste and unsustainability that he hates, NOT America, as the provided narrow snippets of text imply.--netkat, Oct 2005

i think an important part about understanding Kunstler is his hatred for bourgeoise america. he hated it before he started plugging peak oil and was advocating against it. i don't think it is problematic to include something along these lines. after listening to him at petrocollapse i am confident that he hates america and americans.

How about some discussion of Kunstler as a cultural or political ecologist -- clearly his works examine the cultural ecology of Western industrialism.

the man is a kook. I can't trust him, obviously he has an agenda. He has hated the current American system for so long that he is looking for any reason to talk about its doom. Does he have any experience in the field of oil and gas recovery or geology. If you want to know about peak oil I would recommend someone like Matthew Simmons or someone else remotely credible.

Well, if the definition of "kook" is a person who is speaking reality which nobody is prepared to confront, then Kunstler's your man. I don't find him a hateful person at all, but he is rightly critical of the way we've squandered opportunity and resources on a "living arrangement which has no future." A hateful person would gladly let you live that way; a loving person would warn you against it.

I have not read Kunstler's book yet. But I saw The End of Suburbia, noting his language towards the end. Personally, I get offended when people are offended at my own profanity. But as for this article, I can imagine that the substance of Kunstler's book is a lot more important than his style. I think we should focus more on getting important information in the article. We can nit-pick his language later.

Also, what agenda could Kunstler possibly have? Did you note that he tends to agree on a lot of points with Simmons? Do you have any basis for what you are saying? This kind of thing always amazes me. Someone, typically on the left side of the political fence, makes a cogent argument that doesn't line up well with traditional agenda, then the "traditionalists" accuse them of hating America, the middle class, or whatever. It's playground politics. Counter him with something better than calling him a kook. Surely, you can do better.

-tom--11/26/05

I once read an article written by Kunstler right after 9-11 where he bashes the idea of skyscrapers. -- Jakarta

______ with respect to suburbs: it's not hard to see why they are unsustainable: spread out, driving required for everything, and ultra-high maintenence. Skyscrapers are not build for good ventilation without a hugely expensive, energy-drinking HVAC system. you can't crack open a window in the Sears Tower to get fresh air. Kunstler rightly attacks the dumb moves we have made as a culture, and for this he draws fire. but I predict that his critics will cry the loudest when the consequences of a faltering oil supply begin to manifest, as they'll have denied themselves into incapacity.

This is all fine and dandy, but what do you all propose be done about the article? Isn't that what we are supposed to discuss on this discussion page?

I think that it is important that the notes about Kunstler's style be there, but they may not need to be as in-your-face as Kunstler's writings themselves are. I think that the last paragraph looks like it has become a dumping ground for miscellaneous points, and maybe they need to be expanded out a bit into a few paragraphs. That might take the "last paragraph kick" off of the commentary about his use of language.

Agreed. I'd suggest that an editor strain off the misc. points and attack verbage and confine the article to the facts. Kunstler talks about a volatile subject; I think we all agree on that. but the instant we begin to discuss the validity of his points, or to assign motivations for making them, the discussion decays into debate which isn't the focus of the wikipedia. Example: JHK in fact does not care for skyscrapers or suburbia. But rather than saying he "bashes" them or "hates" America, let's say that JHK feels that the suburbs are unsustainable, impractical. The latter being less inflammatory, more accurate with respect to what JHK has actually said and written, and perhaps gives the wiki reader motivation to investigate JHK's views for her/himself.

I'm removing the words "enormously popular" and "enormously compelling," which seem to violate NPOV, if only by virtue of overenthusiasm. Even if one were to apply the latter description to, let's say, the TV show "CSI," it would still be an opinion, not a verifiable fact. 205.188.116.72 09:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I left in the word "compelling," but qualified that sentence (and the one about Kunstler's use of narrative) to attempt to better conform to NPOV. 205.188.116.72 09:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Y2K bug and secret billions

Hi User:Skoppensboer, you reverted my removal of "secret". In the referenced "Twang Factor" article, he says "... because a lot of that work and expenditure was going on in secret". Saying "a lot of work" is different than how the current sentence implies that _all_ the money and work was done in secret: "Kunstler responds by saying that a Y2K catastrophe was averted by the hundreds of billion of dollars that were secretly spent fixing the problem".

