Capitalists want a “reduction in force.” The higher the rate of employment, the more force (self-determination) labor has.
“Reduction in force” is a reliable pattern of resistance. The reduction is a zero-sum game with psychopathic tendencies that naturally support survival of the species, naturally resisting destructive patterns of existence.
Austrian-School economics refers to the zero-sum as “creative-destruction.” Hayek is probably the best known because his school of thought forms the basis for supply-side economics. Supply is created as demand is destroyed, yielding to a surplus, spuriously valued as a net gain, which (as Schumpeter said) confounds the meaning of the indicators with an error of fundamental attribution.
Attribution error is a psychological condition that has discrete, behavioral characteristics. Persisting the error can be a measure of self-determination, organized to persevere so that the utility is to demonstrate power by the amount of harm that “just happens” to occur. The net effect is an organized psychopathy. Is it a coincidence, for example, that the Great Recession produced a lot of harm with the net effect of creating more income for the upper class as median income is being destroyed?
Whether you are on the left or right, the Austrian School argues, the pattern of creative-destruction is readily apparent. Ideology is not the determinant. There is an objective reality in operation with a determining pattern of existence that naturally forms resistance to the value added.
The zero-sum pattern of support and resistance forms a testable hypothesis. Correlating income data with income class, for example, shows support and resistance, but conservatives argue that it does not prove rising income at the top causes median income to fall. Welfare, they say, causes the inverse correlation. So, to confirm the hypothesis (which is to resist the current pattern of existence) it is necessary to control for welfare.
Reducing welfare destroys demand, and with it, the margin of profit, which means everybody loses.
Being Non-Pareto-Optimal (NPO), reducing welfare is not likely to happen except in temporary cycles, toggling between Democrat-and-Republican party platforms, forming a functional, organized psychopathy that routinely manages the probable risk (which demonstrates power), occupying policy space by minimizing the other possibilities that are sure to “just happen” over time.
Supply-siders (typically Republican Party advocates) claim their policy program is Strong-Pareto-Optimal (SPO) because it adds supply. The results, however, are typically NPO. Demand-siders (the Democratic Party) then advocate adding to the demand side, which resists the declining rate of profit. Demand-side economics appears to be Pareto Optimal because nobody loses, but income inequality is conserved, confounded by infaltion, with less resistance.
It appears that we have a problem of competing ideologies, operating with spurious arguments that confound the problem with limited choices, but no, this is an organizational problem.
Where, for example, do we see deconsolidation of the risk positioned among the Democratic Party’s core values? It does not exist because it is not valued.
Robert Reich and Lawrence Summers represent the demand-side advocate. Monopolies are only natural. Done? Get over it?
It’s time for the third-party advocate! It’s time to square the values and resist the circular pattern of a near-zero-sum argument always anxiously existing at the low cost of a high marginal existence, forcing labor into an organized, dysfunctional psychopathy that prices itself out of the marketplace on demand.