These are not at all the same goals that Congress was pursuing. Wall Street therefore became a political actor, acting in its own interest without regard to the organization (the nation). The guardians of the nation's interest - Congress - failed in their duties. In particular, they failed to identify the sources of formal and informal power. They underestimated the strength of Wall Street's informal power, which derives from the investment holdings of millions of Americans, who in turn elect Congress. Had Congress recognized that powerful source of leverage that Wall Street had over them, they would have understood their situation better. Carleo also debates how those on the weak side of power relationships should behave. She puts forth the idea that often those who do not have the strongest source of power (employee) will often go along with what those with power believe because it easier to do so, and overall a much...

We can conclude from the actions of Congress that they are the weak actor, bereft of power relative to Wall Street. Yet, in a traditional employer-employee relationship, the boss is the actor with the formal power. Yet Congress is the actor with formal power, but instead acted as though they did not. In this way, Congress and Wall Street have a power relationship opposite to that of a typical employer-employee relationship.
Caught in the middle are the members of the public. They are represented by Congress, and theoretically have formal power over Congress. Yet, Wall Street found a way to leverage that power to its own advantage, rather than that of the public, who as yet are still without access to credit. Wall Street's divide and conquer act split the public and Congress such that Wall Street overcame its lack of formal power to achieve its own political ends at the expense of the nation.