This is an incinderary comment: "benefits the rich far more than the one in 1958." First, that would require a tremendous amount of data and an inherently bias

This is an incinderary comment: "benefits the rich far more than the one in 1958." First, that would require a tremendous amount of data and an inherently biased framework of benefits valuation to support. Second, you can't demonstrate the opposite, namely, that without the first happening, all others would have been better off. Sometimes wealth and structural freedoms benefit all participants, not to the detriment of the lower end, even when opportunity costs are included. Not saying you are wrong, but your argument is.