>> thank you both for a very illuminating discussion. if we can't travel freely abroad because of the time being we can at least david has expertly plugged the book already and i will say again you can order copies of which countries have the best healthcare by cracking on the bar below. from all of us here at politics and prose, stay a while and while red. >> thank you brad and thank you david. >> i'm the director of the

institute for international public affairs. welcome to the special talk on a angernomics with my friend and co-author. we are joined here today by mark, the director of the institute road center for international economics and financing also the mark rhodes professor of international economics and professor of political science and international public affairs. mark and i are going to chat for 20 to 25 minutes or so then we would love to take questions from the wall i you all in the . we have a lot of question we will put the trash order and go right to the questions. for those of you joining us on zoom it would be great if you could write your questions in the q-and-a box and for those of you joining on youtube, write your questions in the comment section and those will get to us. please start writing them now especially if you've already had

the pleasure and privilege of reading the angernomics. let's get started. i loved this book. it's really provocative and fascinating. you mention in the book the word is intended to restore economics over angernomics. what does that mean? >> the lifetime mission was to become economics industry and what he meant its basically like a root canal it's painful but you have to do it. it becomes part of the process [inaudible] it could be nice if we could get to that world but all they got instead is a world that seems to

be making more and more people angry for desperate reasons. when we have more resources we should be able to do more things after the tea party we have the racial process then we get out of that and have more racial strife anti-inequality. the democracy process, the complete breakdown aligned with populism of the challenge of of ultimately what we can do about it. >> host: but the distinction

between angrynomics i is at the point that anger is motivating people to behave in ways that are not economically sound? how has it changed what they understand iweunderstand in the? >> there is an analogy that we use a bit of the same components but they are arranged in different ways. when you have those that is when

people get annoyed with the. what we do is try to trace it to the level of when the economy starts serving that interest of the majority seems to be the feeling that is set across the countries basically there's a bunch of insiders. and everyone else is working harder and harder for less and less. it's a different type of

expression that we see there are moments but it's more long-term. over a long period of time and disconnect happens. on the one hand, there are these experts who push certain kinds of paradigms, frameworks for understanding the way the world works. so there are these dominant paradigms and your point is at least one level as smart as the experts are or think they are a. they give you that i of that ist

expert humorous and then there is another thing that you refer to the chase self-dealing by elites, people in power. tell me how we are supposed to make sense of the long-term trends of the bad ideas and the experts are not smart enough to figure out the self-dealing elites. >> i think it is where we are unfortunately. it's interesting that you are calling this out now because we tend to think about it this way. all of the ideas that come out

at all reflected in that moment. we are in a world where there hasn't been inflation for 20 years. to what extent can they still run the hardware so it's about the changes staying the same. in terms of the self-dealing of this it goes back to a system who gets to weaponize that anger and we live in a particular moment where the pm that the monopolies have created to go and weaponize in a way we haven't seen before.

in this type of dynamics where you have a system that is no longer really running as it should. it is the metric of these different things it i it's possible now anyway but it wasn't before so why choose the two of them. >> host: let me say why it is important to choose and why they are intertwined. i think about myself in the 1980s, '90s i took economy 101 and grew up in a dismounted and with regards to the

political views i gues guess i d accordingly when i was told the markets are the most equitable efficient way to the globalization is good. i think that one could actually define those are good ideas. we all nodded in all the while that was going on, there was this other evidence of thing and about the process and wage stagnation in the middle of these people suffering. i guess i heard that still okay that is a mistake of hubris. you can see the change coming to better ideas but they fundamentally the problem is the norms of leadership on the left and right have been tossed and it's all about the self-dealing now and it's different, that

calls for revolution regime change. that is barricades rather than different textbook and i know they are intertwined but which one is the really big issue today? >> we think that the process as the second wave it is our feeling to not apply the law equally. i think that it varies by area as we've become integrated in a globalized we see it in economics and everything else.

