A lot of the framework is tautological. Income for work, that he receives more money for an hour of labor than him, has always been of minor concern to people

A lot of the framework is tautological. Income for work, that he receives more money for an hour of labor than him, has always been of minor concern to people who have not bought into the neoliberal system. It's a concern for some at the top of the system. Social relations between those who work and the heirs who expropriate surplus labor time from those who work might be more of a concern. I don't know what market friendly psychological tendencies are or free-market reforms. Large corporations have instituted reforms to quash the market. Don't rely on me, Warren Buffett, Peter Thiel and others have said the same thing. Industries are oligopolies from music (Universal controls more than half of US music) to breakfast cereals. I am not sure what a free market is, in the Soviet Union people were free to go to a small market owned by the proprietor and buy potatoes or radishes with rubles, just like in the UK (with pounds) or US (dollars). So what is a free market? Or are they talking about control of the commanding heights of the forces of production? But that is not a market. Also a country can be run by FDR and he says a New Deal economy is good and this idea is promoted from the top. It can be run by Reagan, with control of the media becoming consolidated and corporatized, and promoting another view if the economy. It is no surprise if all people hear 24/7 from people from Bush to the Clinton's how great so called free trade agreements etc. are that more will echo that sentiment. The reality is working people have been and are resistant to these economic agreements which harm them, relative to the opinion of the decision makers.