Angrynomics

Product Information

I think that one of the co-authors has a history in big finance so its no surprise that the private markets figure so highly in their prescriptions (although I rate Blyth highly because of his demolition of austerity). I was looking at this book only the other day (I had become a bit depressed reading Kelton – not finished yet – because she is so damned reasonable, MMT will never come to fruition at a time like this I feel). Elinor Ostrom and the Bloomington School: Building a New Approach to Policy and the Social Sciences Blyth said he and Lonergan argue in their book that continued deregulation and advice from technocrats won’t solve yawning wealth gaps in Western economies. They propose giving citizens a stable, transparent financial stake in their societies through sovereign wealth funds like that of Norway. In a series of brilliant Socratic dialogues peppered with a score of real-world stories Lonergan and Blyth explain the roots of our current anger – anger over austerity policies, job losses, stagnant wages, million-dollar salaries for the few, broken health systems for the many. But also anger about an economic ideology and political system that seem to ignore people as they are. What to do next? How to reset the system? Never were the answers to such questions more urgent.

And that is where we were when coronavirus broke upon us: anger was, once again, the dominant sentiment with regard to the economy, and so change was inevitable. With considerable sophistication and a good dose of humour, this book dissects the popular anger that has made our economics unsustainable and our politics dysfunctional. Lonergan and Blyth rightly call for a reset of our current model of capitalism. To their great credit, they also provide creative – and practical – ideas for moving forward. Son buenas conclusiones, con ejemplos reales de su implantación en mayor o menor medida, pero no hay utopías imposibles, ni partidismo sin autocrítica. It should not be surprising that in a short, non-technical book aimed at sparking debate there are many points where you could agree or disagree with the authors. My copy is littered with comments. They reject Thomas Piketty's global wealth tax and the EU's digital sales tax because of insurmountable collective action problems, and the unavoidability of aggressive multinational tax avoidance. Regarding Piketty we agree, but for the EU we're not so sure. Yes, there is opposition to the digital sales tax – Ireland in particular – but Covid19 will bring renewed pressure, so this can't be ruled out. Also, the base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) initiative, country by country reporting and the moves toward corporate taxation based on formulary apportionment, means curbing aggressive tax avoidance is now a real possibility.The section on the components of anger sound plausible, but if you don’t get the causal elements right, the way forward is less effective.

First of all that's because there is a brief, and largely incorrect, dismissal of modern monetary theory. It is said by the authors that MMT has no theory of inflation, which is really quite bizarre when it plays such an important role within that school of thinking. Debido a la política terminamos a un mundo en el que los pasivos se distribuyen hacia los jóvenes mientra que los activos se distribuyen desproporcionadamente hacia los ancianos. You could read Mariana Mazzucato, ‘The Entrepreneurial State’ (2018); or the public statements of his strategy by James Anderson of BG and Scottish Mortgage Trust, which is revelatory about the sheer scale of change we are going to see – a new industrial revolution; which means there is huge potential for new entrants, unlike the status quo. What’s interesting about Angrynomics is that it comes up with some solutions to the problem it identifies. One is that it makes perfect sense for governments to invest in greening the economy if, as is now the case, the cost of capital is lower than the return on investment.

You might also be interested in..

And then it is claimed that MMT offers a ‘free lunch'. The implication is that MMT does not recognise that at full employment government spending to divert resources from other activity must either stop, because there are no further available resources to be diverted, or there must be increased taxation to reduce the spending power within the private sector economy to prevent inflation. Failing to note that this is what MMT says when this has been discussed by MMT academic authors for a very long time is really quite odd when Lonergan and Blyth are usually rigorously academic. It indicates an unfortunate prejudice. Angrynomics,” co-authored by Blyth and macro-hedge fund manager and economist Eric Lonergan, explores why measures of stress and anxiety are on the rise even as the vast majority of people are wealthier than ever. The authors propose radical new solutions for an increasingly polarized and confusing world. La inflación media en EUA ha rondado 2% en los últimos 20 años. Pero en el mismo periodo la educación ha aumentado el coste un 120% y la atención médica un 80%.