Having mapped the global oligarchy (above, with the biggest ownership companies in red), this New Scientist article was doing fine when:
Crucially, by identifying the architecture of global economic power, the analysis could help make it more stable. By finding the vulnerable aspects of the system, economists can suggest measures to prevent future collapses spreading through the entire economy. Glattfelder says we may need global anti-trust rules, which now exist only at national level, to limit over-connection among TNCs. Sugihara says the analysis suggests one possible solution: firms should be taxed for excess interconnectivity to discourage this risk.
One thing won’t chime with some of the protesters’ claims: the super-entity is unlikely to be the intentional result of a conspiracy to rule the world. “Such structures are common in nature,” says Sugihara. (Emphasis mine)
Those aren’t “the protesters’ claims,” they are the claims of some protesters. The only “conspiracy” that really concerns the Occupation of Wall Street is very real criminal activity that nearly destroyed the global economy — remember? Most liberals and progressives intuitively understand that the sort of structures mentioned in the first paragraph are often mistaken for conspiracy (see Monday’s post on END THE FED, for example).
“Global anti-trust rules” are in fact a liberal/progressive idea, which is why conservatives and right-wing authoritarians oppose such rules. They see any global response to any global challenge (peak oil, climate change, etc.) as the work of — get this — a conspiracy. See how that works?