Despite the amount of rhetoric I see claiming this, I have yet to see any empirical evidence.
Despite the amount of rhetoric I see claiming this, I have yet to see any empirical evidence.
1. http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/hillary-clinton-cannot-win-us...
This is extremely misleading. Most of that 20% own it via their 401(k) or IRA or whatever retirement plan they are enrolled in. Those people will benefit from the ownership at some point if the market doesn't crash just before or during their retirement.
So the answer is none of the above.
Maybe they have sustainably and permanently lifted millions of people out of poverty and it's a long term step forward on the path to a better life for everyone. Or maybe they have served to increasingly concentrate capital into fewer and fewer hands to the point the entire world will be eventually perpetually enslaved with no path out and this causes very bad things for the human race to happen. Not to mention the destruction of culture (or is this a positive? I never know) and destruction of ecosystems (I'm pretty sure this isn't a positive).
The point is, we don't know the full story yet. The jury is still out. But I'm always wary of concentrated power. Distributed power seems to produce much more good IMOP.