The article is discussing how seeking short term profit may not be the natural thing to do when most public companies are owned largely by index funds. It's no

The article is discussing how seeking short term profit may not be the natural thing to do when most public companies are owned largely by index funds. It's not the first one, either. So I'm not introducing that into "the discussion" nor is this article. I'm not advocating or asserting that it has good consequences either. I'm saying it's weird that when people speculate, they don't speculate about a class of consequences of their new view. It is a fact that the major index funds have been putting a little pressure on companies to be more socially responsible, and regardless of whether this is only performative and insignificant, it demonstrates that they could promote whatever one thinks is good for society at the expense of individual profits. So leaving any reference to it out is an odd oversight. Again, I'm not claiming that common ownership of all the companies is good, or that the funds are doing meaningful good. But a reasonable article would say something about the possibilities to promote the things that people want companies to do that ameliorate competition. Activists are trying to pressure the funds. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. I believe Matt Levine has written about this from time to time, so really I'm asking why other journalists aren't as fair and balanced as he is.