📊New behavioral economics data reveals a deep contradiction behind progressive policy support. According to a 2025 study by Timothy Bates (University of Edinburgh), the reason many individuals endorse wealth redistribution may not be empathy, but fear. Specifically: fear of violent dispossession.

This mechanism aligns with asymmetric conflict theory — weaker parties may win by showing high motivation for confrontation, forcing stronger actors to yield preventively to avoid long-term attrition. Translated into politics: citizens support progressive redistribution not to “help others,” but to prevent systemic rupture. In essence, policy support becomes insurance.

The study used U.S. datasets and showed that fear of dispossession (measured psychologically) predicts progressive support significantly more than envy or compassion — even after controlling for income, ideology, or demographics. Surprisingly, compassion had low predictive power, and envy had none.

This sheds new light on phenomena like sudden mass support for taxation, universal basic income, or corporate regulation — especially during periods of social unrest, crisis, or economic polarization. Redistribution becomes a psychological strategy of appeasement: a rational surrender to diffuse pressure, reduce perceived threat, and maintain fragile stability.

The implication for investors, politicians, and crypto advocates: support for stronger state intervention might not indicate ideological drift, but tactical risk-management behavior. In such a system, even market participants may back anti-market policies to avoid worse systemic outcomes.

If redistribution is driven by fear, not fairness — how does that reshape our understanding of economic consent?#AMAGE