Why always hand it over to someone else? You can't say that tons of investment is always a good thing.

Look at the Dairy industry in the United States. Wal-Mart has vertically integrated the dairy industry into itself, as a result, many smaller regional farmers no longer have a market at all since there is no way to compete with someone who is so well integrated that they can SELL AT A LOSS in dairy, yet compensate by making up for it with social engineering via loss-leading.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/best-advice-u-s-dairy-f...

You CANNOT sit idly by and say that investment is ALWAYS a positive societal good when by definition, the "rational invester" (read: paperclip maximizer for ROI) will naturally tend to converge on creating monolithic structures, which, by their nature as "rational corporate actors" act as, again, paperclip maximizers for profits.

Balance sheets do NOT accurately convey the full story of economic processes at work creating tangible effects in the real world, any more than meteorological climate models do.

If you take into account side effects caused by collectively funded (via rational investment methodologies) creating monolithic industry-consuming behemoths, then the idea the rich are "hoarding money" makes perfect sense.

Wal-Mart in this case is doubling down on automation, and keeping what payroll it pays low, so it's not actually acting to distribute wealth back to those who are so strapped they can't even think of investing, because they need to put the next meal on the table.

EVEN if they could statistically speaking, the most wealthy are the most likely to be able to pick up what stock they'd have to sell, because stock doesn"t put food on the table.

This creates a situation where regardless of who's hand the money is actually in, the outcome is the same. Monolithic businesses will be invested in, they'll integrate until they start creating value deserts in their space, and in order to contribute to continuing growth figures, will optimize away liabilities by minimizing workforce or salary. The only one's benefiting being those already on board.

Does it "GENERALLY" work well though? Yes and no. Yes, given the absence of any actors large enough to create value deserts through excessive vertical integration? Yes! It does!

No. I'm the sense that that isn't what the market seems to produce though. Companies will diversify, merge, or employ externalization of negative outcomes EXACTLY to accomplish making themselves the best looking target for investors.

At some point, enough has to be enough. The economy is one of the few process spaces where eternal growth is EXPECTED. No living system constrained by finite resource and time CAN grow indefinitely without causing major systemic upsets.

An equivalent solution to what Wal-Mart is doing could be achieved with networks of smaller less "fiscally efficient" distribution centers doing business with fewer monolithic industrial behemoths. This keeps the barrier to entry lower, leads to more opportunities for job creation, and increases financial mobility overall. This is something that CAN't exist with uncontrolled maximization of ROI by investors, and profits by corporation. At some point enough HAS to be enough.

Maybe I'm not an economist, but I've seen enough complex systems to recognize when blind spots exist in current modeling. This is something I see never get addressed.