• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Pragmatism Destroying the Economy?

I do need some clarification on your post!
Germany is also a predominantly homogeneous ethnic nation
Click to expand...

I see this mentioned a lot....does this mean that their ethnic makeup is somehow superior to other ethnic makeups or that somehow when you get everyone with one ethnic makeup it makes them more successful...
with a very educated and industrious culture
Click to expand...

This is said about any leading economic nation and any nation that falls behind is considered weak and lazy and make shoddy products....then of course when they become an economic power they become hardworking etc. See Japanese..See Chinese...See America...

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.
Click to expand...
Ummm...is this saying that universal health care leads to genocide and world wars!? What is the point of pointing out that a more Progressive Bismark insituted universal healthcare and a conservative Prussian/Monarchy led them to World War I? How are the two related?
 
Daktoria said:
...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.
Click to expand...

In lots of political discussion, what passes for theory is just so much vague self serving bull. Its a poor substitute for reality or facts.

Give me reality any day of the week over your self serving abstract theory designed to get people to sell out their own real world interests in favor of pie in the sky.
 
Daktoria said:
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.
Click to expand...

The introduction of German social services were implemented by Bismark as an incredibly successful means of neutralizing support for anarchists and communists. Bismark was a devout believer in pragmatic thought, so much so that he the term realpolitik was used to describe his actions. His masterful diplomacy kept the peace in Europe after he unified Germany. It was the ideological idiocy of his successors that undid his work and lead to WW1.
 
Daktoria said:
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).
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're saying here, but from what little I understand of it, I don't think it's pragmatism that you have an actual problem with but rather various interests competing for scarce resources.

And yes - various interests do, indeed, compete for scarce resources. But that does not mean that pragmatism is the fault for that.
 
Pragmatism in this instance can have two meanings. If pragmatic is being used as simply the most expedient way to accomplish a task disregarding all social standards, it becomes a little too practical and self serving. If it means a balance between several possible solutions- short and long term, choosing the one that is satisfactory to all parties involved, then it's a more ideal approach than any extreme views or positions.
 
Daktoria said:
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.
Click to expand...

A reserved personality is no guarantee to good health. Sedentary lifestyles lead to just as much health problems as a demanding lifestyles, and germs, diseases, cancers, and genetic dispositions don't give a **** if you work out at a gym or not.
 
oldreliable67 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yup. And there's a saying that I think is applicable when it comes to thinking only in the long-term.

"No campaign plan survives contact with the enemy."

So thinking only in the long-term can be just as disastrous as thinking in the short-term.
 
Daktoria said:
Germany is also a predominantly homogeneous ethnic nation with a very educated and industrious culture.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that white people all think alike?
 
Daktoria said:
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.
Click to expand...

So did the airplane.

So let's ban aviation for fear it may lead to a holocaust.
 
samsmart said:
Yup. And there's a saying that I think is applicable when it comes to thinking only in the long-term.

"No campaign plan survives contact with the enemy."

So thinking only in the long-term can be just as disastrous as thinking in the short-term.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Actually, I think that is supposed to be, "survives initial contact." At least it was when I was in, but that was so loooong ago.
 
BTW, kudos to Daktoria for a thread that is not the usual blah blah blah associated with one political stripe or the other. Whether one agrees with the premise of the OP or not, it is different, and makes it interesting. Almost kinky. Well, maybe I'm easily amused these days...
 
iliveonramen said:
I see this mentioned a lot....does this mean that their ethnic makeup is somehow superior to other ethnic makeups or that somehow when you get everyone with one ethnic makeup it makes them more successful...
Click to expand...

Homogeneity just means similar utility preferences. Their lifestyle decisions are exogenous of ethnicity.

This is said about any leading economic nation and any nation that falls behind is considered weak and lazy and make shoddy products....then of course when they become an economic power they become hardworking etc. See Japanese..See Chinese...See America...
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what you're referring to here. Germany has always been a nation built on precise and disciplined industry and education.

