Well, maybe I put it incorrectly.

What I mean, essentially, is that ratio of power to control (over events) is a diminishing returns game.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

OK, unless the aim of the game is control, and the control ensured through debt relationships is just a means to this end.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

What I meant was, that with power and money your influence grows, but it does not grow directly 1:1, but rather at a diminishing rate, simply because of the complexity of events.

Even if you are the richest and most powerful man (or group of men) on Earth, there is only so much you can possibly control, simply due to the irreducable complexity of the universe, life and everything.

I suppose it could look somewhat like some kind of a square root function, with y-axis being amount of power available to subject and x-axis -- amount of control he is able to exert:



For the purposes of our discussion it means to me that even any financial lobby in a given country has limited resources and limited weight, which is not insurmountable, provided there is actual opposition, which deems it neccessary.

The problem and issue with bringing financial lobby to heel at least here in Latvia, in my opinion, is not so much the amount of power they have, but the apathy of any kind of opposition.

In the end, some people may grumble, but they apparently don't agree overcoming lobby is worth fighting for (and we are not even talking about actual violent resistence here, maybe some NGO or something would be quite enough).

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Aha, I get it, and I would especially agree with your penultimate para, ....only, what if they aren't actually a lobby anymore. I mean what if they ARE the power - would that change things?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Please define then. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)