Since Sanders continues to gain popular strength, the reaction is to turn the technicals into ideology.
Ideological analyses are, technically, biased. The reactionary element, which is composed of both parties, reduces the argument to political heresy. When unions voted for Reagan, that was acceptable enough, but it was reactionary, which led to Clinton. Subsequently, Clinton’s team of Ivy-League technocrats designed the CFTMA, and he signed it into law, to make markets, technically, more efficient.
Behind derivatives markets is a government program–the CFTMA. This law is what allowed commercial and investment banks to insure people’s homes with a conflict of interest using CDOs. It made the housing market more efficient by, technically, causing massive default, which resulted in big capital gains that the Bush administration argued requires low tax rates so that people can buy homes. Observe, here, that the low capital-gains rate causes the massive detriment it is supposed to avoid.
Just as important is that the operatives (operating without government intervention because “government is the problem and not the solution”) knew the CFTMA would do big harm (with a long-tail recovery that keeps paying dividends, technically described by Sanders as “most new income going to the top”), especially with a low cap-gains rate. They knew very well that the method would yield big gains for the upper class, which is fuel for the “class warfare” reactionaries say is a dysfunctional, psychopathic, ideological bias that, technically, does not have anything to do with “objective reality.”
Technically, what Sanders presents is not an ideological bias. It is a function of the accumulation-distribution dynamic that technically predicts (indicates) the probable direction of the risk that exists beyond the bias.
Again, it’s like a factorial. The sequence of numbers (“the eventuality”) that describes the fact of an inexact existence has no real limit, but “it” (the singular) does have useful (pluralistic) value, nevertheless. We are always discovering the utility of that value, progressing at the margin of an unlimited, yet measurable, existence.