Putting the Dog Back in Dogma

Sunday, October 12, 2008 | 12:00 PM

One of the more interestingly intellectual jihads I came across recently was this strange commentary in the FT this week. It was an incontinent lament against the evils of pragmatism. Never before have so many words been so eloquently spilled saying so very, very little.

Titled The excesses of pragmatism, I cannot tell if the writer actually believe his own empty tripe, or if he is truly ignorant as to how we got into the mess in the first place. Have a glance at this doozy of a  paragraph:

"A beloved myth holds that dogmatists (or ideologues) get us into problems like these, and pragmatists get us out. In fact, the difference between dogmatists and pragmatists is hard to draw. We got into this mess in a pragmatic way. We kept following a method that had succeeded before. In the 1990s, securitised mortgages and various derivatives seemed to offer a sophisticated way of managing risk. Whatever works gets overdone. The longer the system went on without collapsing, the more incentive there was to strip protective “give” out of the system. The system became more complicated, diversified, elegant and (as we now know) fragile. There were horrible excesses, but they were excesses of pragmatism, not of ideology."

Um, not even close.

You may disingenuously ignore the changes that occurred over the ensuing decade after the 1990s. You can vacuously skip over the legislative changes, the monetary policy shift, the massive change in the way mortgage underwriters were compensated, and the way loans got written. But that doesn't mean they didn't occur.

Let's review the ideological underpinnings of the current crisis.

• Greenspan believe we could clean up a bubble, rather than prevent one. So he let one form in the 1990s. Went it popped, he tried to clean it up by taking rates way, way down.  Consider that the Greenspan Fed maintained a 1.75% Fed fund for 33 months (December 2001 to September 2004), and eventually brought rates down to 1%, keeping them there for over a year.

• We also know that despite repeated warnings by fellow FOMC governors, Greenspan refused to supervise banks lending standards, as is the charge of the Federal Reserve. Hence, my accusation of nonfeasance.

• The  exempting of CDOs from all regulatory scrutiny thanks to the passage of the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000 was another triumph of not pragmatism but ideology.

There are many many other elements, but for now, let's stick with just these major ideological factors. To Caldwell, since these somehow worked in the past, that is considered pragmatism (?!?).

Those of us who live in planet earth call it rampant and extreme ideology.

Here's another densely empty passage, one where innocent pixels were needlessly slaughtered:

"Dogmatism is pragmatism that has stood the test of time. Institutions tend to be forged in moments of crisis. Ideas that fail are discarded; ideas that succeed are retained, elaborated and then over-elaborated until they collapse. The problems of 30 years from now will turn out to have been hidden somewhere in the parts of today’s bail-out packages that wind up being most effective. If we are lucky, the most effective parts will be the most morally admirable parts. But that is not inevitable. In politics, correlation often passes for causation. The recovery of the Russian economy after the rouble crisis of 1998 coincides with the arrival of Vladimir Putin in power. If a strong hand coincides with prosperity, the public sometimes assumes a stronger hand will mean more prosperity. Needless to say, leaders always think like that."

Where does one begin with a paragraph so overladen with nonsense? Has Caldwell actually convinced himself that it was Putin that led to the Russian recovery? Gee, you would think a market guy might have noticed over the same time period Oil had gone from $30 to $145! Do you suppose that had a little something to do with the Russian recovery? Or is that Putin simply a genius?

Only ideologues are capable of such sheer intellectual dishonesty.

The author may be right about one thing: Ideas that fail are discarded. That process is going on right now. I suspect we are watching the death rattle of a certain type of ideology. Its a tainted brand called unregulated, market absolutism.

Good riddance to you.


The excesses of pragmatism
Christopher Caldwell
FT, October 10 2008 18:31   

Sunday, October 12, 2008 | 12:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (82) | TrackBack (0)
de.li.cious add to de.li.cious | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Putting the Dog Back in Dogma:



It was the dogmatism of Say's Law taken to the extremes of Supply-Side Economics and its natural engendering of Hocus Pocus pro-forma EBITDA accountancy. It was all these things that brought us to today.

It was zealotry and dogmatism and unbridled, unrestrained optimistic willfulness.

It was optimism without a valence moderator. It was Idealogy from the starting gun.

Posted by: Eclectic | Oct 12, 2008 12:15:52 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Complete Archives List



Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:

Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo



Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™