I like that someone is taking a systems perspective on this but the &#x27;26 abandoned cities&#x27; stuff doesn&#x27;t seem relevant.<p>Yes every underclass represents a threat of revolt. But describing this oligarchy as rich stealing from the poor is not completely accurate.<p>The mesopotamians had a &#x27;palace economy&#x27; where a large portion of the wealth (i.e. grain) was brought to a central city to be redistributed to non-farmers by the priests. (hence the word &#x27;hierarchy&#x27;). The current global economy is to some extent a palace economy (explains the higher salaries and prices in cities) but our economies are no longer 70% agricultural, 30% stonework and a small slice &#x27;prayer services&#x27;. More of the economic work than ever is concentrated at the &#x27;top&#x27; -- maybe not in the top slice but certainly in the top fifth. If the bottom half of mesopotamian society disappeared the priests would starve. If that happened in, say, switzerland their economic metrics would blip up.<p>Not saying that&#x27;s a good or a bad thing but it defies the article&#x27;s definition of oligarchy.