What few will admit is that balancing the interests of shareholders, executives, workers, suppliers, and the community is a zero sum game. When one wins, the others lose. Sorry to bring up a Bernie Sanders example but Walmart, a company whose heirs are among the richest people in America has a workforce whose employees until recently couldn't afford Thanksgiving dinner.

The craziness is that we've only been in this situation since the early 80s when CalPERS invented shareholder activism. Since then the balance has shifted very heavily to favor shareholders and executives over the other parties involved.

The consequence is all around us: crumbling infrastructure, stagnant wages, a declining standard of living for many Americans, and troubling concentration of wealth among a very few people. This is not merely of academic interest—too much money in the hands of too few people has toppled many countries.

Unfortunately academics, economists, and the business press never question the current system; "where will the money come from to pay workers and suppliers, or to invest in their communities?" they plead. "Stockholders would never stand for it."

The answer that it's time to recalibrate the balance away from shareholders and executives and back into communities, suppliers, and of course, workers.