Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Pessimistic about Pessimism
Things are getting better. Democrats can’t ruin it. Republicans can’t ruin it. Voters can’t ruin it. People are getting vastly richer. Our children will be far better off than we are, no matter how insurmountable the national debt seems to be. Just think about technology. Even if wages stay constant, the things that people buy will get cheaper, and food and energy will continue to be ever-shrinking portions of our budgets.
Morgan Housel wrote an article for The Motley Fool that expresses this perfectly, and has a wonderful explanation for the allure of intelligence surrounding pessimism. Check out this graph (logarithmic, mind you). It’s the ultimate example of “climbing the wall of worry.”
So why are people drawn to pessimism? Housel give five reasons:
1. Optimism appears oblivious to risks, so by default pessimism looks more intelligent. But that’s a wrong way to view optimists. Most optimists will tell you things will get ugly, that we’ll have recessions, bear markets, wars, panics, and pandemics. But they remain optimistic because they set themselves up in portfolio, career, and disposition to endure those downsides. To the pessimist, a bad event is the end of the story. To the optimist it’s a slow chapter in an otherwise excellent book. The difference between an optimist and a pessimist often comes down to endurance and time frame.
2. Pessimism shows that not everything is moving in the right direction, which helps you rationalize the personal shortcomings we all have. Misery loves company, as they say. Realizing that things outside your control could be the cause of your own problems is a comforting feeling, so we’re attracted to it.
3. Pessimism requires action, whereas optimism means staying the course. Pessimism is “Sell, get out, run,” which grabs your attention because it’s an action you need to take right now. You don’t want to read the article later or skim over the details, because you might get hurt. Optimism is mostly, “Don’t worry, stay the course, we’ll be alright,” which is easy to ignore since it doesn’t require doing anything.
4. Optimism sounds like a sales pitch, while pessimism sounds like someone trying to help you. And that’s often the truth. But in general, most of the time, optimism is the correct default setting, and pessimism can be as big a sales pitch as anything – especially if it’s around emotional topics like money and politics.
5. Pessimists extrapolate present trends without accounting for how reliably markets adapt. That’s important, because pessimistic views often start with a foundation of rational analysis, so the warning appears as reasonable as it is scary.
In reality, the optimists are consistently correct over the medium term. As with the weather, if you don’t like current events, give it a little time and they will change. But chances are the pessimist will have latched on to something new that spells doom for us all.
Don’t be like them. Let the Left worry about the end of the world. Don’t let the election trouble you. Things are getting ever better, despite ignorant people doing everything in their power to stop it.
Published in Politics
For those interested in the arcane portion of these analysis:
From Investopedia:
DEFINITION of ‘Nominal GDP’
A gross domestic product (GDP) figure that has not been adjusted for inflation.
Also known as “current dollar GDP” or “chained dollar GDP.”
DEFINITION of ‘Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP)’
An inflation-adjusted measure that reflects the value of all goods and services produced in a given year, expressed in base-year prices. Often referred to as “constant-price,” “inflation-corrected” GDP or “constant dollar GDP”.
The data is tabulated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The most current report from ~2 weeks ago may be found here.
That is a very astute observation.
Mike, I can’t find the source of that graph on the Motley Fool and they link to the NYT as their source. Do you have a source for it? Thanks.
Mike- very interesting, thanks. The comments to your post remind me a bit of when Jonah Goldberg was on the Pierce Morgan show to discuss Tyranny of Cliches, and Morgan, in attempt to prove to Goldberg he was above the cliches, proved every one of Goldbergs’ points.
So, I guess if we’re going to be pessimistic about pessimism we’ll need to look on the bright side.
I don’t have any data to back this up, it’s just my subjective impression. Does it seem like people who identify as libertarian or libertarian-leaning tend to be more optimistic than others?*
It definitely seems like that to me. If this is true, I wonder why it’s true? With a few notable exceptions like Justin Amash, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee, few people in power call themselves libertarian or libertarian-ish. So why is it that a group of people who have so little political power are more optimistic than people on the conventional left and right, who mostly hold the keys to power? I don’t have a theory for this.
Put me down as one of the optimists, by the way.
*And I say tend, because there are obvious exceptions, like Ron Paul who is quite a grump.
I’m pessimistic because modern man believes in data.
Before the Civil War there were supporters of slavery in the south who said their slaves were better off than northern industrial workers – better fed, more security, better working conditions, etc. And there was some truth to it, at least in some cases. That doesn’t mean slavery was a good thing and shouldn’t have been eradicated. It didn’t mean slaves didn’t want to be free, though I suppose you could have found some who cited GDP figures to show that they had more freedom than ever before.
