Concrete Economics

I recently finished Concrete Economics, a book written by Stephen S. Cohen and J. Bradford DeLong. The book’s thesis is one of returning to pragmatism to remedy society’s most pressing challenges. I found this piece to be not only convincing but also timely, for today’s challenges, and especially tomorrow’s, underscore the need to revisit pragmatic traditions, truths that are no less relevant today than they were yesterday. However, a return to level-headed, good-faith pragmatism, I fear, may prove to be little more than wishful thinking. My concern arises not out of fear that our institutions are irredeemably damaged. Rather, the concern owes to the possibility that the moment in which we exist is uniquely unresponsive to calls for pragmatism — calls that might otherwise visit open-minded audiences but for the ensnaring allure of ideological persuasions. Put differently, this debate, though admirable and appropriate, may fall short of accounting for and dealing with the mood of the day. I would suggest that ideology, irrespective of the strand, is incapable of negotiating much less yielding to calls for renewed pragmatism — even if those appeals betray an intensity reminiscent of ideological zealousness. Indeed, ideology, at its core, turns on insular absolutism, an unflinching allegiance to rejecting empirical judgments and impartial examinations. That ideology remains hostile to facts and logic is neither surprising nor peculiar, for the logic of ideology is simple — having less to do with rigidity than with control. Facts are beyond our sphere of influence. They are wholly independent. While we can use them, we cannot own them. Objective analysis, therefore, is seen as an affront to the ethos of ideology, an unnerving reminder that ideologies may only endure insofar that their facade, their fiction remains whole. So should pragmatism undergo a kind of modern renaissance, an intellectual resurgence of sorts, it will surely be met by the anger of irrational resistance, the type that scoffs at indulging the other perspective, the kind that balks at acknowledging the merits of empiricism, analysis, and logic. Indeed, it will take quite the mind, a mind that I admittedly lack, to articulate a scenario in which the seduction of logic triumphs over that of ideological fantasy. How one goes about reaching the minds of those for whom ideological camps are now home is perhaps our greatest challenge yet, for pragmatism cannot exist in the abstract — it needs a willing audience to play its part. Notwithstanding those concerns, the authors’ push for pragmatism is at once commendable and unmistaken. Their critique of unfettered capitalism is also relevant, as the data suggest that economic systems function better with government assistance, guidance, and leadership. Silicon Valley is certainly proof of this; other spaces are as well. Further, these debates, as the authors suggest, are too often framed in the narrowest terms, terms that rely on incorrect assumptions, inferences, and fact patterns to justify a particular outlook. What matters is that the best ideas prevail. That an idea confronts sacred beliefs is not grounds for its dismissal. Outcomes are what matter — not our preferences. This philosophy mirrors my thinking on a range of issues. It also matches my thinking on an earlier piece of mine: pattern-matching-fit, which argues that investors seeking alpha returns should “pattern match” to meet the entrepreneurial moment. This concept arguably shares similarities with the Hamiltonian approach, as the adoption of ideas and practices that best fit the moment are central to both.