"And that’s how massive population growth, which turned on the wealth pump, created immiseration, elite overproduction, and—ultimately—state collapse."
I'm trying to wrap my head around this to apply this to today and also to look at the Pop growth>Wealth pump>Immiseration>Elite overproduction>State collapse mechanism for possible ways to intervene.
Now almost all developed countries have either had a declining or steady populations, if not counting immigration, so has the population growth already occurred, or do we count immigration and the population is still growing?
Or, is the way to look at it for our current time, there was steady population growth then a baby boom after WW II, which lead to a wealth pump starting in the 80s going through today, elite overproduction maybe also starting in the 2000s, immiseration kicking in with the 2008 financial collapse, and state collapse still avoidable for now?
Is shutting off the wealth pump the key to avoiding collapse? If so, how will that be done? Changes in the tax code, abundance/life-of-the-mind through technology/AI/VR, UBI, stop funding wars at high levels, some combination, something else?
Is stopping elite overproduction a way to avoid collapse? If so, what would that look like?
I write about it in the last chapter of End Times. The most important step is to shut down the wealth pump, which gets popular well-being back on track and eventually chokes off elite overproduction.
How much does immigration contribute to turning on/up the wealth pump Or effect any other stage? That's what I was trying to get at.
I'm not really sure but I would think the effects of immigration on the wealth pump/other stages might vary (mostly high vs low skilled, assimilating vs not, work visa only vs permanent move, etc.)
The current version pumps massive funds from the productive to the elite's least-capable scions (NGO complex).
The broader thrust is to create a base of janissaries against popular revolt; electorally, or if necessary kinetically. Instead, as Canada is discovering, it just creates alternative power centers based on the ethnicities you import the most, reducing the power of the elites who originally imported them.
"Therefore, "turning off the wealth pump" is likely insufficient. Anyway, the only people who can turn it off are the ones that benefit from it."
Peter Turchin says, "The most important step is to shut down the wealth pump, which gets popular well-being back on track and eventually chokes off elite overproduction."
1. How would you respond to what Peter Turchin says about the wealth pump?
2. Would historical examples of long running wealth pumps and their negative effects (collapse or removal from power to alleviate immiseration/avoid collapse) potentially have some impact on the decision to keep the wealth pump running vs shut it down vs keep it running but at a slow enough speed that does not result in collapse or getting tossed out?
1. IMO, he has a tendency to downplay the importance of the demographic part of the structural-demographic theory, which leads to overvaluing the structural part.
2. As been said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". It might be easier to kill him?
I really enjoy this perspective. It's not looking good for us. A question though: 24.2/4.9 = 4.9 not 7.4. Was one of the figures wrong? You're positing that US in a worse position now than the French state was immediately prior to the revolution, right? 4.9 is still worse than 4, but should the figure actualy be 7.4?
Ryan McBeth, who formerly served in the U.S. Army, has a video on YouTube explaining why military supplies appear to be "overpriced" even though that is not necessarily true. It is easy to criticize the military if you have never served in the military and don't know how it works.
I assume that population of Normandy had declined substantially during the last decades of the Hundred Years War, where there was much fighting. But I would think that situation was different in the southeast of France where there was relatively little fighting. Or in Burgundy, where the Hundred Years War had little effect, and the war with the Swiss was brief (although consequential).
It seems strange that "similar degree of elite overproduction affected the whole of France".
An alternate hypothesis is that factionalism is the norm in feudal states, even if it is exacerbated by economic/structural factors. Was Montmorcey vs Guise all that different from Burgundy vs Armagnac, York vs Lancaster or Guelph vs Ghibelline?
Indeed, Normandy was probably the worst hit province. More generally, the South began recovering from the Late Medieval Crisis earlier than the North, which was much more devastated. We provide some numbers and discussion about this regional difference in Secular Cycles. The South also reached the Malthusian limit earlier than the north in the sixteenth century. But what it means is that both immiseration and elite overproduction became a problem in the South before it happened in the North. Which is probably why the heterodox Christianity was more popular there.