The same actually applies to Japan where they also have homogeneous ethnicity, but their economy only took off after foreign introduction of technology.

Ummm...is this saying that universal health care leads to genocide and world wars!? What is the point of pointing out that a more Progressive Bismark insituted universal healthcare and a conservative Prussian/Monarchy led them to World War I? How are the two related?
Click to expand...

Well it would make sense.

Universal health care encourages people in a country to live more aggressively to get what they can in the tragedy of the commons.

Reserved lifestyles become unmotivated as previously described, so over time, the country will become more militant.
 
haymarket said:
In lots of political discussion, what passes for theory is just so much vague self serving bull. Its a poor substitute for reality or facts.

Give me reality any day of the week over your self serving abstract theory designed to get people to sell out their own real world interests in favor of pie in the sky.
Click to expand...

Would strongly advise you to look up the is-ought problem and epistemology on your spare time.

Statements aren't just facts and opinions. There are justifications too. Epistemology is literally the study of justified true beliefs.

Without justification, categorizing facts is impossible. Categories need premises and criteria.
 
rathi said:
The introduction of German social services were implemented by Bismark as an incredibly successful means of neutralizing support for anarchists and communists. Bismark was a devout believer in pragmatic thought, so much so that he the term realpolitik was used to describe his actions. His masterful diplomacy kept the peace in Europe after he unified Germany. It was the ideological idiocy of his successors that undid his work and lead to WW1.
Click to expand...

Actually, Bismarck's primary motivation for instituting universal health care was to oppress Catholics, Catholics who contrasted with the Protestant Work Ethic.

He only stopped oppressing when Polish Catholics (no differently from Latino Catholics now) had to be assimilated, and Catholics were needed to form a coalition government against socialists.

His "masterful" diplomacy also lead to his dismissal after the Congress of Berlin when appeasing Britain and betraying Russia.
 
samsmart said:
I don't know what you're saying here, but from what little I understand of it, I don't think it's pragmatism that you have an actual problem with but rather various interests competing for scarce resources.

And yes - various interests do, indeed, compete for scarce resources. But that does not mean that pragmatism is the fault for that.
Click to expand...

When I said resources, I was referring to information processing resources such as attention and computing.

A reserved personality is no guarantee to good health. Sedentary lifestyles lead to just as much health problems as a demanding lifestyles, and germs, diseases, cancers, and genetic dispositions don't give a **** if you work out at a gym or not.
Click to expand...

Oh, I think you have me backwards. By aggressive, I was referring to things like our obesity and diabetes epidemics and excessive use of transportation technology to get around.

Yup. And there's a saying that I think is applicable when it comes to thinking only in the long-term.

"No campaign plan survives contact with the enemy."

So thinking only in the long-term can be just as disastrous as thinking in the short-term.
Click to expand...

I agree here. Clausewitz had it down pat.

However, Clausewitz also emphasized a generic doctrine approach to warfare where officer corps discipline and loyalty was tested by ideology. A hypertechnical Jominian approach, in contrast, falls for obstacles over and over.

The key to battlefield genius is situational awareness. You can't be pragmatic about that because pragmatism assumes in advance the effects of combat.

Are you saying that white people all think alike?
Click to expand...

No, as I said before, the key is uniform utility preferences. If you have a multicultural country (say Britain, Canada, or France), universal health care becomes harder to anticipate due to variety.

So did the airplane.

So let's ban aviation for fear it may lead to a holocaust.
Click to expand...

I explained above how universal health care encourages militancy. Heck, your own reference to sedentary lifestyles goes along with this.
 
Nobody wants to pay today's bills. Even the government spends and runs on credit, there's nothing pragmatic about that. Ask the FED why there's no real inflation showing, because we can't afford the increased interest payments on the Natl. Debt. They allowed the markets to wind up the worlds economies on credit through mortgages, securities on mortgages, business loans and personal credit for everything from cars, RV's, motorcycles, ATV's, boats, etc.

