America’s Oligarchy is Australia’s Dilemma

Australia faces a stark new reality as oligarchs tighten their grip on American policies and politics.

Article by Greg Twemlow, White Flag artwork by Jasper Johns

I’m an Australian who first travelled to the United States in 1978. I’ve visited the USA more than fifty times and lived in San Francisco, and I have watched with growing unease as America transforms from an Aussie’s best mate into a nation dominated by an all-powerful oligarchy in partnership with a power-crazed autocrat. I live in Sydney and have family and friends in the U.S., but my deep connection to America has always been more than just personal — it has been shaped by a lifelong engagement with its culture, politics, and economic shifts. In my lifetime, America has always been our big brother.

What I see today is alarming. The country that once championed liberal democracy and free markets based on equality, has allowed concentrated wealth and corporate interests to infiltrate every aspect of American life.

The political system has evolved into a tool for billionaires, Wall Street titans, and tech moguls who wield their influence with impunity, ensuring that policies serve their economic ambitions rather than the needs of the American public. Australia, long tied to the U.S. through military alliances, trade agreements, and diplomatic bonds, now faces an uncomfortable question: How do we navigate a partnership with a superpower that no longer operates on the principles we once trusted?

The answer lies in understanding that the Australia-America alliance is no longer about shared values. From an Australian perspective, it’s about risk management.

Listen to the Deep-Dive Podcast.

In an era when oligarchic interests dictate American decisions, Australia’s leaders must abandon nostalgia and adopt a pragmatic approach that prioritises national security, economic resilience, and diplomatic adaptability over blind loyalty. The alliance remains, but at what cost?

Australia and America shared an unspoken covenant for 125 years — a bond forged in the fires of global conflict, nurtured by shared sacrifice, and sustained by a mutual commitment to democratic governance. In the early days of the 20th century and the birth of the Australian Federation, Australia looked to America as a young sibling who looks to an older sibling — a guiding presence, a model for democratic governance, and a strategic partner in an uncertain world. It seemed inevitable that our destinies would remain interlinked.

We fought side by side in two world wars, in Vietnam and Iraq, and stood united during the Cold War, each struggle reinforcing a belief in an enduring alliance built on shared values and an almost unbreakable governmental rapport. Yet, perhaps the strongest pillar of this relationship has always been military-to-military trust — a steadfast foundation that, in many ways, persists even as the political landscape has shifted.

Beyond our joint military efforts in open conflicts, Australia has also been a covert intelligence partner to the United States for decades. A significant American spy base near Alice Springs, known as Pine Gap, underscores the depth of our intelligence collaboration. Pine Gap and other American bases on Australian soil are critical in global surveillance, signals intelligence, and military coordination, further entrenching Australia in the strategic web of U.S. global operations.

During our close alliance, Australia and America have experienced political shifts, moving between centre-left and centre-right governance. At times, Australia leaned slightly left while America leaned somewhat right, and vice versa. Yet, these shifts did not significantly alter the nature or depth of the philosophical partnership we experienced. Despite differences in domestic policies, the underlying commitment to liberal democracy, economic cooperation, and strategic alignment remained intact, reinforcing the durability of the alliance even as ideological trends fluctuated.

This transformation, which in hindsight marked the beginning of a 50-year process leading to de facto oligarchical rule in America, began in 1974 when Milton Friedman (see Epilogue) introduced the Doctrine of Shareholder Primacy.

Friedman introduced an economic theory that was really an ideological shift embedding capitalism as a moral principle in the fabric of American society. This almost divine edict elevated profit above all else and redefined corporate governance, dictating that a company’s sole obligation was to maximise shareholder value — obliterating any remaining balance between private profit and public good. As this ideology permeated policymaking, it reshaped the corporate world and the fundamental structure of American governance, entrenching economic self-interest at the core of every institution.

The consequences were seismic. Over the following decades, America ceased to be governed by elected representatives who balanced economic growth with public welfare. Instead, power steadily concentrated in the hands of corporate interests, financialised markets, and eventually an elite class of oligarchs who wield unchecked influence over legislation, judicial appointments, and international relations. The transformation unfolded in phases, each reinforcing the next.

