It's over, bond vigilantes

Four years after wrongly predicting doom because of the fiscal stimulus, some naysayers are still unrepentant – and wrong.

John Gress/Reuters/File
Traders work in the 10-Year Treasury Bill Options Pit at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in this 2010 file photo. For four years, pessimists have warned about the dire consequences of the government's economic stimulus, which hasn't come true.

One of the skills I've had to acquire, as it was not natural to me, was the ability to let go of an information source once it became obvious that it was doing more harm than good.

I'm a tradition person, irrationally sentimental about objects and things, unable to throw things away without some prodding. It drives my wife crazy, who is the polar opposite. She opens birthday cards over the trash can and discards our kids' baby shoes without even glancing twice at them once they've been outgrown. Me, I save hotel room key cards.

And these same proclivities to hold onto things past the point where they're necessary have followed me onto the web (and why wouldn't they have?).  And so, while going through my RSS feeds, tweet streams and email newsletter subscriptions this weekend (as I do at the end of every year), I've had to force myself to cut the weeds down a bit. Ripping this stuff out is healthy, it allows room to add new sources of information. It also de-clutters the machinery a bit, both digitally and mentally.

But more than this, it's also allowed me to face the facts that there are some writers and pundits who have just been so dead wrong - and stubbornly in denial about it - that my continued exposure to their opinions and research could only be detrimental.

Thinking about this stuff is a great reminder that just because someone is smart and speaks authoritatively about a given topic, it doesn't mean they'll be right when prognosticating nor does it mean that what they're saying will ever be helpful to us, the consumers of it.

Speaking of which, Paul Krugman took a spiked bat to the Wall Street Journal's editorial page once again this morning...

Back in the 1950s three social psychologists joined a cult that was predicting the imminent end of the world. Their purpose was to observe the cultists’ response when the world did not, in fact, end on schedule. What they discovered, and described in their classic book, “When Prophecy Fails,” is that the irrefutable failure of a prophecy does not cause true believers — people who have committed themselves to a belief both emotionally and by their life choices — to reconsider. On the contrary, they become even more fervent, and proselytize even harder.

And he's not alluding to the just-failed 12/21 end-of-world prediction of the ancient Mayans with this lede.

The Journal's almost four-year campaign of fear about bond vigilantes and the dire consequences of economic stimulus has gone from being mildly irritating to being outright embarrassing at this point. And as Krugman mentions, there is not a hint of remorse emanating from this vaunted editorial board as a result of any of their wrong-headed fear-mongering.

I've had a lot of the same kind of unapologetically wrong stuff hitting my inbox these past four years and you probably do too. In my case, some of these missives are coming in for tradition's sake alone, apparently, as I had stopped reading them long ago, it turns out. Now I've sealed off those tunnels so it won't get anywhere near me anymore. Life is too short.

Feels good to let it go. And it won't take long to realize how little you actually needed it.

In the spirit of my Seven Ways to be More Productive this coming year, thinking about cutting out some of the excess opinions you've got pinging your sensibilities like a hailstorm on a tin roof. You'll be glad you did.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to It's over, bond vigilantes
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Reformed-Broker/2012/1227/It-s-over-bond-vigilantes
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe