Fundamental to capitalism is the declining rate of profit. It’s just simple math.
The rate of profit has to come from somewhere. It comes from income. Rising prices reduce real income, and market competition reduces prices, including the price for labor, which has been steadily declining with free-trade agreements as commodity prices then also have “good reason” to increase–all due to market “forces”–on demand.
Since ever-larger conglomerates have reported declining profits for the past five quarters, there needs to be an interpretation that reduces the credibility (the affect) of the simple math: Rising profits are deflationary, which results in a declining rate.
The attributive value, here, is not hard to understand: The less income more people have, the less ability to pay the profit margin at the rising rate. In fact, the rate “naturally” declines, which is not exactly “raising all boats on the rising tide.”
The current interpretation of the affect (the disorder of cognitive dissonance) is to describe the declining rate of profit as Main Street winning over Wall Street.
Isn’t that clever… if people are that stupid.
The word is “wages up, profits down.” However, the description is a misattribution of the distributive value, by association.
The rate of profit is declining because it is deflationary. To reduce the retributive-risk value associated with it (which cannot really be reduced, but can be shifted to the futures where it accumulates into a gamma-risk dimension), there is a fundamental error of attribution. The error builds out the psychopathy (the affective disorder, described as “risk protection”), indirectly applying the problem as the effective solution, accumulating the distributive-risk value into a catastrophic proportion that is measurably referred to as “too big to fail.”