Note that "a lot of work" can refer to just a few billion dollars, or <1% of the total, so it is incorrect to assume that he is claiming that a majority of work was secret, just "a lot". Also, the fact that hundreds of billions was spent on fixing the y2k bug is well established, and it's not a secret that most of this money was spent. I've changed the sentence to reflect that some of the money was spent secretly, I hope that satisfies you too. Pro crast in a tor 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's not turn "a lot" into "some", okay? Skopp (Talk) 21:48, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't read his quote that way, but sure, fine by me. I did remove the quote, though - it doesn't seem, to me, to have enough significance given that a summary of that quote precedes it. Pro crast in a tor 01:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dow 4,000 in 2006?

Should Kunstler's prediction that the Dow would drop to 4,000 by the end of 2006 be included? (He made this prediction at the beginning of 2006). To my mind it certainly speaks to his credibility on the subject of the changing global economy. No-one can predict the annual movements of the stock market, but most analysts get it right to within +/- 50% (as oppsoed to 300%).

  • Go ahead and include it. My wife and I were talking about that prediction this morning, strangely enough. Skopp (Talk) 07:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, a simple prediction like this seems worth adding. Pro crast in a tor 16:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I added a cite to his Dow prediction. The cited page in fact refers to two Dwo 4,000 predictions (one in 2005 and again in 2006). JHK comes clean in his http://www.kunstler.com/mags_diary20.html predictions for 2007, but noticeably fails to make a third Dow prediction. FYI - I was a big fan of _Geography_of_Nowhere_, and I think JHK speaks eloquently about the emotional and spiritual toil of "car culture". However, it is pretty clear to me that he is out of his depth predicting such things as the price of oil and the movements of the Dow. I suspect that as more and more of his predictions are shown to be wildly inaccurate it will discredit his legacy as a whole. This would be a shame, as I consider his earlier work to be some of the most insightfull social commentary of our time.
  • Yes, Jim's an amusing curmudgeon (a word he likes to use to describe himself), and I've had a few priceless email conversations with him. But his bilious hyperbole and penchant for making sweeping predictions in areas he knows little about are sure to besmirch his reputation in time. Skopp (Talk) 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

GMan killed the Dow prediction cite. I thought it was a neutral (and well cited) description of Kunstler's prediction. It was a noteworthy prediction, being as it was so far out of the mainstream. I am not sure why citing it fails NPOV. Perhaps NPOV requires us to cite only his writings which have proven to be accurate??!!. Skoop you seemed to agree with the inclusion, the copy is in the history if you want to re-revert on Gman. I put a fair bit of work in getting the cite correct and don't vist here often enough to take any kind of responsibility for this page. I suspect Gman has an agenda to push and will kill further references to any of JHK's other radical, yet well documented predictions that have proven false (and yet any predictions which prove true will be cited unmolested...)

Again, why is his Dow prediciton relevant?

1. JHK recieved much attention for writing a book which predicts the meltdown of the global economy within 20 years.

2. His continued prediction of a global economic meltdown is how must modern readers know about JHK.

3. The collapse of the Dow is part of this overall worldview (though not in the book, it was predicted in an article in which JHK essentially says, "here are some signs that the global economy is starting to collapse". Read the cite if you don't believe me).

Certainly the failed Dow prediction seems no less relevant then the failed Y2K prediction.

  • Already reverted into the Criticism section, sans hyperbole. Skopp (Talk) 23:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


Nice. Thanks Skopp, I like the way it reads now. I wasn't trying to slag on JHK with my "even remotely" language ... just trying to give a sense that 4,000 was way, way, way off. But most readers know roughly whereabouts the Dow stands and it is easy enough to get a feel for the Dow numbers on Wiki or other on-line sources.