It is interesting to note that Huguenots were most numerous in the areas less affected by the Hundred Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#/media/File:Protestant_France.svg). It is also interesting to note that the areas of France where the Cathars were popular were 350 years earlier tended towards Protestantism.
1. Why could overpopulation and falling wages have led to a general stagnation of production and even decline after 1540?
2. "One result of this dynamic was increasing exploitation of peasants" - could there have been another reason for this, such as the export of agricultural products to future Belgium and the Netherlands?
3. As for the war: "But the king couldn’t stop because, by that point, he was under enormous pressure to continue the war from the immiserating sections of the nobility who counted on military wages to sustain their status." Shouldn't the king have ended the war anyway, if he cared about the country and himself? Or is the answer implied here that the king did it deliberately because he wanted to naturally reduce the number of superfluous nobles?
1. Here I am talking about the potential production that could be extracted by the elites. More population meant that the elites had to compete with starving peasants for resources.
2. As far as I know, export of grain from France was not very significant. The Low Countries at the time had a higher agricultural productivity than in France because they were the pioneers in agricultural revolution.
3. The king first cared about himself, and didn't want to be deposed or assassinated. Next, he cared about the nobility because he shared their values and desires. Other considerations were much more minor. Also, Henri II didn't get the benefit of reading cliodynamic books, so he didn't know how it would end.
But it was a time when the cities of the Low Countries were growing rapidly and needed agricultural products. They were getting them primarily from Eastern Europe, but Normandy should have been involved as well.
"And that’s how massive population growth, which turned on the wealth pump, created immiseration, elite overproduction, and—ultimately—state collapse."
I'm trying to wrap my head around this to apply this to today and also to look at the Pop growth>Wealth pump>Immiseration>Elite overproduction>State collapse mechanism for possible ways to intervene.
Now almost all developed countries have either had a declining or steady populations, if not counting immigration, so has the population growth already occurred, or do we count immigration and the population is still growing?
Or, is the way to look at it for our current time, there was steady population growth then a baby boom after WW II, which lead to a wealth pump starting in the 80s going through today, elite overproduction maybe also starting in the 2000s, immiseration kicking in with the 2008 financial collapse, and state collapse still avoidable for now?
Is shutting off the wealth pump the key to avoiding collapse? If so, how will that be done? Changes in the tax code, abundance/life-of-the-mind through technology/AI/VR, UBI, stop funding wars at high levels, some combination, something else?
Is stopping elite overproduction a way to avoid collapse? If so, what would that look like?
I write about it in the last chapter of End Times. The most important step is to shut down the wealth pump, which gets popular well-being back on track and eventually chokes off elite overproduction.
Of course immigration counts towards population growth, why wouldn't you count it?
How much does immigration contribute to turning on/up the wealth pump Or effect any other stage? That's what I was trying to get at.
I'm not really sure but I would think the effects of immigration on the wealth pump/other stages might vary (mostly high vs low skilled, assimilating vs not, work visa only vs permanent move, etc.)
The current version pumps massive funds from the productive to the elite's least-capable scions (NGO complex).
The broader thrust is to create a base of janissaries against popular revolt; electorally, or if necessary kinetically. Instead, as Canada is discovering, it just creates alternative power centers based on the ethnicities you import the most, reducing the power of the elites who originally imported them.
Population growing in excess of carrying capacity is itself a source of immiseration. That much is obvious.
Therefore, "turning off the wealth pump" is likely insufficient. Anyway, the only people who can turn it off are the ones that benefit from it.
"Therefore, "turning off the wealth pump" is likely insufficient. Anyway, the only people who can turn it off are the ones that benefit from it."
Peter Turchin says, "The most important step is to shut down the wealth pump, which gets popular well-being back on track and eventually chokes off elite overproduction."
