Taking a broad spitball look at history I’d be inclined to suspect that the moral of the story is that sufficient growth can mask issues with your wealth distribution(whether market, state; or a combination) so long it they last; but leave you vulnerable to extra consequences if it starts to slow down; or stop/reverse.
Unless everyone is judging their wealth exclusively in comparison to others(which doesn’t seem to be the case, especially along people on the lower end; where the marginal utility of money is still high and all changes in wealth can mean significant differences in living standards, not just a change in the scoreboard); a ride rising fast enough to lift more or less all boats can put off uncomfortable questions about how fast some boats are being lifted; but if the tide starts to go back out the distribution among the boats comes to the fore.