And you think that “Real GDP per person” means something to the everyday person in their everyday lives? Why?
…and technology as savior.
I will say, though, I think my (our) pessimism is hurting our cause politically. Especially with young people. Not sure what to do about it.
Talk about individual liberty and prosperity. There is a great case to be made I think.
This minor, little dip is a wee, inconsequential thing known as The Freaking Great Depression:
Don’t tell me that governments cannot ruin things.
I think it’s going to require something much deeper — a religious revival (by which I mean Christian). Young people know at some fundamental level they were made for more than avoidance of pain and accumulation of creature comforts. Has anyone told them what that is? Nothing short of Heaven itself?
I had an interesting experience with my own daughter recently. We had a conversation about the importance of good nutrition (which is critically important for her for reasons I won’t explain here). I had always taken for granted the old adage, “you are what you eat,” as if it didn’t need explaining to my highly intelligent children. This time, I explained it, going down to the cellular level. For the first time, she internalized it. This is a kid I’ve had to take to therapeutic feeding clinic (without success), but she’s starting to own the message after one serious conversation.
Young people are hungry for the truth (Truth). We have to get past the left wing gatekeepers to feed them. It’s getting existential, whatever the optimists say.
/stepping away from the pulpit now…
I agree. The truth sets us free.
My frustration is that none of our so-called conservative leaders wish to risk bringing the message.
Additionally, we have to explain that individual liberty is the result of individual responsibility.
I’m kind of strange in that I believe the development of objective morality, like the development of physics and math, is a type of technology, and the most important one.
There was a lot in the comments I could respond to. Of course it’s within the realm of possibility that things could be ruined. One of the reasons pessimism is so prevalent is because it is possible, but people predict doom and gloom all the time, others nod along with the great soothsayer, and then everyone forgets when it doesn’t happen and they move onto the next great armageddon.
The track record of pessimism should be seen for what it is: practically always wrong. When things go south, it’s always temporary, and usually involve people having to live a couple years with living standards equivalent to the dark ages of the previous decade.
When people predict doom, it should be viewed in light of this track record. They might be right, but almost certainly are wrong, so stop acting like they are some type of insightful genius.
As hesitant (disappointed) as I’ve been about Marco Rubio, I think he gets this emphasis on the potential of individuals and his general positive outlook right. Carly is even better, but she’s going nowhere.
I think this is when we start losing (young) people. They’ve got Democrats offering them free ice cream (healthcare, daycare, college education…) and conservatives telling them they have to act responsibly. It’s not that it’s false. It’s just uninspiring.
We need to talk a lot more about heroism. We need to tell our stories. The heroic capitalism (which is moral because it is voluntary and involves service to others) of, for example, Andrew Carnegie. Heroic marriages and parenting. Heroic youngsters (Blessed Chiara Luce). And we need to note that all heroism has a strong component of self-sacrifice. It’s way bigger than “responsibility.”
Millions of people converted to Christianity through the centuries because of the example of Christian heroes. It’s daunting if we think about it too much. We need divine intervention to succeed at the task ahead.
Technology and wealth should not just be viewed through the lens of materialism. With wealth comes the ability to create better connections and bring families closer together.
We are scattered throughout the country, but we’re wealthy enough to occasionally attend meetups. It would be much more difficult and sacrificial just a couple decades ago. Simple materialism?
My children’s grandparents get to see them every weekend using Skype and Facetime. It this materialism?
Some people get hung up on owning stuff for it’s own sake. So what? They’re wrong. Don’t let stupid wrong people sully what is a great real benefit for the rest of us.
I think this is wrong.
In 1989, Kirby Puckett became baseball’s first $3million dollar man. And thus set off the era of ballplayers chasing the almighty dollar. That is, the ballplayers began playing the game with the goal of cashing in. Home runs > singles so take steroids. That sort of thing. The joy of the game was disappearing.
But then we reached a point where there was so much money for everyone that it just wasn’t that important anymore. Everyone was rich. Look at my Pirates. Look at the Royals. These are kids having fun and it’s fun to watch. They have the money so they can just play again.
I think we’re in that spot in real life. We’ve got everything covered. Now we just want to play. The greatest concern is that we’ll lose our play time. We want to lock in our gains and be done. Even if it means losing some liberty or potential for more gains.
