Increase in wealth inequality is not the only outcome. There's also the small issues of better resource management, like food per square acre, mpg, medical tech

Increase in wealth inequality is not the only outcome. There's also the small issues of better resource management, like food per square acre, mpg, medical technology, etc. It's a complex subject insofar as it requires multi-discipline analysis. Is it reasonable that there be a stochastic "good/bad"? It's a good outcome for humanity, but has been tough to survive for the lowest IQ, least motivated, and least wealthy (relative to any given social locality) and tough to thrive/grow from the middle class. If you have a million dollars today, or had the equivalent in 1980, you could have lived off the interest and would have made money all the while till today. Wealth inequality is often the basis for social revolution, so you have to be careful not to let it get too out of control for too long. In relation to dead cultures who went through this process, we've only just begun the initial stages of intolerance toward it. Occupy, bernie 2017, etc have largely been unsuccessful in motivating political or even social change. This was one outcome that was considered in the formation of the Union (an eventual defacto oligarchy) that was meant to be managed by the US political process. The conflict has already been escalated by flawed judgement in the judicial (citizens united).