> You're not wrong, but for most people, most of the time, this quibble is not worth getting into. Sure. I assumed we were talking about whether passive invest

> You're not wrong, but for most people, most of the time, this quibble is not worth getting into. Sure. I assumed we were talking about whether passive investing could potentially cause negative effects at scale, not whether your average person should invest or not. I don't think the latter is much of a discussion (i.e. yes, they should). When people criticize passive investing, they're largely criticizing increased institutional passive investment, not retail investors--retail investors don't generally affect the market much one way or the other. And yes, even many institutional funds invest in indices that aren't just total market indices. If the concern about said passive investing is valid, this of course may end up affecting many average americans down the line, eg. CalSTRS is one of the largest funds in the world.