It doesn't have to do with oligarchy in the sense of coordinated corruption (wealth transfers) between rich and politicians, but in my opinion it comes close in

It doesn't have to do with oligarchy in the sense of coordinated corruption (wealth transfers) between rich and politicians, but in my opinion it comes close in terms of unfairness and bad long-term results, and it is still very coordinated between the rich and politicians. The rich and powerful also profit from a society where people are educated and hard-working. If housing and student debts become such a burden that intelligent people well into child-bearing age (and halfway to retirement) have nearly no wealth and/or assets, while 1% of the populations hold 20% or more of total wealth, there is a problem. This problem will eventually reach this coalition of rich and politicians, but they are too short sighted to do something about it. It is just so much easier at the moment for politicians to sustain their careers by pandering to a small group of rich people with the same interests then a large group of normal people with various interests. There are lots of reasons for this (right-to-lobby, corporate personhood, winner-take-all), but it's a big bug in the system when the majority feel unrepresented in a democracy. Arguing over whether 100 people or a few thousand control the top 1/3 of wealth only illustrates how big the issue of income inequality is.