The Fed, for example, said yesterday it will not raise the rent. The rate of interest (paid to really rich people who have more money than they can use) is really low because there is no risk in having it.
(Remember that the savings rate is really low among Americans who are encouraged to spend, but that means having the money to spend, which is “the rate of interest.” Not so paradoxically, this means that “thrift” comes in the form of capital, which is owned by a small number of people who rent the money to spendthrifts, referred to as “the takers.” Although spending with the extension of credit resists the naturally declining rate of profit, the spend-thrift masses are considered by “them”–the lenders or “the makers”–to lack the virtue–the strength–of being thrifty and thus unworthy of owning the capital.)
By consolidating industry and markets (“to make markets more efficient”) the labor participation rate is about 60%, which means renting labor (paying people enough to demand the supply without debt) is competitively priced and disinflated.
Describing the comparative dialect of “us and them” there is not much chance of losing consolidated wealth to the lower class because income for most people is, by comparison, declining (and the divergence measures the moral value–the strength–of the “efficiency”).
(The efficiency standard is measured by the numbers, grossed into what classical economics describes as “surplus value.” The dialect used to describe the value has changed but the actual dialectic hasn’t. The measurable efficiency is income inequality–the ratio of “us” to “them.” This presents a “classical” problem of managing the probable risk by the numbers, yielding to a natural utility described as “emergent.”)
Raising the rents against falling labor prices is a moral hazard–deflationary, so the Fed will not raise the rate of interest.
The moral comparative value is the surplus. The moral imperative value is what to effectively do with it–for what it’s worth.