Economists use income as a basic measure. Income is also a socio-economic measure with psychological properties.
A lot has been written about the psychological component of economic measures. Income distribution has a lot to do with measuring status, and many of the technical aspects of economic policy reflect conserving social status and not because nature technically determines it.
Reactionaries, both Democrat and Republican, tend to argue economic policy measures as technically determined. It is then no wonder that these measures technically determine it. This forms a risk tautology.
Tautology is a logical argument. Like when Mrs. Clinton says she will break up TBTF banks “if need be.” If the need be (and Dodd-Frank exists because “it surely will”), the imperatuve value of the TBTF technology is that it is TOO BIG to experience the attribute of failure (its inexistence). If it must be “conserved” by “default” it appears that we are naturally obligated to it, being then (as Kant described it) categorically imperative, which then has the “practical” value (as Mrs. Clinton argues) of a moral equivalence.
Conservatives argue that reducing income inequality is a moral hazard. Income distribution is naturally unequal. If we try and change that, then bad things will happen. We will be less economically unequal and less prone to the risk of financial default due to rising credit risk.
What is the equivalent moral measure?
Is it really arbitrary, or is it actually a categorical imperative, forming a natural identity to which we are all morally obliged, determined by nature but existing on demand, nevertheless.