1. How would you respond to what Peter Turchin says about the wealth pump?
2. Would historical examples of long running wealth pumps and their negative effects (collapse or removal from power to alleviate immiseration/avoid collapse) potentially have some impact on the decision to keep the wealth pump running vs shut it down vs keep it running but at a slow enough speed that does not result in collapse or getting tossed out?
1. IMO, he has a tendency to downplay the importance of the demographic part of the structural-demographic theory, which leads to overvaluing the structural part.
2. As been said, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it". It might be easier to kill him?
1. Do you think there is a risk of collapse for the US?
2. If so, what do you think the driver(s) is/are?
3. What would be the best way to avoid collapse?
I’ve got all of Peter Turchin’s books (even Figuring Out the Past) except for Secular Cycles. Why is Secular Cycles $50 on Amazon?
I really enjoy this perspective. It's not looking good for us. A question though: 24.2/4.9 = 4.9 not 7.4. Was one of the figures wrong? You're positing that US in a worse position now than the French state was immediately prior to the revolution, right? 4.9 is still worse than 4, but should the figure actualy be 7.4?
Thank you for catching it! Very embarrassing. The correct number for the 2024 debt is 35.5 trillion. I corrected it in the post.
I really appreciate your work. Thank you!
Ryan McBeth, who formerly served in the U.S. Army, has a video on YouTube explaining why military supplies appear to be "overpriced" even though that is not necessarily true. It is easy to criticize the military if you have never served in the military and don't know how it works.
I assume that population of Normandy had declined substantially during the last decades of the Hundred Years War, where there was much fighting. But I would think that situation was different in the southeast of France where there was relatively little fighting. Or in Burgundy, where the Hundred Years War had little effect, and the war with the Swiss was brief (although consequential).
It seems strange that "similar degree of elite overproduction affected the whole of France".
An alternate hypothesis is that factionalism is the norm in feudal states, even if it is exacerbated by economic/structural factors. Was Montmorcey vs Guise all that different from Burgundy vs Armagnac, York vs Lancaster or Guelph vs Ghibelline?
Indeed, Normandy was probably the worst hit province. More generally, the South began recovering from the Late Medieval Crisis earlier than the North, which was much more devastated. We provide some numbers and discussion about this regional difference in Secular Cycles. The South also reached the Malthusian limit earlier than the north in the sixteenth century. But what it means is that both immiseration and elite overproduction became a problem in the South before it happened in the North. Which is probably why the heterodox Christianity was more popular there.
It is interesting to note that Huguenots were most numerous in the areas less affected by the Hundred Years War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenots#/media/File:Protestant_France.svg). It is also interesting to note that the areas of France where the Cathars were popular were 350 years earlier tended towards Protestantism.
May I ask three clarifying questions?
1. Why could overpopulation and falling wages have led to a general stagnation of production and even decline after 1540?
2. "One result of this dynamic was increasing exploitation of peasants" - could there have been another reason for this, such as the export of agricultural products to future Belgium and the Netherlands?
3. As for the war: "But the king couldn’t stop because, by that point, he was under enormous pressure to continue the war from the immiserating sections of the nobility who counted on military wages to sustain their status." Shouldn't the king have ended the war anyway, if he cared about the country and himself? Or is the answer implied here that the king did it deliberately because he wanted to naturally reduce the number of superfluous nobles?
1. Here I am talking about the potential production that could be extracted by the elites. More population meant that the elites had to compete with starving peasants for resources.
2. As far as I know, export of grain from France was not very significant. The Low Countries at the time had a higher agricultural productivity than in France because they were the pioneers in agricultural revolution.
3. The king first cared about himself, and didn't want to be deposed or assassinated. Next, he cared about the nobility because he shared their values and desires. Other considerations were much more minor. Also, Henri II didn't get the benefit of reading cliodynamic books, so he didn't know how it would end.
But it was a time when the cities of the Low Countries were growing rapidly and needed agricultural products. They were getting them primarily from Eastern Europe, but Normandy should have been involved as well.
But that's OK, thanks for the answer.