Is Pragmatism Destroying the Economy?

[Daktoria]

Pragmatism, probably the worst ideology ever imagined, is the idea of accepting the simplest possible explanation of your surroundings.

It is short sighted.

It is stubborn.

It is projecting.

It assumes facts are inherently valuable.

No economy can possibly grow and develop from this mindset. Economies depend on commitment.

That's long term thinking.

That's creative.

That's independent.

That's making choices about which facts are more valuable than others.

Pragmatism, in contrast to commitment, assumes it's fair to simply assume a national interest of general welfare. It assumes that it's OK to expect everyone to conform to social programs without actually relating with them first on a personal basis...

...so why be one?

As far as I can tell, there's only one viable reason to be a pragmatist - you're a smart ass.

Pragmatism's short sighted stubbornness is only valuable to those who are intellectually lazy and enjoy social hierarchy. It's only valuable to those who resist self-control and want the right to act out according to reckless emotion just to make things happen.

Pragmatists don't care about how feelings (AKA utility preferences) are particular. They assume what they feel is what everyone feels, make a big stink about their feelings, find similarly emotional people, and cast out strangers as bizarre, expecting strangers to conform or risk getting fined/thrown in jail.

Pragmatists have no concern about due process. The one imaginative element of pragmatism is pragmatism opposes monopolies, but still, pragmatism supports regulation, the greatest monopoly of all, regulation which puts substantive justice before procedural justice, again ignoring how different people feel differently.

Over time, this appeal to regulation depends on appeals to normalcy...

...and no economy ever builds on top of normalcy. Economies build on top of variety, creativity, intuition...

...none of which pragmatism cares about because again, it dismisses the fact-value dichotomy.

If there's a key to getting this economy back on track, it's destroying pragmatism. People need to stop being stubbornly short sighted and actually care about relating with each other beyond having fun in the moment. People need to trust that their property and contracts are going to be respected so they actually become willing to commit resources and invent solutions to solve problems.

Otherwise, everyone's just going to play dumb, point fingers at the other guy, continue to spend into debt, and cry like babies about the people they're borrowing from and paying money to.

 

[oldreliable67]

Pragmatism, probably the worst ideology ever imagined, is the idea of accepting the simplest possible explanation of your surroundings.

It is short sighted.

It is stubborn.

It is projecting.

It assumes facts are inherently valuable.

No economy can possibly grow and develop from this mindset. Economies depend on commitment.

That's long term thinking.

That's creative.

That's independent.

That's making choices about which facts are more valuable than others.

Pragmatism, in contrast to commitment, assumes it's fair to simply assume a national interest of general welfare. It assumes that it's OK to expect everyone to conform to social programs without actually relating with them first on a personal basis...

...so why be one?

As far as I can tell, there's only one viable reason to be a pragmatist - you're a smart ass.

Pragmatism's short sighted stubbornness is only valuable to those who are intellectually lazy and enjoy social hierarchy. It's only valuable to those who resist self-control and want the right to act out according to reckless emotion just to make things happen.

Pragmatists don't care about how feelings (AKA utility preferences) are particular. They assume what they feel is what everyone feels, make a big stink about their feelings, find similarly emotional people, and cast out strangers as bizarre, expecting strangers to conform or risk getting fined/thrown in jail.

Pragmatists have no concern about due process. The one imaginative element of pragmatism is pragmatism opposes monopolies, but still, pragmatism supports regulation, the greatest monopoly of all, regulation which puts substantive justice before procedural justice, again ignoring how different people feel differently.

Over time, this appeal to regulation depends on appeals to normalcy...

...and no economy ever builds on top of normalcy. Economies build on top of variety, creativity, intuition...

...none of which pragmatism cares about because again, it dismisses the fact-value dichotomy.

If there's a key to getting this economy back on track, it's destroying pragmatism. People need to stop being stubbornly short sighted and actually care about relating with each other beyond having fun in the moment. People need to trust that their property and contracts are going to be respected so they actually become willing to commit resources and invent solutions to solve problems.

