They havent though. They've gone to shareholders and landowners.
It would theoretically be nice if the productivity gains were evenly distributed but in practice to make that actually happen would probably require a great deal of violence.
What about them?
Do you think the bottom 90% of pensioners do not deserve to own more than 11% of the capital stock of the country?
It’s hard to just point the finger at this thing or that thing and pretend it’s just “the 1%” who benefits and they are causing all the problems. The economy, and society itself, is far far more complex and trying to do something extreme like destroy private business has enormous knock-on consequences.
The rising tide may not lift all boats but it lifts a lot of them.
* The 1% lose 50 cents
* The top 10% lose 90 cents.
* The bottom 90% lose 10 cents.
* The bottom 50% lose maybe 1-2 cents (and only some of them).
A net loss in the stock market that leads to a slight redistribution of that wealth would thus be better for the majority of pensioners.
As somebody who is primarily concerned with the welfare of the average joe you would support this, no?
Take Elon Musk. Even if you stole all of his money, he would start a new business, and people would back him with capital (whatever is left after the socialists stole it all) because of his background, and it would be successful, and he would be rich again.
You can’t stop talented people from making money unless you use guns.
The thing is - basically being a grifter is a great skill for making money for oneself and friends, but not actually a skill that helps society as a whole. And sure, advertising is a kind of expertise, but I don't think many people actually hold it in high regard as being worth a lot in terms of "deserving".