Talk:James Howard Kunstler

General discussion of 2006

 * 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)

For everyone above lamenting the unsustainability of the Modern World, take heed of this: There's not a single lifestyle which is sustainable. They're all doomed to phase out of existence in the long run. Kunstler's personal ideal civilization is laudable; it's also ephemeral. Large, complex dynamic systems are like that. A truly sustainable world is also an utterly sterile one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 01:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

Was JHK the only one to predict disaster from the Y2K bug? Not last time I looked. However when he was right about the housing bubble apparently so where a lot of other people, but when he was wrong about Y2K the implication is that he was alone in this error.

Also, I think the Dow 4000 thing has been blown completely out of proportion. The Dow 4000 prediction was made (among many others) on his blog as part of a much broader critique of the sustainability of finance capitalism. If Kunstler's critique eventually proves correct the fact he was off by a couple of years will in retrospect appear to be a frivolous complaint indeed. Picking on the Dow 4000 prediction without discussing the context seems to me an obvious and unfair attempt to discredit him. Lexington50 05:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * By all means, if Dow 4K comes to pass within the next year or two (or ten) this page should be edited to give Kunstler prominent recognition. However, his "broader critique of the sustainability of finance capitalism" appears to wildly inaccurate. Most of his predictions are vague on details. "Dow 4K" is one of the few specific, verifiable predictions he has made. As things currently stand (over two years since the first such prediction) it is not even remotely true. 198.107.22.21pjc
 * Also, if you think his Dow 4K prediction is an isolated example, perhaps you'd like to add his "$100 a barrel oil in 2006" prediction to balance things out a bit. That one was off by 40%, not 300%, so it would improve his track record. 198.107.22.21pjc


 * I could go on at length about why I consider this section a hatchet job and borderline libelous, but I will limit myself to observing that this section needs to be removed for the simple reason that it obviously violates Wikipedia's WP:NOR policy. Although it claims to cite "critics", it actually only contains references to Kunstler's own website, so in fact the criticisms being cited are those of the editor himself. If you can cite indepedent critics please do so; if you can't, please reomve it. Lexington50 03:02, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten some of it to take out the weasel wording and vague mention of critics. The Y2K thing is just a statement of fact, no research. It's mentioned because Kunstler himself has responded (cited) to the criticisms he had, from many quarters, on the issue, so it's notable. The Dow predictions likewise (he responds to criticisms, so we do not need to cite the critics or criticism, merely cite the charge and his response).  Skopp   05:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Dow 4K should be in it's own dedicated section? Or perhaps there should be section dedicated to the track record of Kunstler's predictions? I don't think NPOV requires us to over-look a writers own words simply because they might appear embarrassing or inaccurate in hindsight. What if the Dow were to crash to the 4K-6K vicinity in the next few months ... would NPOV still prevent us from including this prediction? 198.107.22.21pjc  —The preceding  signed but undated.

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 .) 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)

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 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


 * He's as big of a fool as Kunstler, although at least JKG knows when to quit.--71.232.157.145 (talk) 15:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Gman here is Kunstler's first Dow 4K prediction. . 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

JHK and the Price of Crude
I find it interesting that comments re: the price of crude oil seem to be deleted his page. JHK has actually made some accurate predictions in this re: for 2007 pricing, and there probably ought to be some mention of it. 198.107.22.21 (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)pjc

Disputed neutrality
I don't see any talk on this page about why the neutrality of the "Reactions and criticisms" section is disputed. I think it's rather balanced for a criticisms section, and it is certainly well-cited. If anyone has reasons, let's talk about them so we can fix them. If nothing surfaces in a few days I'm going to remove the tag. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Reactions and Criticisms
I find the reactions and criticisms section of this article to have an overly negative and judgemental tone. It does not adhere to NPOV.

His predictions about Y2K and Dow 4000 are quite ancillary to his main subject matter which is a critique of the built environment of the USA in lieu of peak oil. In the context of a larger and more thorough article they would be worth including, but in an article of this length they loom too large. Attacking Kunstler by blowing out of proportion his sometimes highly erroneous predictions on tangential subjects is to divert attention away from the overwhelming thrust of his non-fiction output - the accuracy of which will not be knowable till the middle of the current century. He does after all refer to it as, "The Long Emergency". A successful refutation of Kunstler must address the terms by which he speaks of "The Long Emergency".


 * If you were to read Kunstler's web page, you will find that he frequently addresses issues very much in the "here-and-now". He is clearly of the opinion that the "Long Emergency" has begun, and it's affects are currently underway. For example, in one of his posts he said something to the effect of "if modern suburban development bothers you, take heart from the fact that it's time is at an end, and very little of it will be built in the future". So I think you are simply inaccurate when you say the overwhelming thrust of his argument consists of trends that will not manifest for 50 years. He is making short term predictions all the time, and citing one or two of the more specific of these is not inherently unbiased. 198.107.22.21 (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)pjc

Critiques along the lines of arguing that, "A serious transition to renewable energy sources - if done in time, could avert most of the calamities forseen by Kunstler" would speak more directly to the gist of Kunstler's writings.

Another relevant criticism might be that, "Given his disdain for suburbia on aesthetic terms, one could say he is motivated to believe the effects of peak oil will be most dire for suburban lifestyles."208.120.218.186 (talk) 03:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Footnote 6
Footnote 6 appears to be a broken link. Just FYI. 68.116.99.227 (talk) 16:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kunstler's weekly podcast
James Howard Kunstler has a weekly audio podcast called the KunstlerCast. That program has it's own website http://kunstlercast.com

The podcasts are available for listening there as well as transcripts of the podcasts. There is also a discussion forum.

It is a free podcast. There are no commercials.

I tried to add a link to the podcast website on Kunstler's page, but Mervyn deleted the link. I don't think that posting a link to Kunstler's podcast violates any Wiki rules.

Please explain why the podcast cannot be listed on Kunstler's wikipage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.159.226 (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Critique of irrelevant issues
The topics below were removed as potentially inappropriate for his bio. Since he has never claimed to be either a professional or amateur programmer or economics expert, his personal predictions and opinions on the topics don't seem appropriate here. Most of us had some opinion about Y2K and the economy at some point. So what if he's wrong or right. Suggest we let him keep this stuff for his blogs and put what he's noted for in the wiki. Any 2nds?

Kunstler, who has no formal training in the fields in which he prognosticates, made similar predictions for Y2K as he makes for peak oil. Kunstler responds to this criticism by saying that a Y2K catastrophe was averted by the hundreds of billions of dollars that were spent fixing the problem, a lot of it in secret, he claims.

Kunstler has made several failed predictions regarding U.S. stock markets. In June 2005 and again in early 2006, Kunstler predicted that the Dow would crash to 4,000 by the end of the year. The Dow in fact reached a new peak of approximately 12,500 by the end of 2006. In his predictions for 2007, Kunstler admitted his mistake, ascribing the Dow's climb to "inertia combined with sheer luck". Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, the way one does this is to first discuss removing the text before removing it, not simply remove it to the talk page! Very heavy handed, ww. Now to the issue in hand, the data you have removed represent well-known predictions JHK has made. His stock-in-trade is prognostication, so the wild errors of his previous prognostications, no matter where published, are fair game for a biographical page. Colbert tripped him up with it on TV, so it certainly is notable. . Until there is further input on this long-standing text excerpt, I'm replacing it (with a suitable citation). I suggest if you want to remove it again, put it to a RFC. ► RATEL ◄ 04:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed "Recent quotations" section
These are some quotations from articles and blogs that might give readers a quick picture/summary of many of his key ideas if they were included in the article. I tried to stay focused on issues which he deals with most often, but have avoided comments about the economy. There are too many economists out there as it is so didn't feel the need to add his "personal" opinions to the group.

