Why Angrynomics is an oxymoron

In Sanskrit there is a saying 'anger is a small pleasure'. I suppose, like Aristotle, the notion is that a painful desire for revenge is nevertheless pleasurable because that vengeance will bring relief. But anger is a bad choice. It has no place in 'Artha' or 'Oikonomia'- it adds nothing to Meaning or the creation or management of Value. Both are idiographic, concerned with 'Minute Particulars', rather than nomothetic gobshittery re. the 'General Good'. Only in this sense are the 'Tigers of Wrath' wiser than the horses of Instruction. Blake meant elite Paideia which was as crap then as it is now.

True, anger is also a signalling device. Lonergan & Blyth, the authors of 'Angrynomics',  are concerned with 'virtue signalling' on poverty, inequality and climate change.

Lonergan, a fund manager, writes ' In Angrynomics we make a distinction between two forms of public anger: moral outrage and tribal rage.'

This is foolish. A tribe, of whatever sort, sees itself as a morally constituted collective. Poets are spoken off as an 'irritable tribe' though they are of diverse origins. A 'threat point' may be wholly imaginary- e.g curses uttered or puerile invective hurled at one who frustrates our perhaps ignoble intentions. We may laugh at people who indulge in such childishness. Indeed, this is the problem with 'public anger'. It may signal impotence and stupidity.

Moral outrage is associated with impotence. By contrast dry as dust proposals to improve mechanism design may not appear to have any emotional valency. We may feel Obama should have gone ape-shit over Police killings of African Americans. But we must only admit that only 'no-drama' Pattern & Practice investigations and 'consent decrees' can improve outcomes. Moreover, by focusing on 'mechanism design' we can find solutions to other problems through 'Tibeout model' subsidiarity- i.e. local solutions which permit growth on the basis of deepening comparative advantage through appropriate local public good provision. Of course, 'global' problems won't magically disappear in this way. But nothing can be done about them in any case. 

 It is important to be clear that these are not subjective classifications that Mark and I have plucked out of thin air. They are empirically distinct phenomena. To observe their existence requires no assumption of relative merit. There seems to be two observable forms of anger which humans express publicly: anger at perceived injustice which I label the anger of angels, and the anger of tribal fans, or the anger of devils. To observe these forms of anger in play all that is required is a trip to a football match (there is always an angry minority) or attendance at an extinction rebellion protest.

I see no difference. There are attention seeking sociopaths at both type of event. They don't care that their antics spoil things for everybody else. We are happy when bystanders kick their heads in.

Lonergan is writing in response to a review by Chris Dillow, who writes for the Investor's Chronicle and appears as stupid as Lonergan.

In his review, Chris adheres to this typology of anger but argues that ‘extractive capitalism’ has hijacked tribal rage to serve its interests, and subdue the potential of legitimate indignation to create real reform.

God alone knows what these two cretins consider 'real reform'. Both think Keynes and Friedman were great as opposed to hopelessly wrong.

My contention is that a widespread consensus exists across our society on three ethically-motivating concerns – making growth environmentally sustainable, tackling inequality in its many forms, and minimising the damage of recessions.

This is silly. If National Income is properly measured, Growth is always net of Environmental cost. The Consensus should be to 'internalize externalities' in one way or another so market signals reflect relevant information and mechanisms are incentive compatible. Inequality should not be tackled. Productivity or Consumptions gaps which are easily repairable should be filled because this raises Growth by reducing Information asymmetry and Knightian Uncertainty which in turns means a Pareto improvement. Recessions are a good thing. We need more sharp short shakeouts to improve resource allocation. Chrematistics as hysteresis is what ergodic Economic processes naturally dispose off.

What is patently lacking is a novel, off-the-shelf, and compelling manual on how to do this.

Fuck manuals. Economists are stupider than average. Treat them as third rate Accountants unless they actually have some Entrepreneurial talent. Don't ever worship them.

There has been nothing comparable to Friedman’s blueprint for tackling stagflation in the 1970s

which failed. Money is not wholly exogenous. NAIRU is anything goes.

or the Keynesian agenda for a mixed economy post-War.

Which is cool if you are doing 'catch-up' or 'Reconstruction' type Growth and hoping to bake in Imperial 'exorbitant privilege'- i.e. swindling sand niggers.

It is precisely because of this vacuum that the political class has sought power through populism and nationalism – not, as Chris implies, because the manual for reform is there to be implemented, but capital is obstructing it. 

The truth is low real exchange rates are a good thing long term. Either you have them, like Germany, or you don't, like the UK, in which case you gotta Brexit your way into lower terms of trade and thus lower material standards of living for older savers.

The 'political class' means guys who want to end up with a sinecure with Amazon or Google or some other Robber Baron. They may take a flutter on 'nationalism', but then again they may not. Bo Jo got lucky. Cameron fell on his face. That's it. That's the whole story. Why get your knickers in a twist about any of this? Capital means old farts like me who now understand we must accept negative returns on our savings and learn to pinch the pennies in our retirement. Also we should try to die before we become incontinent. Capital has lost. So has Labour because the proletariat keeps having babies and even if it doesn't babies grow up and sneak across borders unless they are smart in which case they are invited in. Enterprise we will always have with us even if the rate of profit goes negative. There will be no final crisis. Just a prolonged lysis of diminishing horizons for the many and increasing rewards for those who don't give a fuck about Economics or Political Science- though they may employ a couple of such professionals for menial work of a Sophistic or Statistical kind.