Progressives who respond to conservative law and economic arguments by rejecting neoclassical economic theory are making a mistake. Neoclassical economics is the only ideology that honors the modern view – associated with the Death of God narrative in Western culture – that there are no longer universal standards of value. To make a case for redistribution of wealth that appeals to the modern view regarding value – a view that progressives themselves hold – progressives must engage with economics. Fortunately, the concept of the gains from trade in neoclassical economics (also known as "surplus" or "economic rent") allows progressives to make a strong case for redistribution of wealth. That is because gains from trade can be redistributed without harming efficiency by varying the prices at which inframarginal units change hands. This insight is called "inframarginalism" to contrast it with the conservative view that the valuations of the marginal buyer and seller pin down price in competitive markets and therefore prevent redistribution of the gains from trade.

Neoclassical economics is inherently biased against progressive policies and therefore should be avoided by progressives seeking to make the case for them. This is reflected in the history of regulation of payday loans and other fringe financial products. Conservatives used economic arguments to roll back regulation of these products in the second half of the twentieth century. Attempts to reregulate them have since been stymied despite progressives’ use of behavioral economic arguments to justify greater regulation. Progressives who eschew economic argument have had more success pursuing reform in other areas in the Biden Administration. The failure of behavioral economics to advance a progressive agenda in fringe finance suggests that inframarginalism, which also embraces the neoclassical analytic, will not help progressives. Another problem is that any neoclassical approach privileges elite expertise.