Were man nourished by wealth alone, the graph might have some validity. As the resident pessimist (not in service of sophistication or intelligence), this is much whistling past the graveyard. I see the world around me as increasingly chaotic in just about every articulable dimension and ripe for a serious discontinuity. Not apparent, for example, on the graph is the fact that amidst the purported increase in per capita GDP during the 20th century, was significant decimation of the capita part – as in over 120 million deaths by government.
Is man’s purpose to merely create wealth and coincident accoutrements, use them up, and discard (or recycle) them. Is the value of the sum of our individual lives reducible to GDP per capita? Those numbers cited here as reassurance would be equally valid were automata lacking any consciousness of self conducting all the economic activity – rather than sentient human beings. Even if they are valid, they tell us nothing of the meaning of this activity for those individuals fortunate enough to have survived and carried on the cited economic activity. “I eat, produce(some of us), consume and create waste products, therefore I am?” Enough??
I do not believe we, in all our increased wealth, are better able to answer life’s eternal and essential questions: “Why am I here?” How shall I act?” “Does my existence matter?” In fact, I think we insulate ourselves – using our wealth – by meaningless distractions, so as to anesthetize our potentially meaningful selves.
Anyone who claims to know for certain is lying to themselves.
Correctly. Morally. The pursuit of correct morality is pretty life fulfilling in and of itself.
Of course. Existence matters in how well you fulfill others lives and your own.
Some people certainly do, but I only worry about the people I can help. I don’t gnash my teeth over the mountains of lost souls. They’re doing things wrong. I would prefer that they change, but I’m not going to worry about moving the unmovable. They can see we have things better and have a pretty good idea why, even if they are incapable of making similar decisions. Hopefully some of them change because of this realization.
Well, having been first brought up in reasonable comfort, then getting into a situation during my youth involving indebtedness, illness, not knowing where my next meal would come from, and the threat of homelessness, what I found was that having the insulation of wealth stripped away left me craving meaningless distraction in a desperate way I never had before. However much wealth may interfere with our pursuit of Big Meaning in life, I don’t think we should forget the possibility that poverty and insecurity may interfere just as much, if not more so.
Beyond those with genuine religious faith (which I respect, in certain cases, but cannot share), I don’t know anyone serious who claims an answer. Socrates famously said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” This was just before the youth killed him. The inevitable and painful humility of an even superficially-contemplative life eliminates any illusions that an answer is at hand. It is, rather, being willing to continually ask the question, knowing no satisfying answer is likely. The elusive trick (which I haven’t found) is to accept this fact gracefully.
MFR-“what I found was that having the insulation of wealth stripped away left me craving meaningless distraction in a desperate way I never had before. However much wealth may interfere with our pursuit of Big Meaning in life, I don’t think we should forget the possibility that poverty and insecurity may interfere just as much, if not more so.”
Undoubtedly true, though your ordeal represents a poignant anecdote which occurs within the breadth of the line of the graph held out as a source of great optimism for the future. The reason I take cold comfort in this putative linear increase of GDP per capita – even if accurate – is that it fails to capture the subjective ethos of those economic times. That ethos is today decidedly not optimistic, particularly when compared to other times, even some times in within the memories of many living today. While I haven’t the time or interest in refuting Housel’s 5 generalities, I find them to be pop-psychological sophistry.
It’s moral to lie in some cases.
Sounds good to me.
This is not a joke. My last name means pessimistic in Galic.
Um, what were we just saying about those who claim to know for certain?
It’s often a noble lie because it tends to give one fulfillment and happiness. The vast majority of people just accept whatever their parents told them to accept. One would likely believed something different had they been born to other parents. So how do you know you were born to the right parents?
There’s no strong indicator of which origin story is correct. If one of them is correct then billions of people believe just as strongly in objectively wrong things. Why do people feel just as real spiritual connection to things that don’t exist? What is that?
So certainties are OK as long as they are certainties we can say, “Of course!” to?
I quote: “Of course. Existence matters in how well you fulfill others lives and your own.”
I’m not sure if I can parse that last sentence grammatically, but I’m certain I can’t make any sense of it.
Sure, it’s difficult to articulate what I mean. I don’t know if there are words to express the proper answers to those questions. If they were easy to articulate, they wouldn’t be such good eternal questions.
Existence matters if nihilism is false. And I think nihilism is pretty easily refuted. That’s all I was really trying to express.
You ought to give it a try. I can be quite the nihilist when I put my mind to it.