Otherwise, everyone's just going to play dumb, point fingers at the other guy, continue to spend into debt, and cry like babies about the people they're borrowing from and paying money to.

A very thought-provoking post! As one who has been described by others as a "centrist econ data geek," I had also thought of myself as something of a pragmatist, tending to go where the data takes me. Hence, I have generally favored what I viewed as a pragmatic approach to econ problems, regardless of the affixed party label. That's me looking for the most efficient while fairest solution while disregarding party (and any other labels).

But your description goes way beyond that and makes folks like me sound like the root cause of all that's ill with not only the economy but society as a whole! If one accepts it in totality,that is. Whew! Thankfully, I don't. Or perhaps I'm not a true pragmatist, because I think the "fact-value" dichotomy is at the heart of the pragmatic approach, rather than dismissing it. Ok, so I'm not a true pragmatist, by your definition. I can live with that.

 

[iliveonramen]

...none of which pragmatism cares about because again, it dismisses the fact-value dichotomy.

If that's the case then I don't think there are very many "true pragmatists".

 

[rathi]

You must be joking. The western economy sank itself precisely because it refused to make pragmatic choices. Nobody was willing to face the hard reality of too much debt, asset bubbles and insane risk taking. I don't get how you could describe basing the economy on toxic loans could be considered anything other than a complete lack of pragmatism.

 

[Daktoria]

A very thought-provoking post! As one who has been described by others as a "centrist econ data geek," I had also thought of myself as something of a pragmatist, tending to go where the data takes me. Hence, I have generally favored what I viewed as a pragmatic approach to econ problems, regardless of the affixed party label. That's me looking for the most efficient while fairest solution while disregarding party (and any other labels).

But your description goes way beyond that and makes folks like me sound like the root cause of all that's ill with not only the economy but society as a whole! If one accepts it in totality,that is. Whew! Thankfully, I don't. Or perhaps I'm not a true pragmatist, because I think the "fact-value" dichotomy is at the heart of the pragmatic approach, rather than dismissing it. Ok, so I'm not a true pragmatist, by your definition. I can live with that.

Yea, philosophically speaking, rejecting the fact-value dichotomy is rather central to pragmatism. Following is a paper if you're interested in reading about it:

http://www.nordprag.org/papers/Pihlstrom - Pragmatic Metaphysics of the Fact-Value Entanglement.pdf

You have to be careful when dismissing politics while just trying to be neutral. Neutral bureaucracy becomes encumbered and intimidated very easily if due process isn't preserved, and pragmatism is neutral bureaucracy's greatest threat. It allows, and demands, data entry and processing errors for the sake of convenience.

My support for free markets has always been about protecting engineers and clerks first. Engineers and clerks are very fragile people, and it's only under respect for property and contracts that they can continue to be respected.

That said, engineers and clerks have to appreciate not selling information short. A lot of engineers and clerks crack easily under pressure, and they'll give bullies information that destroys their guardians and friends.

 

[Daktoria]

If that's the case then I don't think there are very many "true pragmatists".

Seriously? Even on political discussion boards like this one, people are always complaining about ideology and insist on staying down to earth.

 

[Daktoria]

You must be joking. The western economy sank itself precisely because it refused to make pragmatic choices. Nobody was willing to face the hard reality of too much debt, asset bubbles and insane risk taking. I don't get how you could describe basing the economy on toxic loans could be considered anything other than a complete lack of pragmatism.

If anything, giving out toxic loans is pragmatic because it's a short term method of recycling capital and building sales. Even the people who accepted them are pragmatic because they didn't consider their long term futures. They only wanted to live in a house in the moment while affording adjusted rate mortgages.

Similarly, debt management is hardly pragmatic because it involves making long term commitments.

 

[Mach]

Pragmatism's short sighted stubbornness is only valuable to those who are intellectually lazy and enjoy social hierarchy.

Indeed. All those home owners wanted to move up the social hierarchy and live in a residence beyond their means, and they were too intellectually lazy to do a 10 minute estimation from any internet ready computer on what loan they can actually afford and what loan terms they should avoid.

Not sure what the rest of your post was on about, but you nailed that part!

