Well cult our chat shorter and well go right to your questions. For those of you joining us via zoom it would be great if you could write your questions in the q a box, and ill monitor those. Those joining via youtube live, write your questions in the comment section. Those questions will get to us, and please start writing those questions now. Especially if you have already had the pleasure and privilege of reading acknowledge degree knock mick angrynomics. Lets get start of you mentioned in the book that the work is intended to restore economics over angrynomics. Whats to that mean . All right. So, theres a great quote from keens was to move economics into dentistry and we meant that actually figured out how the world works, such a thing that its like a root canal. You need a root canal, painful you facebook it. Nothing special. Part of the process and the sense is the desire toning near the world in that way. And that would be nice if we could get real limits where you can do that or not but what we have got instead is a world that seems to be making more and more people angry for a variety of different recents and the motivation is on average the worlds never been we have more resources, we should be able to do more things and yet at the same time we have seen people becoming very angry over lets just do america over the past decade or so. The tea party. Then after the tea party we begin to the netter version of black lives matter and racial protests. Then come out of that and we get the lockdown protests over covid. Then we have more racial strife. And in spain, antiinequality in chile, hong kongs democracy protest. The complete breakdown of many European Party systems and the department of central parties and the rise of populism, trump, brexit, all of that coming our challenge was to try to say why we think this is happening, and ultimately what we can do but it. In this distinction between angrynomics verse economics, we know theres a oft angriness out there, but is the point that anger is motivating people to behave in ways that arent economically sound . Why the angrynomics . How is anger changed what we understand to be economics. So the way we talk but this in the book, we can talk but that but the middle of the book talks about macro angrynomics. Theres an analogy we use in the book which is the capitalistic economy. They have the same components but the range in different wade, like countries. Every country has a capital market, waiver market but very different from each other, and the way you get these things to work, the idea run on and over time they accumulate bugs in the software. When you hour thats when people get annoyed. When youre commute ircrashes you get very angry because you cant do your work. When the economy crashes at a microand macro revel. It creates outpourings of anger and we try to trace on a macro and microlevel the stresses that produce anger. So we define macro texas angrynomics as the condition that pertains when the economy starts perceived to stop filling the majority of citizens and thats the feeling across the oacd countries, that in a sense its a rigged game. Theres a bunch of insiders, called eleads who have made off with all the cash and advantage, sequestered those for themselves and everybody else is working harder and harder for less and less and thats what we want to take up. And the anger is the way to define the different types of anger expression. The way i understood the back was crises are important. There are moments which systems break down but theres actually something much more longterm about the nature of anger that buildings up. So the way i read it, was to say that over the long periods of time, a kind of disconnect happens on the one hand there are these experts who push certain kinds of paradigms, frameworks for underring the way the world works. So theres these dominant paradigms, and i think your opinion is is correct me imim wrongone level sometimes the paradigms, as smart as the experts are or think they are the paradigms are just wrong and order people know that. They hear this stuff but paradigms but say thats b. S. That isnt right. Thats one thing. You can do that as just expert hubris but then theres this other thing you and eric refer to which is just out and out selfdeal big elite, anymore power, with financially on politically. Tell me how im supposed to make sense of the longterm trends of just bad ideas that the experts arent smart enough to figure out versus just selfdealing elites. So, lets have both simultaneously or environments in which one allows the other to come to prominence, where we are in the moment unfortunately. So take the first one. Im not sure if theyre not smart enough to understand. The way this is interesting that you are calling that because we hint at this but dont expressly said. Our feelings but the world, our software for running the economy. It it stuck in a moment in time, usually have a moment of crisis, the 70s the big crisis of inflation, all of the ideas in he 198 another temperature independence of central bank, prices, thats all reflected. We live in a world where we havent han had inflation for 20 years, the only infrayings is an asset crisis. To what extend can the feelings still run the hardware without softening. So it is more like the world of all things changes but the core instructions stay the same and that creates problems. In terms of the selfdealing this goes back to the fact if im going to a volatility constraint and blows off. Who in a sense gets to weaponize the anger . Whats the point. We live in a particular moment where a convergence of digital and other Media Technology and the end of the Old Established media monopolies havecracied space for political entrepreneurs to weaponize it. We can taught but trump and twitter but the original example was those types of dynamics, when you have a system whereby the no longer running as it should and already people are in a grander sense, youre telling me theres no inflation but how many the cost of housing, college, healthcare, is going occupy . How think be no inflation . Thats quite right. The experience of the expert. A totally different thing archbishop loss of credibility and you have a weaponization of politics which is possible now in a way it wasnt before, which then feeds back and stokes the anger, and why choose. Theyre working together. That makes sense to me. Let me push a little bit more on why i think it is important to choose a little bet even though these are totally speier twined if think about knives never 1980s, 90s issue took econ 101 and we grew up in a neoliberal moment, and with my political view is nodded accordingly when i was told marks are the most efficient way of allocating resources and all ships rise with a rising tide and better to deregulate and globalization is good and we all nodded. All the while that was going on theres all this other evidence, at least pout about the process, wage stagnation and people suffering and i heard that but i could nod as a expert in the end its all going to work out. Maybe imen idiot but thats a mistake of hubris and then the idea is what we need new paradigms or people but you can see change coming through better ideas. If fundamentally the problem is the norms of leadership have just on the left and right have been tossed and its all but selfdealing now. Thats a different thats revolution, regime change, man the barricades rather than write a different textbook. Know their enter twined but which one is really the issue today . If you public but the protestes think but the protests the second wave of black lives matter and the protests in the u. S. , these are claims for moral outrage, you are selfdealing, you are hypocrites. You do not actual live apply the law equally and that. But it varies by area. I think another way of putting it, rather than the hubris on one side and selfdealing on the other side is as the world has become more integrated and globalize questioned all those things, its a National Human tendency for us to discount information that doesnt go with our if you grew up believing the free state guess for youll defend that argue. Even if theres evidence coming the other way and i still defend doesnt mean the whole thing is wrong. So, it takes ill throw another quote at you. The problem arent a lack of new ideas the trouble is escaping from old ones and that combine width the realist use of selfdealing and basically in a sense the software no longer matching the hardware to produce a world in which you get a lot of uncertainty and that leads toward this type of dynamics we see with angrynomics. So, let me restate it to make sure ive get it. The idea is there are bunch of bad ideas out there ideas that have opposite sew lessed before objects lessed before people in our recognize and because theyre slow respond that creates an opening for in your words tribal identity, tribalism and that kind of anger to be used as a technology that some people will weaponize this. You get the trumps weaponnize this stuff and you get in the moment were in today. Yes. But its not just manufactured in the sense its recallly real things. An example of this. So, you watch american media, lets use that horrible term the many stream meet a. In lockdown everybody so i a half a dozen people now you feel the effect of the 2,000 people who were also there without guns, who were essentially seeing what we see all the time but kind of theres a Federal Reserve study few years back that said 40 of americans would have trouble getting 400 bucks together in an emergency. The emergency started and the jackpot yo. The watching the television and the Federal Reserve said if youre rich and have safeties dont worry, well have assets, dont worry. Well be everything. Who has insurance and who doesnt. Who is paying the costs and who doesnt. And that is what is real and what is what i is being partially weaponized. We also want to acknowledge and this is absolutely legitimate and the fact that folks like you and i have been tone deaf for so long is a real problem. In 2009 during the financial crisis, regardless of my political views, it made me crazy that in the early part of the First Obama Administration it seemed that nothing was being done punitively against the banks or the bankers or that when big bonuses were paid out, nothing happened. Nothing punitive. Made me nuts with anger or moral indignation. Seems like this is a fairly extended longterm process. Absolute limit people pick up little bits of different parts of the information and interpret it in different ways. You can say that for example obamas response and the response of the administration, new administration coming to power, not the establishment democrat, correctly having the ones who built the system to try to bail the system. You end up in a world with basically the old mantra was bail, fail, and send to jail and what we did was bail, nobody failed, and absolutely nobody went to jail. I dont think that obama thought lets make that a policy argue. But thats the way it ended up and sent a signal to people theres two sets of rules. If im small businessman i go to wall. Ive a big business i get taxpayer bailouts. This this system we have been running the past decade and a half. Right. I mean i dont know how deeply we want to go into this but also race is in the american story although arguably in the other national contexts, too. Race, then suffuses a lot of this discussion about involving rage and anger and moral indig nation and alsoing access to prosperity. These things i would never be foolish enough to reduce race to economic but taken in the context of the United States it has a history and it on drivers. But two weeks ago the boston Federal Reserve looked at net Family Wealth or net assets versus liabilities now families in boston. Now your obvious white family, a misleading argument. A bunch of super rich people in boston so pushes it up a bit. Like the median. Your middle Family Income in boston singhly is 247,000 a year. Your black family in boston is eight bucks. Let me say that again. Eight dollars. You do not get those types of inequalities unless you have serious institutions pushing things in this direction for many years at a time, redlining and property, access to credit, natural to access the financial system, policing is one part of that. So this is tied into it and the particular form of anger, and moral outrage, which i think is utterly justified in the United States today is what we see in the current protest. In the book you and eric have a number of very interesting proposals. I guess well call them policy proposals for National Wealth funds, dual interest raise, direct transfers to household income, which i think are quite novel and provocative persuasive. But how would that then play out against what you just said . We the new deal and new great society. We have had pushes like this which then again get filtered through race and other kinds of biases that still lead to important parts of the pop laying not benefiting. There is some way that these new pre pose sals could get around that . So, what we tried to do is take that into account. Who is this good for . This book is for basically everybody who is interested in this question. Its written as a dialogue because the way we wrote the book, i was we recorded on siri. Used a couple of phones and ache did a bunch of reading and i did and we talked the book. Then got siri to tracked and an irishman and scotts moan siri had a hard time and it sounded horrible. Sounded like two rich white guys telling everyone we have the solutions and we know whats going on and just have to fix it and thats it. So we hated it. We put it back into dialogue format and tried to open it and detech any fie it but we has proposals which are tacky and inside the beltway negative. Ill say theyre accessible which is we did try to explain that. Ill partly blame haleck because he is a geek. You say Green New Deal to people, 20 of the country switches off. Just the very term new deal is itself politically toxic. Also says something about the lack of bipartisanship and genuine new ideas that can reach across political ideas that the last good thing the democratics can point to happened 80 years ago, decarbonization is overwhelming but youll say new deal it throws up things and its dead before it starts. Not based on increasing tackation, that make a real difference to the assets that people who dont have assets could accrue over a lifetime if not shorter that could make serious comment inequality and also are likely to get people on the left to say, yeah, short of revolution thats not bad. So thats why we ended up with those in particular. But unless your actually arguing things that arent going to get attention but people listen, theres no point in saying them. I want to explore how these proposals whether its for dual Interest Rate order National Wealth fund, direct transfers to households income, how do those translated into a new kind of politics . May have to do with what our idea of politics is. One view people vote their pocketbooks which is plausible but maybe a dust view is that people want to feel something. They want their dignity reaffirmed. Want to feel something, and interest raise. Your point if i have it right is were locked into this politic of techy answers which people dont want to hear or vague, empty slogans versus the raw meat of negative zero sum xenophobic identity and none of those of is good. So what is the kind of new politics thats going to reshape the fissures existing. Whoa heres why we like National Wealth funds. People hear of Sovereign Health funds and think of norway with oil and all these dollars, be a buy assets and put enemy a fund. Makes more now, without get doing much into this technical side, if you in vest in stocks they reallied 6 a year. I you invest in bonds now theyre negative. So, why would you ever buy bonds . Every time theres a financial crisis, the governments cost was negativity. You want to by bonds. Why dont we rather than private equity just issue more bonds because people want them when their negative, buy them and put them in a completely fund miling away from politicians and then over ten years if you did that for 20 of the u. S. Gdp and bought those assets you would have a multitrillion dollar wealth fund which you could give to people for college, reforming healthcare, you could really make a difference in the things that actually make a difference in peoples lives and thats the type of thing, because it is cant doing what the fed does but without doing it in such way the asset holders benefit, then you have multiple election cycles your creating an institution which has bipartisan support. That is how you engender a politics because you have things that people can basically see as real assets. They make a difference that last more than six months or blow up the minute the cycle goes. That makes sense. I guess if theyre these kinds of transfers wont call them transfers but theres new wealth being generated, through investment and money is being allocated, i would think that if theres a sense of solidarity in society, then as a citizen i would feel this is great. Im really happy that this is happening. If theres tribal identities, though issue might say, that poor guy, he, she is lazy. I would is or that welfare mom which is racialized when it was deployed for earlier american politics, to what extent are the proposals vulnerable to the angry attitude, the tribal attitude versus what i hope is a more solidarity take on citizenship . Well, the thing the key word is citizen. Part of the problem is over 30 years the concept has been emptied of all value. Youre a consumer rather than a citizen, and to a real you need to get people a stake in their society which is Something Else being eviscerated and the politics youre talking about exactly with weaponized that way. Lets do a counterfactual. When was it right across the ocd that these types of reactionary he protest movements were in abeyance . In the mid to late 90s. 94 all falling down. That is when it was the only one and all he was doing was telling them to not pay the taxes because the didnt pay taxes. Real wages were rising. For the first time in decade. When you actually change the american money in peoples pockets is works wonders. Not the only thing thats going on. If you can take africanamerican families in boston and forget community banking. Really see the asset balance in boston society, make houses theyre able to buy that you can lend against, borrow against, yes, some people will definitely feel that is against their interests, about the majority of us will benefit from the fact its leafing to a belt leading to a better