The US is explicitly not about the majority. The Senate and Presidency are both anti-democratic institions where land controls votes.

> It, including these trades, is working as intended.

You can view the US in a lot of cynical ways but it was not created as a vehicle to allow the wealthy to continue to gain wealth at the expense of the poor. Insider trading between congressmen using their posts to fleece the public was never an intent of the government.

That is precisely the reason that Madison and his collaborators wrote the constitution (with debates kept secret from the public). The nation already had popular rule and a federal organization in 1781. The problem for the rich was that state legislatures kept helping out the majority of their voters, changing various rules about repayment of debts and so on. The constitution put an end to all that, as it was intended to do.

It was at least created for them to at least preserve their wealth. In the debates leading up the creation of the Senate, here is a typical argument:

"...our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered"

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-004...

> it was not created as a vehicle to allow the wealthy to continue to gain wealth at the expense of the poor

I mean the American revolution was spearheaded by wealthy land and slave owners who were tired of taxes.