 

[Paschendale]

Short-sightedness is indeed a major problem in our economy. Corporate structure has turned away from any kind of responsible interactions with society towards maximizing short term profits, often at the cost of long term sustainability. That attitude is what drove groups like Bain Capital, and allowed the vampires on Wall Street to create this recession. They made a lot of money off of us and don't care about the consequences.

 

[Daktoria]

Short-sightedness is indeed a major problem in our economy. Corporate structure has turned away from any kind of responsible interactions with society towards maximizing short term profits, often at the cost of long term sustainability. That attitude is what drove groups like Bain Capital, and allowed the vampires on Wall Street to create this recession. They made a lot of money off of us and don't care about the consequences.

The problem with this comparison is it's pragmatic on two fronts.

One, sustainability.

Two, consequences.

I'll agree, corporate culture can be very distant, and it quantifies profit in terms of money rather than spending time doing things with people we care about.

However, sustainability ignores the fact-value dichotomy in assuming physical survival is its own reward, and looking at consequences is a simple minded perspective that doesn't consider luck generating from acting on partial information.

If people want businesses to be socially responsible, then they have to be willing to socially assimilate businessmen.

Even Marx admitted the rise of entrepreneurship in the 14th century came from social alienation among the feudal mode of production. People need to care about family more. We need to appreciate that children don't ask to be introduced into the world, so to prevent alienation which leads to social irresponsibility, we have to assimilate even the children we don't like at first glance. That way, we don't create a bullied merchant class.

 

[samsmart]

Pragmatism, probably the worst ideology ever imagined, is the idea of accepting the simplest possible explanation of your surroundings.

It is short sighted.

It is stubborn.

It is projecting.

It assumes facts are inherently valuable.

No economy can possibly grow and develop from this mindset. Economies depend on commitment.

That's long term thinking.

That's creative.

That's independent.

That's making choices about which facts are more valuable than others.

Pragmatism, in contrast to commitment, assumes it's fair to simply assume a national interest of general welfare. It assumes that it's OK to expect everyone to conform to social programs without actually relating with them first on a personal basis...

...so why be one?

As far as I can tell, there's only one viable reason to be a pragmatist - you're a smart ass.

Pragmatism's short sighted stubbornness is only valuable to those who are intellectually lazy and enjoy social hierarchy. It's only valuable to those who resist self-control and want the right to act out according to reckless emotion just to make things happen.

Pragmatists don't care about how feelings (AKA utility preferences) are particular. They assume what they feel is what everyone feels, make a big stink about their feelings, find similarly emotional people, and cast out strangers as bizarre, expecting strangers to conform or risk getting fined/thrown in jail.

Pragmatists have no concern about due process. The one imaginative element of pragmatism is pragmatism opposes monopolies, but still, pragmatism supports regulation, the greatest monopoly of all, regulation which puts substantive justice before procedural justice, again ignoring how different people feel differently.

Over time, this appeal to regulation depends on appeals to normalcy...

...and no economy ever builds on top of normalcy. Economies build on top of variety, creativity, intuition...

...none of which pragmatism cares about because again, it dismisses the fact-value dichotomy.

If there's a key to getting this economy back on track, it's destroying pragmatism. People need to stop being stubbornly short sighted and actually care about relating with each other beyond having fun in the moment. People need to trust that their property and contracts are going to be respected so they actually become willing to commit resources and invent solutions to solve problems.

Otherwise, everyone's just going to play dumb, point fingers at the other guy, continue to spend into debt, and cry like babies about the people they're borrowing from and paying money to.

That's not the definition of pragmatism.

Pragmatism isn't about choosing the simplest solution. It's about choosing the simplest solution that works or makes sense.

So pragmatic approach isn't short-sighted because it doesn't take into account long-term needs. But neither is pragmatism long-term because short-term crises can happen.

Rather, pragmatism is about coming up with long-term goals using a realistic workable plan that takes into account short-term setbacks and obstacles and overcoming them.

So I'm all for the proper use of pragmatism in our economy.

 

[iliveonramen]

Seriously? Even on political discussion boards like this one, people are always complaining about ideology and insist on staying down to earth.