Nothing wrong with industry and the monetary benefits from it but it can't be sustained indefinitely on credit or tomorrows promise of payment. Eventually the dike of credit will fail and they won't be able to plug up all the holes. You can blame Medical, Welfare, Social Security and the Military but they're not the causes of all the debt, rather it's money mismanagement.
 
Daktoria said:
Would strongly advise you to look up the is-ought problem and epistemology on your spare time.

Statements aren't just facts and opinions. There are justifications too. Epistemology is literally the study of justified true beliefs.

Without justification, categorizing facts is impossible. Categories need premises and criteria.
Click to expand...

This sort of thing is great for college sophomores hopped up on too much caffeine and their own sense of self importance at 2 AM when there is nothing else on TV. It was fun when I took political theory classes during my senior year of getting my PoliSci degree four decades ago. Now I work in the state legislature and please take my word for it --- NOBODY but NOBODY ever talks about this stuff. Its all pragmatics - be it what works or what will save your own ass politically or what will sell to the public.

I am sure the Ivy League logic club would strongly take exception to what I am saying, but that is simply the way it is in the real world.
 
haymarket said:
This sort of thing is great for college sophomores hopped up on too much caffeine and their own sense of self importance at 2 AM when there is nothing else on TV. It was fun when I took political theory classes during my senior year of getting my PoliSci degree four decades ago. Now I work in the state legislature and please take my word for it --- NOBODY but NOBODY ever talks about this stuff. Its all pragmatics - be it what works or what will save your own ass politically or what will sell to the public.

I am sure the Ivy League logic club would strongly take exception to what I am saying, but that is simply the way it is in the real world.
Click to expand...

I completely agree, and that's the problem. Politicians are selfish. What's needed is campaigns need to become philosophical tests, and if politicians don't uphold their philosophical promises, they get recalled from office.

The problem is common people don't like to philosophize either, and the political system is so tied up with lawyering that nobody wants an anal oversight mechanism.

It's no different from how Colbert got away with calling Romney a serial killer. Due process has completely gone down the crapper. It's going to get to the point where people start going crazy because we're not entitled to reliable speech anymore.
 
Daktoria said:
Actually, Bismarck's primary motivation for instituting universal health care was to oppress Catholics, Catholics who contrasted with the Protestant Work Ethic.

He only stopped oppressing when Polish Catholics (no differently from Latino Catholics now) had to be assimilated, and Catholics were needed to form a coalition government against socialists.

His "masterful" diplomacy also lead to his dismissal after the Congress of Berlin when appeasing Britain and betraying Russia.
Click to expand...

Social security was deliberately designed for neutralizing support for radicals. Bismark went after the Catholics using schools. His dismissal was simply because the new Kaiser didn't like being dominated by his Chancellor. Willy was a moron who managed to screw up Bismark's successful strategy to isolate France and managed to get both Britain and Russia allied against him.
 
Daktoria said:
I completely agree, and that's the problem. Politicians are selfish. What's needed is campaigns need to become philosophical tests, and if politicians don't uphold their philosophical promises, they get recalled from office.

The problem is common people don't like to philosophize either, and the political system is so tied up with lawyering that nobody wants an anal oversight mechanism.

It's no different from how Colbert got away with calling Romney a serial killer. Due process has completely gone down the crapper. It's going to get to the point where people start going crazy because we're not entitled to reliable speech anymore.
Click to expand...

Half the people do not vote today. If we did it your way, you could hold elections at the club rooms of Ivy League logic societies.

Go into a working mans bar and sit and listen to the guys talk. Its not that politicians are not talking where you want them to be - in the abstract stratosphere - it that they are not speaking the language of the working citizen with real problems that demand real solutions.
 
Daktoria said:
Pragmatism, probably the worst ideology ever imagined, is the idea of accepting the simplest possible explanation of your surroundings.
Click to expand...

I have never heard this definition of pragmatism. Where did you get it, or did you make it up yourself?
 