Open to comments and suggestions on whether we should include these as a new section.

Energy
"...we are in danger not just of oil prices going way back up again, but of losing access to our supplies from the exporting countries. In other words, we're just as likely to face shortages as high prices, and soon. Oil shortages are certain to produce a political freak-out here unless we get our heads screwed on right..."

"the truth is that no combination of solar, wind, nuclear power, ethanol, biodiesel, tar sands and used French-fry oil will allow us to power ... the interstate highway system -- or even a fraction of these things -- in the future...our quandary: the American public's narrow focus on keeping all our cars running at any cost."

"... we'll have to figure out how to make things in this country again. We will not be manufacturing things at the scale, or in the manner, we were used to in, say, 1962. We'll have to do it far more modestly, using much more meager amounts of energy than we did in the past."

"The idea that we can become "energy independent" and maintain our current lifestyle is absurd."

Society
"...the American public is deathly afraid of the kind of changes we actually face -- such as, the end of consumer culture, the gross loss of value in suburban real estate (which forms the bulk of the middle class's private wealth), the prospect of food and fuel scarcities, the need to re-localize our lives, the need to physically shape up to stop the costly and unnecessary drain on our medical resources, to grow more of our own food, to work harder at things that actually matter, and to save whatever we can for a difficult future."

"... we're not going back to a "consumer" economy. We're heading into a hard work economy in which people derive their pleasures and gratification more traditionally -- mainly through the company of their fellow human beings..."

Food
"... we'll have to dramatically reorganize the everyday activities of American life. We'll have to grow our food closer to home, in a manner that will require more human attention. In fact, agriculture needs to return to the center of economic life."

Commerce
"... we're going to have to make things again, and raise things out of the earth, locally, and trade these things for money of some kind that we earn through our own productive activities."

"We'll have to restore local economic networks -- the very networks that the big-box stores systematically destroyed -- made of fine-grained layers of wholesalers, middlemen and retailers."

Transportation
"...we have to move away from the private automobile and commercial trucking, and the airline industry is certain to contract dramatically. When are we going to start the discussion about rebuilding a US public transit system that was once the envy of the world? It no longer matters how much Americans love their cars, or even how much investment we've made in car infrastructure."

"Fixing the U.S. passenger railroad system is probably the one project we could undertake right away that would have the greatest impact on the country's oil consumption."

"California (and every other region of America) would benefit much more from normal-speed trains running every hour on the hour on tracks that already exist than from a mega-expensive, grandiose sci-fi program that might not get built for ten years. The dregs of the Big Three automakers can and should be reorganized to produce the rolling stock for a revived railroad system."

"The motoring era is coming to an end. Heroic investments in highway infrastructure to create jobs will be a tragic waste of our dwindling capital."

"[Economic] Stimulus aimed at perpetuating mass motoring will be a tragic waste of our dwindling resources. We'd be better off aiming it at fixing the railroads (especially electrifying them), refitting our harbors with piers and warehouses in preparation to move more stuff by boats, and in repairing the electric grid."

"The airline industry is disintegrating under the enormous pressure of fuel costs. Airlines cannot fire any more employees and have already offloaded their pension obligations and outsourced their repairs. At least five small airlines have filed for bankruptcy protection in the past two months. If we don't get the passenger trains running again, Americans will be going nowhere five years from now."

"One other implication of this is the necessity to use our waterways for moving things and people again. Has anybody noticed, for instance, that the once-bustling New York Harbor, possibly the biggest and best sheltered deepwater harbor in the world, has next-to-zero operating docks left along its massive perimeter?"

Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * This is not a RFC. A RFC is a formal process.
 * As an inclusionist I have no problems with a new section of his views.
 * Your citations are badly formatted. I suggest you use Wikicite or WPCITE if you use Firefox. ► RATEL ◄  06:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations now shown as they'd appear in article (#7 & 8 only). Still wrong? I can leave it up for discussion for a while since it's a pretty large addition. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said, use the tools I suggested. Instead of


 * you'd have:

Which would give the ref as shown at the end below. See? ► RATEL ◄ 09:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion - I'll start experimenting with it. There's a bit of a learning curve after downloading but seems like it will keep cites consistent.Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratel, I couldn't figure out how to get Wikicite to show the date of the publication after the link, so I entered the Quote cites by hand. Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Middle East seems off topic
As a fellow reader of his blog, this lengthy "quote" seems out of place in this article. It also throws off the balance of the article due to its size in relation to the article. But my main concern is taking someone's long and detailed blog about their predictions for the coming year and clipping one particular paragraph for insertion. And along with that is the fact that he is not a noted foreign relations or war commentator, with none of his books oriented to that area. In fact, just reading that particular blog shows his key topics of interest, with politics, economics, war, and terrorism, more a matter of his personal feelings.

There's more I could bring up on this but I'll put it here for any other opinions on this. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved from article:
 * Israel and Palestine War
 * "Until the last few days of the year, that is. I'm sure the ever-growing cohort of American anti-semites who send me emails will be tickled when I assert that the Hamas rocket attacks against Israel of recent days guaranteed a sharp response from Israel -- and now, of course, Hamas is playing the crybaby card: "... what'd we do to deserve this...?" Well, you fucking fired a bunch rockets into Israel. Did you ever hear of cause-and-effect? This matter requires no further elucidation, except that it seems to suggest a ramping back up of hostilities. I wonder if it is the beginning of a new coordinated offensive by Islamic extremism aimed at taking advantage of the West's current economic plight (and the West's probable aversion to anything that will complicate its desired recovery). We'll know in a month or so, I think, since any coordinated campaign (if such a thing were possible) might well be aimed at confounding the new American president"


 * I agree. Kunstler is a public figure because of his writings on Peak Oil, and to a lesser extent, some related fields like economics. A lengthy quote on a foreign conflict that has at best a very tenuous connection to Peak Oil is not apropos to his Wiki biography page. Trasel (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Categorizing him as only being associate peak oil is probably too narrow- don't forget a lot of writing and work in urban design and suburbs. I do agree, however, his personal opinions of unrelated politics doesn't belong. tedder (talk) 20:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

American is not a nationality
America is not a Nation but a continent made by three subcontinents with 25 Nations (soon to be 26).

http://geography.about.com/od/lists/a/officiallist.htm

Economic powerhouse North America only includes three countries but it is most of a continent and thus a region onto itself. Canada Greenland* Mexico United States of America


 * Greenland is not yet an independent country.

Central America and the Caribbean

There are no landlocked countries among these twenty countries of Central America and the Caribbean. Antigua and Barbuda The Bahamas Barbados Belize Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Haiti Honduras Jamaica Nicaragua Panama Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago

South America

Twelve countries occupy this continent that stretches from the equator to nearly the Antarctic Circle. Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Ecuador Guyana Paraguay Peru Suriname Uruguay Venezuela

Mr. Kunstler's nationality is USA? Jorge Caneda (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

American--Atlan (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Kunstler's nationality is American to the extent that people mean "United States of America" when they speak of "America". Context is the key, not some authoritarian notion that the word "America" means and can mean only one single thing, in perpetuity, regardless what people really mean when they use the word in a conversation. It doesn't matter that Canada is part of North America. Canadians call themselves Canadian, not American. It's the same with Mexicans, etc. Neither do Europeans, Africans, Asians, and so on, refer to Canadians, Mexicans, Hondurans, Belizians, Panamanians, Ecuadorans, Brazilians, Peruvians, and so on, as Americans. The conventional usage of the word has evolved over time to refer to citizens of the USA. That's how language is. It doesn't sit still. Maybe one day in the future Americans will no longer be conventionally referred to as Americans. That day has not yet arrived. Take note of course that this hasn't changed how people refer to the North- and South-American continents. It's still possible to do that because the context is clear; it doesn't carry any ambiguity with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)