zero sum or better, poilarisation or optimism, what are the beliefs?

 Marieke Stellinga tries to explain (NRC November 22) with theory of Stantcheva (Tinbergen lecture) what is going on in economics with the belief that economics is a zero sum game or not. 

I see this thinking has many merits and explains polarisation and maybe other cycles.

Before 1800 everybody believed it is a zero sum game. Malthus learned that there were periods with not enough people and then there were too many (nature corrected this). You didn't get richer but new technology caused more people could live without starving. After 1800 the Industrial Revolution learned you got richer every generation.

But now, many people don't believe anymore that they will get richer than their parents. It is according to many because of immigrants (they take the jobs and cause lower wages for me) and because babyboomers are awful (so houses are unaffordable and retrirement / care systems are untenable). 

They know, there is still technological progress, even more since internet and more wil arrive because of AI, but it will only mean higher equity prices and not higher real income for the middle class (as is the case since 1971). 

We give more and more to immigrants and foreign countries and because it is a zero sum game less is left for the white guy.. It is not fair and fairness must be restored by politicians. 

Of course you still see progress in the official numbers in the US and most western countries and emerging countries. But the zero sum thinking produces a logic like that. It is sometimes clearly wrong according to economists, but it explains beliefs and people vote according to these beliefs.  Is the new economy a danger for me, a risk for my job/ community? Then it must change even when it is good for economic growth. 

So for example tariffs can be supported when they are judged to be fair and less threatening for the voter's job.It creates inefficiencies but they are not judged important enough (not always of course, economists stubbornly believe it creates inefficient companies).

Inflation is also a theat for jobs and is judged to be not fair for poor people (they get more problems than rich people) and can threaten real wages. It can lead to beliefs that interest rates have to go down to get less inflation because denbts get cheaper then. The FED believes otherwise and economists still support that thinking for 100%, but doubts are arising. Bring higher rates really inflation down? That is not clear when it creates inefficiencies and higher governement spending.