it is new ideas and old ones and i think that combines with the sense of software you get a lot of uncertainty and leads to the world of dynamics. >> host: let me make sure i've got this. the idea is there are a bunch of bad ideas out there that have also left before people recognized and because there is voter respond, but creates an opening for tribal identity and that kind of anger to be used as a technology that some people were weaponize while the experts

would've responded to get you name it and give it the moment we are in today. >> whethen you have to logon process everybody in the world so they were essentially seeing the study a few years back that said it could be even more.

meanwhile don't worry we will buy everything. it that's what is real and what is being weaponize. in terms of my political issues it made me crazy that in the early part of the obama administration that seemed nothing was being done punitively against the bank so in the big bonuses were paid off, nothing happened. nothing punitive and it made me nuts with anger or moral indignation so it seemed to me that this was a fairly expanded

long-term process. >> you could see they respond to this not the establishment but those that help the system you end up with the old mantra and what they did was fail. but this is the way that it ended up in those two sets of rules. it's essentially the system we've been running for the past eight and a half. >> i don't know how deeply we would want to go into this, but

also race and the race that suffuses a lot of this discussion about rage and anger and moral indignation and access to prosperity. >> particularly in the context of the united states i will give you one example of it that the context of the liabilities and your family income is $247,000 a

year. you do not get this type of any copies a month you can see the institutions pushing things in this direction. in this particular form of anger and moral outrage is what we see in the current process. >> in the book you have a number of interesting proposals against the local policy proposals for national wealth individual interest rates, direct transfers and household income which are quite novel but how does the

thing play out against what you just said for the great new deal and society that had pushed like this or other kinds of biases that still need to invertebrates of the commission not benefiting? is there some way that the new proposals could get around that? >> id threatens the dialogue. we did a bunch of readings and then we talked about it. it sounded like so we hated it

but we signed the proposals if you see the green new video it off. just the term new deal could also says something about the genuine new ideas.

in the attempt to do this is basically based on the tax savings but there is a difference but also likely to get people to say it is sort of a revolution. so that is why we ended up there. unless you actually argue things there is no point of saying them.

>> people vote their pocketbooks which is plausible but i think a different view is people want to kill something. [inaudible] we are locked into this politics people don't want to hear and the zero-sum xenophobic identi identity. what is the kind of politics that is going to reshape the fissures that are currently existing in so many societies? >> people have those funds.

[inaudible] more or less so why would we buy these funds? why don't we issue more of the fun is independent of u.s. gdp you would have a multi-trillion dollar. you could really make a difference in that type of thing

in the multiple electrical cycles. >> you have these things people can basically see that they are in and of themselves. so those things tend to make a difference >> host: that makes sense if there are these kind of trends if money is being allocated there is a sense of solidarity in society this is great and i'm

really happy that this is happening. if their rvs tribal identities i might say that poor guy, he or she is lazy, that welfare mom, racialized in the politics. to what extent are the proposals honorable to the kind of angry attitude versus what i would hope for as a more solidarity solid take on the citizenship? >> [inaudible] you need to give people a stake in a society which was also something else. the politics you are talking about where were these type of

reactionaries basically 94. what was going on apart from that is the wages were rising. the if you could get the community marketing to change the asset to those you could lend against some people will definitely feel it is against their interest but it's a more

prosperous and just society. a it seems whether it is the combination to what you see the police doing a you are not putting this one back in the box but they changed the conversation and the way we think of these. that is paid off in a whole set of injustices. >> host: this book got me

thinking and it's a great read. we have a lot of questions for the audience comes with its term than if that is okay with you. let me start with just a question from chris. do you see a cycle going on here are we living in this time when we are due for a massive reset because they've revealed other limitations? >> guest: i do get very suspicious when suddenly they declare themselves economic historians. the idea read these as the media