I don't think those taking a more neutral view are saying ideology has no place in the discussion. It's the idea that ideology is dominating discussions.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Words do have meanings:

[h=2]prag·ma·tism[/h] noun \ˈprag-mə-ˌti-zəm\


[h=2]Definition of PRAGMATISM[/h]1
: a practical approach to problems and affairs <tried to strike a balance between principles and pragmatism>

2
: an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief

 

[haymarket]

Did I miss the part of the OP where actual real life examples were given of this evil? Seems like lots of general and vague pronouncements and personal opinions.

 

[Daktoria]

That's not the definition of pragmatism.

Pragmatism isn't about choosing the simplest solution. It's about choosing the simplest solution that works or makes sense.

So pragmatic approach isn't short-sighted because it doesn't take into account long-term needs. But neither is pragmatism long-term because short-term crises can happen.

Rather, pragmatism is about coming up with long-term goals using a realistic workable plan that takes into account short-term setbacks and obstacles and overcoming them.

So I'm all for the proper use of pragmatism in our economy.

I really can't see how long term thinking applies at all to the pragmatic maxim:

Baldwin Dictionary Definition of Pragmatic (1) and (2) Pragmatism - Wikisource

Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.​

In society, practical pursuits of status drive down to the simplest and shortest conception of effects. Anyone who actually commits to long term complete conception is outcast as excessive because it's socially competitive to take a marginally shorter and simpler conception.

A simple proof of this comes from any slippery slope argument. 99% is almost 100%. 23 hours are almost 24 hours. $99,000 is almost $100,000. If you conceive of a slightly simpler or shorter conception of effects, you'll be able to act faster and take the credit for action while retaining the majority of the concept.

A pragmatist then has to ask is, "How much marginalization is too simple?"

The problem is in economic planning, answering this question becomes public knowledge, so whoever answers it will be at a disadvantage. Answering the marginalization question takes resources, resources which could otherwise be dedicated towards conception and action.

For example, when considering the construction of infrastructure, whoever comes up with a pragmatic schedule, budget, and quality assurance won't be able to compete as much for executing that schedule, budget, and QA. Instead, that schedule, budget, and QA will be released, and everyone, including the pragmatist, will be left to compete with remaining resources.

On the flip side, this information can also be held privately and released on a need to know basis, but that assumes we know in advance who needs to know. In turn, some people can spend excessive resources conceptualizing while others spend less resources.

This is the fundamental problem with pragmatic economy - it assumes in advance what an appropriate degree of complete conceptualization is (to define realistic "workable plan", "obstacles", "setbacks", and "overcoming" procedures).

 

[Daktoria]

I don't think those taking a more neutral view are saying ideology has no place in the discussion. It's the idea that ideology is dominating discussions.

Can you show me instances where people actually discuss ideology instead of just insisting on pragmatism, assuming that facts are values?

 

[oldreliable67]

Can you show me instances where people actually discuss ideology instead of just insisting on pragmatism, assuming that facts are values?

Every political debate I've ever seen/heard (ok, they aren't exactly discussions), especially the most recent GOP debates, er, discussions.

 

[Daktoria]

Did I miss the part of the OP where actual real life examples were given of this evil? Seems like lots of general and vague pronouncements and personal opinions.

Off the top of my head, the universal health care debate is a perfect example. People don't consider the moral hazard of pooling people together without prior association. This means there will be a lack of synchronization among lifestyles, and the economy won't cultivate a fluid circular flow of income.

Instead, people just assume consumption and production will merge together, disregarding how aggressive lifestyles demand more health care provision than others. On the other hand, because everyone's paying into the same pool, more reserved lifestyles are going to get ripped off. This means reserved personalities will become psychologically unmotivated and less productive.

 

[oldreliable67]

Rather, pragmatism is about coming up with long-term goals using a realistic workable plan that takes into account short-term setbacks and obstacles and overcoming them.

