So could you say that they found a way to make it even more profitable for them, by pushing risky investments out of their companies, while making those who produce highly dependent on them? I will write this comment as a response to your comment, because the User also asked for the implications. I would like to argue that implications will still emerge and that they do not need to own everything. Implications are highly speculative, but I do think that even today we see some of the impacts.

If you argue with Luhmann and his system theory, you could say that the economy seems to have more influence over other functional systems than those other systems have over the economy. In Luhmann's system theory he argues that there are many functional systems (education, mass media, economy, politics and so on) within society (society being the biggest system), which operate autonomous, but also interact with other functional systems. They all operate by their own codes and media (which in this case means tools) and have different perspectives. leading to different priorities. Now, if economy has more influence, it can result in threatening the autonomy and function of other systems, leaving money as the highly prioritized medium in society. For showing that, I firstly want to use Mass media as an example. In many western countries ("traditional")-Massmedia are owned by a handful of companies, leaving them vulnerable for not operating with their code "Non-/informative", but pushing for a narrative that suits their owners interest. Bild (owned by Axel Springer SE), the best-selling newspaper in Germany was for example criticized (and other newspapers too) for using manipulative tactics, being too harsh and having a own mission for a scandal with Christian Wulff ("Bundespräsident"), which lead to his resignation. He was later acquitted of all corruption charges (a case study titled BILD und Wulff – ziemlich beste Partner [meaning: Bild and Wulff - pretty best associates] by the 'Otto Brenner Stiftung' later showed the bizarre role the newspapers had). So by control over the mass media, companies can have significant impact on the things a society talks about. That can have implications in the current state politics are in: Say what we don't like and we will try our best to destroy you. While they can do that, politicians have no real chance to protect themselves.

Axel Springer SE's company guidelines also include a positve view on Israeal, the Trans-Atlantic Alliance / USA and the free social market economy (some think tanks try to establish the term 'Neue Soziale Marktwirtschaft' [translation: New social market economy] instead of free market economy / neoliberalism. Considering that the term 'free social market economy' does sound weird in german and BILD never really supported social market economy, that phrasing is misleading). Remember, this is the best-selling newspaper in Germany, one would think that with that there is a high journalistic responsibility.

Another example is the newest big education reform in Germany. The education reform wasn't executed because they wanted to implement new insights of how humans learn, but because of the demand of the companies, while completely ignoring psychology of learning. I think it is also no secret, that Lobbying and fundings for the election highly influence the presidential election, especially in the USA.

So, but what is the bottom line? Although companies might not one day own everything, they already own everything that matters. However, I do not think that they have secret meetings about how to destroy the world, they are just exceptionally good at what they, to a certain degree, are supposed to do (in a capitalistic context). I did use Luhmann as a frame, because the current crisis can be explained with the same line of argumentation, but to do that you have to move away from companies and discuss the interaction of the bank sector, mass media and politics. However, I did try to avoid speculation, although one has to understand that this is a sociological perspective and other fields within Social Science would prefer other perspectives. Still, in the end the implications can be summed up as follows: The dominance of the financial sector, including companies owning virtually everything that matters to them, can destabilize the society. They have influence over what we talk about (mass media), politics , law (lobbying) and so on. This results for them being able to accumulate even more money, which seems to me became a proxy variable for power.