cover for what we've done and there's the chair where value and inequality and all this other stuff i think that this is a recognition we want to edge toward the solution because we understand that it is the normal and they are to survive it. >> i'm going to stop with the simpler the audience ask questions. what is the trajectory of come is it due to the misogynist vectors are endogenous and what are the factors that led you to write previous to this book? >> that is a great question. i would say everything is most

endogenous. it's basically to change the business model. we didn't really change anythi anything. but then it wasn't fine it was all 20% and above so we started to see the anger and outpouring that basically started to identify this and this was done working out at this moment as you want to put it between the

two. >> host: a rather broad question whether or not under what conditions can anger be provocative? >> it's a tribal energy that can be recognized. the if you look at them they spend time at being anger at fans so it's a kind of included solidarity that tends to be the response to the increased uncertainty so you think about the process here that is where

it is going to be so that's where you see the anger generated. do you think we should listen to hedge fund is or airlines that spend when they basically should have cash reserves, that makes people angry then why do we have a huge part of the labor market if those people are angry that is something we should listen to. iceland had a huge financial crisis and people were angry about what did happen was years later the entire elite was banking offshore that's when they got angry and need to

fundamentally change. >> successful political leaders navigate their way through different kinds of anger or the reagan revolution, so he gets a bunch of people to vote seemingly against their economic interests by accessing their anger about the state and overly intrusive state or by accessing their attitudes about race. but he's tapping into one kind of anger and you could trace it along and defend the conditions

are created by which new kinds are generated so that is kind of the right way to think about that. >> it looks at the profit disposal to a there is an enormous inequality among them in all of these things have a sort of lack of control and ability for the precariousness

so that seems to be the fundamental driver >> let's go to the question from douglas did you address the effect of campaign contributions and what policies get connected so you know for broadly if you have the self-dealing people in power how do you get them out of power and constrained than? >> there is a public dialogue i don't want to start talking

about it. >> host: there is a related question about the intellectual relationship and differences between you and eric so an obvious member writes over the precise metrics what is the biggest difference between you with respect to the solution to the accumulated capitalism? >> there's other things going on that are important as well. that is basically where that comes out. another thing that is alluded to

basically this consultation right across the board. look at the way so i think the buybacks are a big deal. next week they will figure out a different way so if you just focus on that rather than the bigger problem than you are missing the approach. that is the way that we disagree. >> would it be fair to say the

issue of fairness rather than egalitarianism where does fairness come in to the discussion? discussion? >> guest: you can do the quality of opportunity. it's a difficult equality of opportunity but also to produce the outcomes they want otherwise it is a house of cards. moving into a little bi little e details of some of the proposals christopher asks and excuse me if this has been asked for no apology needed because i'm interested in the answer, how is the biggest sovereign wealth fund different

>> you certainly are not buying u.s. government on the solution is what they were earning. [inaudible]

you could but you could also basically buyout that is more of a design question the domestic companies wanted to imagine the equity position by apple or whomever else.

>> it becomes something that you can sell. shouldn't they have the data done with 20% of the stock market we would say yes but it's going to cost this much. there's billions of dollars in the field so why don't we write this in the data because we are giving them something to use for the investment. that is an asset-based response because they make so much money. >> on the date of this event

there is a different kind of perspective than a surveillance capitalism argument that says there is something fundamentally wrong and intrusive about the companies not just accessing personal information, but organizing it coming using the information to understand the deepest and most emotion manipulating us. and if one agrees with that argument, no need for you to agree with this one agrees you could say that it is inappropriate to put people in the position of selling this and legitimizing this kind of corporate access to one's personal data. it would be like selling yourself into slavery. if you choose to do it, we will give you some money. i was a little uncomfortable with that dividend. >> that you are not going to nationalize the firm. you are not going to shut them down so you might as well get

your stake. you tell me things that i deeply value and if people want to make that trade-off you might as well get the money for it. >> host: let's turn to a slightly different angle. they asked the national infrastructure projects could be

used to by investing in things like railways were energy or whatever infrastructure target. >> you could use the profits that help you do this. there's other proposals if you want the technical version of this but for more details and proposals. everybody wants mass transportation. what happens if you get more transgressions and this becomes something we have to deal with much more frequently what can we

do? it would probably cost us a -- but let's be clear everywhere except the united states you basically pay 80% and walked down the economy.

if you told me six months ago they would be doing this rather than trying another round in doing so it's far better than we thought. it's been a clif >> moving to a different question, more philosophical and he's not sure whether we can fix the policies if we don't do the hard work of articulating the philosophy of what the business is for. do we need a new philosophy that

can motivate people and if so, why and how? spewed the 64,000-dollar question. there's this idea that affects things with policies. people say you need some kind of project people can believ belien him absolutely, but if we talk about the projects in the 20th rape they came up with multimedia is very simple, survival and fairness.

looking at the green new deal alienates the people we are trying to get on board so why do they do this if it makes a difference and no one talks about it. >> i agree it is a 64,000-dollar question and i will look for that philosophy. there are a few different questions but let me go with this one. is there any alternative to the currencies is that a bad idea i guess i would add what about it

in general >> guest: the sovereign wealth funds they need to manage and make peaceful they can check in but not check out the proposal

shows that the writing is on the wall and now because we are looking for all of these companies europe basically can no longer pretend to be a political place. but it is the wealthiest part of the world.

it is a recognition among the states because those are going to be caught in this increasingly fractious world and that's the place to be in the business model and there are baby step steps in going in that direction. >> host: is it possible without a strong european identity among individuals it brings up a bargain so they

reversed the process and then we will see how far we go. it's difficult, no one is denying that what we see now particularly with france and germany is whether or not they like it >> do you feel that electorate finds that position? >> not yet sometimes i wonder

given the moment we are in, there may be a certain passion among some of the political leaders. >> the fastest growing party they are actual fascists and they might do something. what would make him come to power is a saying we know that it's gone, we know you've got the 8% that because of coronavirus [inaudible]

>> host: we have a couple more minutes, so we'll try to get to a few more questions. there is a question for chris about climate change. chris asked do you think there could be bipartisan support for climate change if and when it is a national security question is there a way to get support for climate change? a bunch of people driving around lecturing but this is a moral problem and it's already happening. they hadn't generated anything

and they have no intention so the problem is how they are politicizing it into a moral crusade that is what the damage is. >> there's a lot more to say that because timbutbecause timeo to one more. we didn't talk about the technology and demographics which is the interesting discussion in the book. to what degree does the income provide silicon valley to placing orders with automation? >> i've been deeply suspicious of using this for a long time precisely to think about who is proposing an idea i also go by the end of the conversations

that come to realize if they just introduced one it is minimum wage plus. once you do that you force the businesses to invest more in capital but that is basically has the income goes up then it goes back to the employer of last resort to some extent it is and what of the total amount of jobs will be destroyed if the

nature of the jobs could very well change and we are seeing them change and what does the transition look like not so much what are we going to do with all this free time but how is that this vocation handled? >> absolutely. it may be time for one last question and it's one that shows up with different audience members. how bad is the recession going to be that we are in? nobody knows. the wonderful thing about the way we think about the economy

if you think the next three years are going to be awful it'f we say socially contingent expectation that it's because they've treated the crisis basically a end in the sense there will be a redeployment of capital and a deficit plausible argument we just don't know yet how it is going to play out. >> among the citizens or the

electorate i think one of the points is it depends on what their age and how old they are, and i think it is just underscored so quickly through the dialogs. .. >>.

>> five years ago it's hard to imagine the united states of socialism. a lot has changed since then and the obvious answer a lot of good books have been published in response to what has changed over the last five years and we all have a different take to emphasize different points the way i'm really interested is why the united states? >> i noticed t