Tend to agree. Pragmatic thinking with respect to a large scale project almost always dictates analysis of a long-term nature. Consequently, there is often the "penny wise, pound foolish" conundrum. In DC, for example, when the Metro system was still in the planning stages, there arose a significant controversy: should it be a two-track system (cheaper now, more expensive in the long run due to the inconvenience of future disruptions and shut-downs for track maintenance. and repair) versus a three-track system (more expensive now, but cheaper in the long-run due to less expensive nature of future maintenance and repair-less shutdowns). Many now wish they had opted for three-track instead of two-track.

 

[iliveonramen]

Can you show me instances where people actually discuss ideology instead of just insisting on pragmatism, assuming that facts are values?

As OldReliable67 stated. Almost every GOP debate has focused on ideology. Now..there is a whole industry of think tanks that tries to claim ideology is really fact. They ignore empirical data and cherry pick facts in order to support an ideology...but the majority of what you've heard at these debates are ideology....almost every Republican economic plan is completely based on ideology.

 

[rathi]

Off the top of my head, the universal health care debate is a perfect example. People don't consider the moral hazard of pooling people together without prior association. This means there will be a lack of synchronization among lifestyles, and the economy won't cultivate a fluid circular flow of income.

Instead, people just assume consumption and production will merge together, disregarding how aggressive lifestyles demand more health care provision than others. On the other hand, because everyone's paying into the same pool, more reserved lifestyles are going to get ripped off. This means reserved personalities will become psychologically unmotivated and less productive.

I think your problem with pragmatism is that you don't like reality interfering with your wishful thinking. Germany isn't a less productive country because of their universal health care system. Healthcare is a perfect example of ideology screwing with getting things done. Rather than simply examine various systems based on practical factors like migration costs and administrative overhead, it has to be some big emotional crusade.

 

[haymarket]

Off the top of my head, the universal health care debate is a perfect example. People don't consider the moral hazard of pooling people together without prior association. This means there will be a lack of synchronization among lifestyles, and the economy won't cultivate a fluid circular flow of income.

Instead, people just assume consumption and production will merge together, disregarding how aggressive lifestyles demand more health care provision than others. On the other hand, because everyone's paying into the same pool, more reserved lifestyles are going to get ripped off. This means reserved personalities will become psychologically unmotivated and less productive.

And you can prove this...... this..... this..... "theory", how exactly?

Your posts and the OP are perfect 100% evidence just how far the rabbit hole we have fallen as a nation when pragmatic problem solving is attacked in favor of ideological belief systems fueled by gallons of extremist kool-aid and abstract theory.

 

[Daktoria]

I think your problem with pragmatism is that you don't like reality interfering with your wishful thinking. Germany isn't a less productive country because of their universal health care system. Healthcare is a perfect example of ideology screwing with getting things done. Rather than simply examine various systems based on practical factors like migration costs and administrative overhead, it has to be some big emotional crusade.

Germany is also a predominantly homogeneous ethnic nation with a very educated and industrious culture.

None of those characteristics apply to the U.S.

Another thing to be considered is Germany's introduction of universal health care preceded its Blood and Iron phase of history, history which lead to two World Wars and genocide.

I actually wrote a thread about this in the history section recently.

 

[Daktoria]

And you can prove this...... this..... this..... "theory", how exactly?

Your posts and the OP are perfect 100% evidence just how far the rabbit hole we have fallen as a nation when pragmatic problem solving is attacked in favor of ideological belief systems fueled by gallons of extremist kool-aid and abstract theory.

...but again, you're rejecting the fact-value dichotomy.

Theories define who we are. Facts define what we are.

If we're just facts, then there's no difference between people and animals, rocks, or computers. We need abstract values in themselves for society to be meaningful.

Otherwise, we just live in a world of might makes right, no rule of law.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Germany is also a predominantly homogeneous ethnic nation with a very educated and industrious culture.

None of those characteristics apply to the U.S.

Another thing to be considered is Germany's introduction of universal health care preceded its Blood and Iron phase of history, history which lead to two World Wars and genocide.

I actually wrote a thread about this in the history section recently.

and is the same true of all of the nations that have adopted universal health care and who all pay less than we do in the USA? Is it really our diversity, not our inefficient system, that is bankrupting the country?


Really?