Daktoria said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's not what pragmatism is.

But if so, then I get to define being dogmatic as acting upon you belief regardless of all facts, changes, alternatives and even if it were to mean the death of you and every person on earth because the dogmatic doctrine is absolutely truism regardless of any facts or logic to the contrary.

Pragmatic means "practical." "Dogma means" a belief or doctrine that is proven only by itself.

Debating a topic is inherently "pragmatic." Declaring "I won't discuss it because everyone but who agrees with me about everything is just completely wrong because I say so" is dogmatism.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
I have never heard this definition of pragmatism. Where did you get it, or did you make it up yourself?
Click to expand...

The fundamental problem of conceptualizing practical effects is the necessary overlap between one economic actor and another.

In order to maximize the likelihood of compatible overlap, simple explanations are key. Complex explanations raise the risk of considerations not corresponding.

Pragmatism also denies introspection. It emphasizes that all knowledge is fundamentally empirical, so concepts come from our surroundings.

I really don't know how anyone can be psychologically motivated to do anything with this mindset. People might as well just be programmed, just responding to excitability. Any imagination ever exerted to achieve technological progress would be taken for granted. Any social status would happen from some people being less excitable than others such that the less excitable take refuge in simpler explanations.

It's basically might makes right. If you experience certain effects, they only apply if you experience as few effects as possible. The more effects you experience, the less faculties you have to enforce those effects.
 
Pragmatism was coined (IIRC) by Charles Sanders Peirce near the end of the 19th century. Basically, in a process of inquiry, when a question is discovered to have defined answers, none of which make any difference to what any individual experiences, the one most in agreement with already accepted views is taken to be true. It was a way to classify metaphysical statements as to their meaningfullness, and also as a means of choosing between them when no empirical option for doing so would ever be available. William James later took the term and broadened its application, such that the pragmatic belief is the one that best connects an individual's experiences. Thus, if I believe I have a million dollars in my closet, and I attempt to go purchase a new ferrari with the dirty clothes which are stuffed in the bottom of my closet, and I am denied the trade, I should revise my belief since the one I currently have does not connect my experiences. The most pragmatic belief is that my dirty clothes are not a million dollars.

This doctrine had an interesting effect when considering questions about the existence of God, which James examined in his famous essay "The Will to Believe." He is commonly misunderstood as saying that we should believe whatever we want. Nothing could be further from the truth. What James said was that we should believe what best connects our experiences. If it turns out that belief in God is what connects our experiences in a cohesive manner, then we should believe in God even in the absence of firmer evidence (ditto non-belief in God).

Pragmatism has absolutely nothing to do with what you've stated in this thread. Again, you seem to be taking words that have a settled meaning (more or less) and then changing those meanings, and casting aspersions on those you classify into those mistaken categories. Why not just say that myopaeia and a philosophy of complete selfishness are destroying the economy? That's what you seem to mean.
 
Daktoria said:
The fundamental problem of conceptualizing practical effects is the necessary overlap between one economic actor and another.

In order to maximize the likelihood of compatible overlap, simple explanations are key. Complex explanations raise the risk of considerations not corresponding.

Pragmatism also denies introspection. It emphasizes that all knowledge is fundamentally empirical, so concepts come from our surroundings.

I really don't know how anyone can be psychologically motivated to do anything with this mindset. People might as well just be programmed, just responding to excitability. Any imagination ever exerted to achieve technological progress would be taken for granted. Any social status would happen from some people being less excitable than others such that the less excitable take refuge in simpler explanations.

It's basically might makes right. If you experience certain effects, they only apply if you experience as few effects as possible. The more effects you experience, the less faculties you have to enforce those effects.
Click to expand...

First off, you are making up your own definition for pragmatism which makes this entire thread a strawman.

Second, pragmatics would generally utilize sociological imagination.

Sociological imagination - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Third, pragmatics are motivated to understand the world as it is, not as how people believe it should be, which means that pragmatism is generally a rejection of ideology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom