I agree that participating is always better than not, but I think you're making an inappropriate comparison. The question I was trying to talk about is the conn

I agree that participating is always better than not, but I think you're making an inappropriate comparison. The question I was trying to talk about is the connection of the market to the wealth of most americans. I'm saying that it's fully possible for everyone to "participate" in the market without significantly benefiting from it (though, as you say, it's better than nothing). If the market were to double in value, mostly wealthy people would get wealthier and, I think, few middle and working class people would have their lives changed significantly. The reason I don't think the voting metaphor holds up is that everyone who's elected does so by "getting" the most votes. Obviously there are forces at work here (turnout, voter suppression, get out the vote efforts, etc), but there's no official alternative way to be elected. The voting comparison would make sense if the stock market was the only possible way to gain money - in which case I would agree! But it's not. There are lots of other ways we can ensure people gain wealth.