(Technological) Increases in Efficiency are Drops in Aggregate Demand

In psycho-philosophical terms, the chief difference between Keynsians and Neo-Austrians has always been, respectively, drive vs. organization.  For Keynes, monetary policy had a semi-mystical well of power over our experience of materiality as long as aggregate demand stayed high, as long as the economy was subject to its own drives, to expansivity.  For Austrian and Neo-Austrian economists, the anxiety of a closed syteme prevails.  Where the organon looses functionality, or fails to coordinate with other components, the larger organon of the economy is in danger of malfunction.  The difference here between these perspectives can clearly be oversimplified as vitalistic over and against the machinic.  

Both fail to see the looming predominance, phenomenologically obvious to non-economists, of energies and powers beyond the disciplinary discretion of economics which feed against the procedures of metaphoric and metonymic exchange upon which all economic analysis is based.  Taking the "technological" as an example of such an energy, a much more "aleatory" exchange takes place as it haunts zones like trading and commerce.  Instead of simply "facilitating" such economic activities, it drives them into a universality in which they are proliferated beyond irrelevance and into non-entity.  As Marx observed and Sohn-Rethel, Adorno/Horkheimer and Heidegger reiterated, exchange and value had become part of the tapestry of alienation, and reason (as a techne) had put them there.  But technology had already pushed much further than this, and had already participated in so many self-violations, so many debasements of the property and propriety it had helped establish, that it had in turn, been ascribed an auto-immune, revolutionary essence.  Now, it seems, again, there is play absences:  A vanishing of aggregate demand corresponding precisely to the steep upside curve of market efficiency.