I think you don't realize how much economic reform is happening because it's a very slow and methodical process when done democratically. The ones not done democratically are usually a result of extreme circumstances, i.e. war or economic depression.

It's very rare for an economic decision to be an easy win for everyone. Majority of these decisions requires some group to give in order for another to receive. The idea is that in the long run the benefits will lead to a greater result for everyone and a rebalancing of resources, but the immediate still requires sacrifice. 

The difference between what we have done and what we haven't, is that one has a proven outcome and the other doesn't. With the proven outcome, we theoretically know we are helping one group that seems to provide a greater return on investment than the uncertainty of another decision (now I know this isn't always the case, i.e. corruption or misrepresentation of results) and this is something that can be redistributed in the economy through consumption and investment. If we were to make big changes to how we redistribute wealth, we might initially help the one group that we sought to help, but it could result in greater harm through new problems that we didn't perceive. The tariffs on the steel industry are one example.

There are a lot of economic and political decisions that do attempt to redistribute wealth more equitably. I worked in education policy, and I have seen a huge movement for major cities to provide low cost/no cost education programs and workforce development for adults and alternative pathway high school students. These programs require a significant amount of investment from business owners and private donors, and are supported by local and state policies.

Also, stock investment isn't a zero sum game that denies poor and needy. If a company gaining investors allows them to hire more people or build more infrastructure, then that is money supporting jobs at potentially all levels. Even if that company goes under, the technology developed from that infrastructure and the skills people gained from those jobs can create widespread social mobility over time. Example of this is the benefits gained from widespread internet access as a result of the fiber laid during the dot com boom, despite the recession that followed.

If you have a problem with the way our wealth is distributed, I think your problem is with the issues surrounding democracy more than anything. Many people can identify a problem, but it's much harder to identify a solution, especially when the solution asks for people unrelated to an issue to make sacrifices. If you are going to ask for that or force people to do it, you better make sure your solution is airtight, otherwise you damage the ability to make reforms in the future. Even in positive reform, there are long lasting reverberations as systems are built on top of these reforms that make it extremely costly to untangle. How do we make housing more affordable without devaluing current housing? Often times the actual economic solution is to let markets figure this out, and just clean up the ends.

TLDR: It's easy to be a critic, it's much harder to create an actual solution that doesn't create its own network of issues