Your home for traditional conservatism.

The Joys of Failure

You know—you must—you can't help it—aren't you alive?!—that the marketplace isn't perfect. Haven't we all been told often enough, amid the political chatter concerning how to crack down on Wall Street?

Bad, bad bankers whose pay should be regulated and selfish brokers—not to mention negligent directors of corporations—are among the current targets. John Maynard Keynes is the new op-ed page superhero. Michael Moore has another documentary out about the ills of capitalism. The agitprop director Oliver Stone is springing Gordon Gekko from prison, where his escapades in Stone's 1987 movie Wall Street landed him. In the new Gekko movie, we'll relearn that capitalism and human values are a mismatch.

Not much is new here. Americans have been banging bankers around as long as there have been things such as banks. Any letdown in the functioning of the economy ignites reproaches and calls for enhanced oversight by those who understand keenly that the marketplace isn't perfect.

And whoever said it was, please? The "defects" that commentators keep finding in private-sector economics aren't defects at all—bad guesses, stupidities, rapacious maneuvers and all the rest. They reflect the nature of the people—humans, that is—who engage in economics. People are people, wherever they live, whatever they do. The free market's job isn't to win; it's to enable the common sense of the people to assert itself though thick and thin, through failure and success.

A critic of America's reliance on market forces—Robert H. Frank of Cornell University—explained to us in the New York Times the other day that standard economic models don't account for people's propensity to focus on the long term rather than the short—to take insufficient notice of penalties and rewards attendant on this economic action or that one. "Delayed or uncertain payoffs often get short shrift," said Frank.

Tell us another one, Doctor. Hard as it may be to believe, people do tend to  evaluate actions with reference to their own, unique perspectives of need. Thus it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be.

The key perhaps to dealing with such a deficiency is one that shapers and caterers to public opinion are unwilling to insert in the lock. By which I mean the willingness, save in extreme conditions, to let bad decisions meet with bad consequences. To allow failure.

Naturally, you can't always do that. We've heard in recent days and months of economic institutions "too big to fail." Let 'em go down and too much chaos ensues, too much human hurt. AIG, for example, or possibly General Motors and Chrysler. In steps the government to avert immediate damage. The question of how to judge between institutions deserving of failure and those too important to let go is a question on which few non-economists, and probably many professional economics as well, can rightly pronounce. Shall we just agree that failure is the just, if not the inevitable, reward for human obtusity?

Unless—aha -- the government steps in: a whole corps of regulators and wise men sorting things out, eliminating stupidity. Many in the Obama administration would like to see things happen just so—not least those talking now of regulating mortgages, credit cards or whatever else we might use to commit stupidity.

The assumptions behind this thinking are dangerous and, yes, dumb. First,  because failure is often the engine of progress. You try something, you see whether it works efficiently, and you go on from there. Failure is a signal: this is no good, try something else.

There's an equally cogent reason to avoid letting government protect us from adventure's consequences. We're human, and the regulators aren’t? Whence their superior knowledge and judgment? Aren't they as likely as anyone else to evidence shortness of sight, poverty of judgment?

We're surely better off to stick with our own instincts, our own dreams, inspirations and reckonings. Dropping them when they go south is quicker, at a minimum, than repealing the stupidest law you ever heard of—when the political process allows any admission of failure.

COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS.COM


Tagged as: ,

6 Responses »

  1. Sorry but compensation on Wall Street is out of control. Traders are taking huge positions in exotic derivatives that carry risk for many years while getting paid performance bonuses for each year that they show a "profit" when the final outcome of the position is still in doubt. The perfect example is the CDS portfolio of AIG. Virtually every trade made by the Financial Products division over the years was a loser but those employees got huge bonuses until the whole thing finally blew up. Take big risks and get big rewards until it goes bad, then walk away rich. The system has been gamed so that the officers and employees of these banks recieve all the reward while the shareholders (and now taxpayers) carry all the risk. As for the solution, I'd rather see power taken back by the shareholders than legislation from a Congress that is bought and paid for by the very bank executives responsible for the problem.

  2. Wall St can't really be used as an illustration of a free market. If the Federal Reserve was abolished, and basic financial fraud statutes were enforced, there might be an actual free market in stocks and bonds, but the incestuous ties between Goldman-Sachs and the dept. of Treasury would also have to be broken.

    Since the banking industry has come under the loving care of the federal government, politicians can see no limit on their power to direct the operations of banks, though nobody in either house of Congress is qualified to empty wastebaskets at the scruffiest branch bank in the US.

    Be that as it may, banks are simply accessories to the ongoing criminal enterprise of the counterfeiting Federal Reserve and don't qualify as independent businesses. No protection from the interventions of their masters can be rightfully claimed by such a zombie industry.

    Maybe a column on federal interference in the manufacturing industries would provide a more solid basis for the subject of undue federal control, if GM and Chrysler are left out.

  3. Any institution deemed "too big to fail" should be broken up immediately via anti-trust actions. This should also be the result of any firm receiving any government bailout. Finance capitalism seems to inevitably result in monopoly or oligopoly, and a virtual takeover of governments through regulatory capture, much to the detriment of entrepreneurial capitalists and customers. The much touted free market lasts only several femtoseconds. Adam Smith recognized the perils of meetings of businessmen, along these lines, but this is all ignored by the free market fundamentalists.

  4. #3.Any institution deemed “too big to fail” should be broken up immediately via anti-trust actions. I second.

  5. Bankers and brokers are useful but dangerous dogs who ought to be kept on a short leash. Our leadership class has let the dog slip the leash entirely. There is no sign that Obama will resurrect the controls that kept the greedsters under some modicum of control (it is my understanding that Wall St. is back to business as usual). We may expect another implosion in due time.

  6. "We may expect another implosion in due time."

    Yes, most likely when the commercial realty bubble pops. That's overdue right now.