Introduction
The 2008–2009 financial crisis was not merely a technical glitch, but the logical outcome of a system built on the concentration of banking power and the too big to fail doctrine. This article analyzes how the financial oligarchy captured state mechanisms, transforming democracy into a system where the public serves as the ultimate backstop for private risk. You will explore the historical roots of this conflict, the "soft power" mechanisms of the banking sector, and the emerging threats posed by AI algorithms, which could lead to the next—this time algorithmic—collapse.
"Thirteen Bankers": Diagnosing the Crisis and Banking Power
In their book "Thirteen Bankers," Simon Johnson and James Kwak argue that the US has created a financial oligarchy reminiscent of unstable emerging markets. Its power rests on three forms of capital: monetary (lobbying), human (the "revolving door" between Wall Street and the government), and cultural. The latter is the most dangerous—it is the ability to define market orthodoxy as the only rational path. The soft power of the banking sector has led to "regulatory capture," where supervisors began to view the world through the lens of the industry they were meant to control.
The modern financial oligarchy does not require blatant corruption; it operates through systemic blackmail. During the 2009 crisis, President Obama negotiated with bankers not as a sovereign leader, but as a partner to an entity holding the economic "detonator." This phenomenon ensures that risk asymmetry becomes the foundation of modern capitalism: a narrow caste collects bonuses for risky operations, while society bears the costs of their failures.
Hamilton vs. Jefferson: The Foundations of American Finance
The dispute over the shape of the financial sector is written into the republic's DNA. Alexander Hamilton saw a powerful central bank as an essential engine of development and the backbone of the economy. Conversely, Thomas Jefferson warned that the concentration of power over credit would give birth to a financial aristocracy that would hijack the state. History has proven both right: without advanced finance, industry falters, but its excess leads to the capture of the public apparatus—a trend that leaders like Andrew Jackson and Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to halt, the latter through the Glass-Steagall Act.
Today, this conflict returns in the debate over breaking up the megabanks. Proponents of reform argue that this is a necessary political act of sovereignty. Too big to fail (TBTF) institutions benefit from a hidden state subsidy, giving them an unfair advantage over smaller competitors. Returning to Jeffersonian distrust of bigness is the only way to restore market discipline and protect democratic institutions from the dominance of private financial power.
Deregulation: Market Metaphysics Replaces Oversight
For three decades, deregulation was treated as a moral promise. Faith in the efficient market hypothesis and mathematical models (such as Black-Scholes) created the illusion that risk could be entirely eliminated. This led to moral hazard: banks, knowing the state would rescue them, maximized their financial leverage. The logic of TBTF is relentless: megabanks are too big to exist because saving them strengthens the oligarchy, while their collapse destroys the system. Attempts at reform, such as the American Dodd-Frank Act or the EU's BRRD directive, seek to mitigate this risk but face resistance from a powerful lobby.
A new challenge is AI algorithms, which create a digital monoculture prone to herding behavior. The AI-driven doom loop—an algorithmic feedback loop of destruction—occurs when twin models simultaneously decide to sell off assets, amplifying market shocks. Business elites are considering various scenarios: from optimistic faith in technocratic control to the radical breakup of tech-financial giants. The geopolitics of risk shows that Europe is betting on a supranational supervisory architecture, while Arab nations seek alternatives in Islamic finance ethics based on real assets.
Summary
In an era of self-evolving algorithms, are we destined for a repeat of history, where mathematical precision serves as a mask for fundamental inequalities? The courage to disperse power, though painful in the short term, proves to be the only way to build a lasting order. Institutions that are too big to fail are also too big to exist in their current form. We must break free from the vicious cycle where the financial system dictates the terms of survival to society and restore the fundamental principle: those who reap the profits must bear the full responsibility for the risks.
📄 Full analysis available in PDF