The fact that the Roman economy was sustained by what were, from the point of view of most citizens, intelligent working machines posed some similar economic challenges to those posed by large-scale automation. One of these was wealth inequality.

The only disciplined message put out by the impromptu coalition of dreamers and discontents who “occupied” Wall Street and other global financial capitals in the wake of the financial crisis was something along the lines of “burn the rich.” But their efforts to highlight inequality didn’t do much to change public perceptions. Numerous subsequent research projects have revealed that people in the most unequal countries routinely underestimate the levels of inequality, while those in countries where the bulk of national wealth is in the hands of large middle classes tend to be more accurate and occasionally even overestimate inequality.

Thus, while those who are very wealthy like to believe that they are worthy of the financial rewards they have accrued, many poorer people don’t want to mess with the dream that they too might achieve such riches if only they work hard enough. For them to concede that perhaps the system was stacked against them—that money had become far better at begetting more money than working long hard shifts—would be tantamount to abandoning their sense of agency and their cherished beliefs that what made their countries different was that anyone who worked hard enough could be whatever they wished to be.

For an economist who taught that profit could be sustained only as a result of competitive advantage, this diversification raised a simple question. And some businessmen on the board, accustomed to a world in which profit is earned only by meeting customer needs, encountered the same difficulty.

Today the hallmark of successful business is access to collective intelligence that is not common property.