10-24-2011, 05:22 PM
Ted King wrote:
As the world learned in 2008, such networks are unstable. "If one [company] suffers distress," says Glattfelder, "this propagates."
So, the super-entity may not result from conspiracy. . . Braha suspects they will compete in the market but act together on common interests. Resisting changes to the network structure may be one such common interest.
It doesn't matter whether or not this network is conscious and intentional (i.e., conspiratorial in nature) to the people who are deprived wealth through its hoarding; their suffering is the same either way. That its collective actions would be aimed toward self-preservation (i.e., maintaining an impervious system of wealth concentration against all threats) is quite unsurprising. An effective system's first priority is always the propagation of itself. Events (like the Lehman collapse) or threats (like greater regulation or taxation) are bound to elicit strong concerted efforts.
That being said, i think it's useful not to demonize rich individuals or ascribe undue responsibility for current circumstances to those at the top. In the same way that many of these people did not earn their wealth (or may not 'deserve' the sums they have been paid), neither are they the authors of the system in which they thrive. Similarly, those suffering at the bottom are not accountable for their 'lot in life'; everyone is born into a story s/he did not create and cannot fully control. We would do well not always to conflate success with individual agency, even though such a suggestion flies in the face of the American story. Rather, do as these academics have done and examine the system, and consider how best to reform the system without egregiously punishing those not truly responsible for its harms.