Blowing Bubbles

Extreme concentrations of wealth are not anomalies sitting awkwardly inside an otherwise functioning system. They are what the system becomes when its capacity to attenuate runaway amplification has been compromised. In any open, adaptive system, stability is not achieved through static balance but through a continuous negotiation between reinforcing and dispersive forces. Positive feedback generates structure. Negative feedback disperses excess. Together, they keep the field near a regime where novelty, circulation, and decay can coexist without collapse.

In economic systems, this attenuating function has historically been carried by competition, taxation, antitrust law, labour bargaining power, regulatory friction, and the slow erosive pressure of time. These mechanisms do not exist to punish success, but to prevent local accumulations of power from crossing the threshold where they stop behaving like flow and start behaving like topology. When they weaken, bypassed through financial engineering, jurisdictional arbitrage, policy capture, or technological asymmetry, the system undergoes a phase shift. Reinforcement outpaces dispersion. Positive feedback ceases to be balanced by corrective drag. What should have remained transient becomes persistent.

At that point, wealth no longer behaves like a variable within a system. It begins to behave like a self-maintaining configuration of the system itself. Not a spike, not a cycle, but a moving coherence. A structure that propagates through time because the medium has lost the ability to dissolve it. This is not optimisation. It is metastability: a local order maintained not by fitness, but by a deficiency in the system’s own capacity to relax its extremes.

The common narrative frames such configurations as the outcome of rare ability or exceptional innovation. This is a misreading. What is being observed is not brilliance breaking the model, but a model failing to disperse its own congestion. When a system’s dispersive capacity weakens, persistence no longer marks adaptation. It marks imbalance that has hardened into pattern.

This is where the concept of persistence must be handled carefully. Persistence, in this context, is not mere endurance. It is invariance under transformation. A structure persists because it passes through changing conditions without losing its relational identity. This is not stasis. It is systemic legibility across shifts in environment, time, and scale. In physics, solitonic structures maintain coherence as they propagate through nonlinear media because their internal dynamics compensate for the dispersive forces acting upon them. In language, meaning persists not because it is fixed, but because it remains recognisable across shifts in context, syntax, speaker, and epoch. It survives deformation because it is coherent under transformation.

The adjacency here is not metaphorical. It is structural. Wealth concentration, when it attains the level of persistence we currently observe, has crossed from being a mere economic outcome into being a structural invariant of the socio-economic field. It has achieved a form of invariance under transformation: surviving regulatory shifts, political turnover, market fluctuations, and even periodic crises. Each disturbance does not erase it. It feeds it. Each shock becomes another medium through which the structure reasserts itself.

This is why concentration begins to feel inevitable once it takes hold. The system does not simply tolerate it. It entrains around it. Risk models weight existing mass more heavily than dynamic movement. Investment heuristics treat size as stability. Policy does not resist the curvature but drafts along it because re-flattening it carries political and economic cost. Circulation continues, but its geometry changes. Instead of outward dispersion, flows curve inward. Redistribution becomes orbital return. What should have fragmented smooths out. What should have decayed lingers.

This is not domination imposed from above. It is a reorganisation from within. The system adjusts its own topology around persistent distortions it has lost the capacity to soften. And this is why the grotesque scale of modern wealth concentration is not just unjust or inefficient. It is redundant. Beyond a certain threshold, additional accumulation contributes nothing to collective problem-solving capacity, infrastructural intelligence, or adaptive potential. It only deepens the curvature, trapping more of the field’s energy into maintaining its own persistence.

At this stage, concentration is no longer useful even to the system that protects it. It becomes like a standing wave in a medium that has forgotten how to dissipate. Stable. Self-maintaining. Elegant, even, from a distance. But draining variability from the surrounding field, suppressing alternative structures, and making the entire configuration more brittle to perturbation.

This is where the historical consequence lies. Systems that lose their ability to attenuate their own extremes become increasingly sensitive to those extremes. They grow dependent upon them. Their policies, institutions, and narratives begin to orbit the very distortions that are eroding their adaptive capacity. What presents itself as stability is actually a narrowing of phase space. What appears as endurance is a deepening of vulnerability.

And here the connection to meaning returns. Just as meaning in language persists by remaining legible across transformation, a system persists only if its structures can transform without losing their relational coherence. But when persistence hardens into invariance without flexibility, when structure ceases to translate across change and instead insists on remaining intact, it ceases to be meaningfully adaptive. It becomes dogma. In economics, that dogma currently manifests as the untouchability of extreme accumulation.

The question is not moral. It is structural. Does the system retain the capacity to dissolve its own persistent configurations, or has it become phase-locked to them? A system that cannot relax its own distortions does not fail immediately. It becomes quieter. More ordered. More predictable. But less alive. And when disruption finally arrives, it does not appear as correction. It appears as rupture.

---

References

Arthur, W. B. (1994). Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
 ● Demonstrates how economic systems diverge from equilibrium and become locked into trajectories through feedback, increasing returns, and historical contingency.
 ● Significant because it explains persistent wealth concentration as a structural outcome of self-reinforcing dynamics rather than superior efficiency.

Bak, P. (1996). How Nature Works: The Science of Self-Organized Criticality. New York: Copernicus.
 ● Develops the idea that self-organising systems naturally evolve toward critical states where small perturbations can trigger large-scale effects.
 ● Important for framing wealth concentration as an emergent systemic phenomenon rather than an externally imposed anomaly.

Holland, J. H. (1992). Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
 ● Outlines how complex adaptive and self-organising systems generate higher-order patterns through feedback, selection, and interacting agents.
 ● Supports the interpretation of economic structures as evolving, responsive systems rather than linear mechanisms.

Lorenz, E. N. (1963). “Deterministic Nonperiodic Flow.” Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 20(2), pp. 130–141.
 ● Shows that deterministic, nonlinear systems can produce chaotic outcomes due to sensitivity to initial conditions.
 ● Crucial for understanding how self-organising economic dynamics generate amplified outcomes such as extreme concentration.

Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
 ● Provides historical and empirical evidence that when returns on capital exceed economic growth, wealth concentration intensifies structurally over time.
 ● Significant because it grounds these systemic arguments in long-run quantitative data across multiple economies.

Shannon, C. E. (1948). “A Mathematical Theory of Communication.” Bell System Technical Journal, 27(3), pp. 379–423.
 ● Establishes the foundations of information theory, including entropy, noise, and channel capacity.
 ● Relevant for interpreting self-organising economic and symbolic systems as probabilistic fields governed by information flow and constraint.