So are we to put reference to every prediction JHK has made. He has for example predicted that the US housing bubble would burst, which appears to be happening. I don;t see you rushing to put that in the article. Cherry picking predictions does not a good encyclopedia article make. You are clearly editing this page to further your own POV to, in your own words is to besmirch JHK. Unless we are to go over every single prediction JHK has made, then I think both the YK2 and Dow references should be removed. G-Man * 20:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
  • No, not every prediction, but when a professional prognosticator like JK predicts the collapse of 1) civilization as we know it (Y2K bug) and 2) the Stock Market, we have to take note. If these dire consequences do not come to pass, this is a major dent in his reputation as a seer, and comment thereupon deservedly belongs in this section. Therefore reverted, and do not revert again unless you can show why, and obtain some support here on this talk page for your actions. Skopp (Talk) 21:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Lots of people were predicting that the housing market would cool off. Not everyone made perfect predictions on this score, but it was not uncommon to hear forecasts that turned out to be ballpark accurate. "Dow 4,000 in 2006" was a dramatic prediction, far out of line with the mainstream and even farther out of step with the eventual outcome. Personally, I feel being with the crowd and roughly accurate does not rescue JHK's reputation as a professional prognosticator. It is easy to mimic the common wisdom and much harder to predict something that few others see coming.
Another way to think about it is this... Can you name a single professional prognosticor (other then JHK) who made a 1 year financial prediction that was off by 300%? He is about as far off (measured as a percent) as James K. Glassman, whose predction is much more prominent on his wiki page. (I believe Glassman predicted that the Dow would need several years to get to 36K, not sure exactly how many). 198.107.22.21 23:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)pjc

[edit] Y2K and Peak Oil

If Kunstler is correct and the real threat of Y2K was over come by spending lots of money using lots of people working really hard, then how can not the same thing be done with providing the world economy with oil? This is not a mere jest on my part; one of the greatest resource economists of all time, Julian Simon, made this same point in The Ulimate Resource--as scarcity increases, the relative value of oil increases, creating greater incentives for people to seek substitutes or new ways to get the old resource. (Notably the tar sands, which were once not considered oil because it was infeasible to extract, now make Canada the 2nd largest reserve of oil in the world [1].) Indeed, Simon's theory of constant change and improvement applies to scores (hundreds?) of different resources throughout the whole of human history. How does Kunstler reconcile his Y2K explanation with Simon's point on resource economics? Such points, in some way, should be included in the criticism section. David Youngberg 18:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What does that have to do with JHK? That belongs on the peak oil article if anywhere. I think peak oil activists have fairly convincing rebuttals for arguments such as these. G-Man * 19:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Housing Bubble bursting prediction

  • It is unsupportable to dub JHK as the oracle in this regard. I sold my house in 2005 because so many financial experts were predicting a housing bust. JHK was late to the game. Either remove all references to JHK and the housing boom/bust, or provide proof that his "prediction" was not simply a case of him jumping on a very crowded bandwagon before removing my modifying sentence. Skopp (Talk) 21:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Here are his predictions from january 2005 [2] does that satisfy you? I was not trying to make out that he was an oracle, I was merely trying to even things out. Seem as you are clearly trying to make this page into a denouncement of JHK, I thought it only fair that his response and some of his more accurate predictions were included, for the sake of balance. I still feel that the inclusion of this info is cherry picking of facts to make a case agaist him and funddementally non-NPOV. G-Man * 21:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The Section in which the critical comments appear is entitled Reactions and CRITICISMS. Feel free to edit in a new section called Impact on Society or Accomplishments or Career in which you enumerate his accomplishments. Present the positive in the correct section. I suggest removing all references to the Housing Bubble because predicting its end was really not his baby. Skopp (Talk) 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Gman I do not mean offense by saying this... is it possible you do not read many financial forecasts? Predicting the cooling of the U.S. housing market and predicting Dow 4K are apples and oranges.
Do you believe James K. Glassman's page is similarly biased? People usually pay attention when you go out on a limb. What is surprising to me is how little attention was paid to JHK when he went out on this one. 198.107.22.21 17:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)pjc

Gman here is Kunstler's first Dow 4K prediction. [3]. The article now properly identifies the first Dow 4K call in June 2005. 198.107.22.21 20:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)pjc

We need a citation for the statement regarding others "widely" predicting the housing collapse. It seems to me that this is still a fringe idea, esp. within the mainstream media. Autumninjersey 18:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The Economist was shouting about it way back in Feb of '04 (I added the cite). I am sure you can find others that preceded JHK in mainstream by a long shot (try Barrons, or Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Fortune, etc.). If you consider "mainstream media" to be just Time, Newsweek, etc. then perhaps JHK looks like a sage on this, but if you get your financial advice from those mags you are perpetually behind the curve. 198.107.22.21 22:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)pjc

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../j/a/m/Talk%7EJames_Howard_Kunstler_4985.html"