American and Australian leaders have been asleep at the wheel since corporate America warmly received Friedman’s Doctrine in 1974. An awful lot of bad stuff can happen during fifty years of unbridled Capitalism.

For Australia, America’s shift to the right and emergence of an oligarchic class demands an urgent reassessment of strategy, and the recent unpredictability of America’s trajectory has left Australia with one primary, perhaps only, viable approach: Managing Risk.

The old certainties of alliance stability have eroded, replaced by an era in which America’s moves are impossible to forecast confidently.

The 2020s: An Australian Perspective

The reality of the 2020s is that the Australia-America alliance is unlikely to return to the “good ol’ days” of predictable diplomatic alignment and shared governance philosophies. The foundational trust that once underpinned the relationship has been shaken by shifting U.S. administrations and more profound structural transformations in American governance and society. Australia can no longer afford to operate under the assumption of unwavering U.S. stability or reliability; instead, its diplomatic posture must be one of cautious adaptation, ensuring that national security and economic interests are safeguarded amid an increasingly volatile global landscape.

How Independent Can Australian Governments Be in the Era of American Oligarchy?

Australia’s ability to chart an independent path is now under more significant strain than ever. As American oligarchs consolidate influence over their political system and global governance, Australia must constantly weigh its decisions against Washington’s ever-present economic and diplomatic coercion reality. This is not just a hypothetical concern — it is a lived reality reinforcing the likelihood that the primary strategy is Risk Management.

Take, for instance, Australian legislation passed in 2024 making it illegal for social media companies to allow accounts for individuals under 16 years of age. The policy was designed to protect children’s mental health and privacy, yet it sent shockwaves through the technology sector, particularly in Silicon Valley.

Enter Mark Zuckerberg — one of the most influential tech oligarchs, deeply enmeshed in corporate and political networks in the United States. During 2025, on a visit to Mar-a-Lago, Zuckerberg raises the issue with Donald Trump, expressing deep concerns that Australia’s law sets a dangerous precedent for Meta. “This could spread,” he warns. “We need to get this reversed.”

Trump and Zuckerberg, already entrenched in a mutually beneficial relationship, recognise an opportunity. Trump, who has repeatedly demonstrated his willingness to weaponise economic relationships for political leverage, takes the issue to his inner circle. Soon after, Australian officials receive quiet but unmistakable signals from Washington: the new legislation is not in the commercial interests of the POTUS and American corporations.

Diplomatic back-channels also deliver a clear message to the Australian Prime Minister: “You wouldn’t want this to become a trade issue, would you?” The implication is obvious — Australia must reconsider its stance or risk facing economic or diplomatic consequences. The unspoken question looms: Is Australian sovereignty now subject to the whims of America’s oligarchs?

This is a new reality for Australian governments. Every major policy decision must be made with an eye toward Washington’s political, oligarchic and economic mood. The era when Australian leaders could legislate purely in the interests of their citizens is fading. Whether the issue is tech regulation, defence contracts, or trade policies, the unrelenting power of American oligarchs, amplified by their deep ties to U.S. political leadership, casts a long and intrusive shadow over Australia’s seat of government.

The question is no longer whether Australia can say no to America but whether it can afford to. The alliance remains, but in what form and at what cost?

Epilogue: The Legacy of Friedman’s Shareholder Primacy

Milton Friedman’s Shareholder Primacy doctrine, introduced in 1974, was radical in its simplicity: a corporation’s sole responsibility is to maximise profits for its shareholders. But did Friedman fully anticipate the long-term consequences of this idea? Let’s analyse:

What Friedman Predicted (or Intended)

Friedman’s core argument was that corporations should focus exclusively on profit generation and leave ethical or social responsibilities to individuals, governments, and the market. He believed:

• Efficient Markets Would Self-Regulate: If companies focused on profits, competition would drive innovation, efficiency, and economic growth, ultimately benefiting society.
• Government’s Role Would Shrink: He saw government regulation as inefficient and argued that free markets naturally lead to optimal outcomes.
• Individuals Would Address Ethical Concerns: If customers, employees, or investors disliked a company’s practices, they could pressure it by choosing alternatives.
• Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Was a Distraction: He warned that executives pursuing social goals over shareholder profits would engage in an undemocratic and illegitimate redistribution of wealth.

Friedman was convinced that profit maximisation was the most efficient way to serve society, arguing that the market’s invisible hand would ultimately lead to the best outcomes.

What Friedman Did NOT Predict (or Ignored)

While his ideas reshaped global capitalism, he dramatically underestimated the negative consequences of unchecked shareholder primacy. Here’s what he failed to foresee:

1. The Concentration of Corporate Power

• Friedman assumed markets would remain competitive. Instead, corporate monopolies and oligopolies formed, distorting the market and suppressing competition (e.g., Big Tech, Wall Street, Pharmaceuticals).
• Mega-corporations grew too big to fail, requiring government bailouts (e.g., the 2008 financial crisis).

2. The Short-Termism Epidemic

• By prioritising quarterly earnings reports, companies abandoned long-term investment in innovation, worker training, and sustainability.
• CEO pay exploded, driven by stock-based compensation, incentivising extreme risk-taking and short-term value extraction rather than long-term stability.

3. The Destruction of Worker Rights

• Shareholder primacy fueled wage stagnation as companies prioritised dividends and stock buybacks over fair wages.
• Globalisation, automation, and outsourcing were accelerated as corporations cut labour costs to maximise profits.
• Union power collapsed, leaving workers with little leverage.

4. The Rise of Financialisation and Market Manipulation

• Corporations became financial engineering machines instead of investing in productive growth, using stock buybacks, leveraged acquisitions, and tax avoidance schemes.
• Wall Street’s unchecked pursuit of profit maximisation fueled speculative bubbles and economic crises (e.g., 2008).

5. The Political Takeover by Corporate Interests

• Dark money and corporate lobbying became the norm, shaping laws to favour big business (e.g., Citizens United ruling in the U.S.).
• Tax loopholes and deregulation resulted in record corporate profits but shrinking public services.

6. Environmental Catastrophe

• Companies externalised environmental costs, leading to widespread pollution, deforestation, and climate change.
• Instead of addressing sustainability, corporations lobbied against climate regulations to protect short-term profits.

Would Friedman Have Changed His Views?

It’s unlikely. Even when confronted with evidence of market failures, Friedman remained steadfast in his belief that government interference was the problem, not shareholder primacy.

He likely would have blamed corporate failures on regulatory overreach or crony capitalism rather than an inherent flaw in his doctrine.

However, many economists and business leaders now reject his strict interpretation, recognising that capitalism must balance profits with broader stakeholder responsibilities.

Did Friedman Predict Shareholder Primacy’s Outcomes?

• Partially: He predicted profit-driven efficiency but completely ignored systemic risks like monopoly formation, political corruption, economic inequality, and environmental degradation.
• Misjudged Market Behavior: His belief in perfect competition was naive — corporations do not always act rationally or fairly when unchecked.
• Ignored the Long-Term Consequences: He dismissed concerns about worker exploitation, wealth inequality, and political corruption, all of which are now deeply entrenched in modern capitalism.

Ultimately, Friedman’s doctrine was a self-fulfilling prophecy — it shaped the world in ways that even he may not have fully envisioned. But while he expected corporate profits to create prosperity, he failed to anticipate the rise of shareholder capitalism as an extractive, destabilising force that will likely destroy American democracy.

Friedman’s doctrine was not just an economic philosophy; it was an ideological virus that restructured the DNA of global capitalism. Its consequences continue to shape the world, demanding a reckoning with the unchecked forces it unleashed.

About the author:

📌 Greg Twemlow, Founder of XperientialAI & Designer of the Fusion Bridge

XperientialAI: AI-powered learning for leaders, educators, and organizations.

Fusion Bridge: My latest work — building AI-enabled frameworks for innovation & leadership.

🌎 Read more of my 300+ articles → https://gregtwemlow.medium.com/

📧 Contact: greg@xperiential.ai or greg@fusionbridge.org

Greg Twemlow, Founder of XperientialAI & Designer of the Fusion Bridge