This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Inequality Is Cyclical, Skyrocketing Until – Periodically – Revolution Forces Concessions from Those Who Have Grabbed All the $
Preface: Sometimes breakthrough insights come from smart, accomplished people in one expertise who look at a different field with fresh eyes … unencumbered by the dogmas and politics of that field.
Peter Turchin is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and an adjunct professor in the departments of Anthropology and Mathematics at the University of Connecticut.
Turchin’s new research interest is inequality. Specifically, Turchin is now applying the mathematical rigor used in population biology to inequality.
We currently have what is arguably the worst inequality in history. (We’re not talking about the 1% … we’re talking about the real powers-that-be.)
Most Democrats and most Republicans think we have too much inequality. Even the mainstream economists who fought the concept for decades now admit that runaway inequality is destroying our economy.
But we can’t take the current situation in a vacuum …
Peter Turchin notes that inequality is cyclical:
In his book Wealth and Democracy (2002), Kevin Phillips came up with a useful way of thinking about the changing patterns of wealth inequality in the US. He looked at the net wealth of the nation’s median household and compared it with the size of the largest fortune in the US. The ratio of the two figures provided a rough measure of wealth inequality, and that’s what he tracked, touching down every decade or so from the turn of the 19th century all the way to the present. In doing so, he found a striking pattern.
From 1800 to the 1920s, inequality increased more than a hundredfold. Then came the reversal: from the 1920s to 1980, it shrank back to levels not seen since the mid-19th century. Over that time, the top fortunes hardly grew (from one to two billion dollars; a decline in real terms). Yet the wealth of a typical family increased by a multiple of 40. From 1980 to the present, the wealth gap has been on another steep, if erratic, rise. Commentators have called the period from 1920s to 1970s the ‘great compression’. The past 30 years are known as the ‘great divergence’. Bring the 19th century into the picture, however, and one sees not isolated movements so much as a rhythm. In other words, when looked at over a long period, the development of wealth inequality in the US appears to be cyclical. And if it’s cyclical, we can predict what happens next.
***
In our book Secular Cycles (2009), Sergey Nefedov and I applied the Phillips approach to England, France and Russia throughout both the medieval and early modern periods, and also to ancient Rome. All of these societies (and others for which information was patchier) went through recurring ‘secular’ cycles, which is to say, very long ones. Over periods of two to three centuries, we found repeated back-and-forth swings in demographic, economic, social, and political structures. And the cycles of inequality were an integral part of the overall motion.
***
Our historical research on Rome, England, France, Russia and now the US shows that these complex interactions add up to a general rhythm.
***
It looks like the pattern that we see in the US is real. Ours is, of course, a very different society from ancient Rome or medieval England. It is cut off from them by the Industrial Revolution and by innumerable advances in technology since then. Even so, a historically based model might shed light on what has been happening in the US over the past three decades.
So what accounts for the periods of rising equality? Turchin gives a number of factors.
One is revolution, when inequality became too extreme. Turchin writes:
History provides another clue. Unequal societies generally turn a corner once they have passed through a long spell of political instability. Governing elites tire of incessant violence and disorder. They realise that they need to suppress their internal rivalries, and switch to a more co-operative way of governing, if they are to have any hope of preserving the social order. We see this shift in the social mood repeatedly throughout history — towards the end of the Roman civil wars (first century BC), following the English Wars of the Roses (1455-85), and after the Fronde (1648-53), the final great outbreak of violence that had been convulsing France since the Wars of Religion began in the late 16th century. Put simply, it is fear of revolution that restores equality. And my analysis of US history in a forthcoming book suggests that this is precisely what happened in the US around 1920.
Indeed, it is well-documented that runaway inequality leads to unrest and revolution. And as Turchin notes, – unrest and revolution in turn leads the powers-that-be to stop hogging all of the wealth.
The journal Nature writes:
Perhaps revolution is the best, if not the only, remedy for severe social stresses. [Herbert Gintis, a retired economist who is still actively researching the evolution of social complexity at the University of Massachusetts Amherst] points out that he is old enough to have taken part in the most recent period of turbulence in the United States, which helped to secure civil rights for women and black people. Elites have been known to give power back to the majority, he says, but only under duress, to help restore order after a period of turmoil. “I’m not afraid of uprisings,” he says. “That’s why we are where we are.”
We have repeatedly noted that we are opposed to violent revolution. Activists like David DeGraw point out that things are going to dramatically change one way or the other … through a huge change for the better, or a descent into violence and chaos.
John F. Kennedy said:
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
Sadly, the government is doing everything it can to crush peaceful change, treating peaceful protesters, whistleblowers and investigative reporters as terrorists. And the big banks are joining in the effort to make peaceful revolution impossible.
Postscript: Turchin notes that another factor which at times reduces inequality is a pandemic. For example, the survivors of the Black Plague could demand higher wages, since labor was scarce.
- advertisements -


You certainly are not ;-)
One of the wonderful things about all the Gruberism's coming out of late (if anyone cares to wrap their head around them fully and understand what he's really saying) is the utter contempt the elites have for all of us, the commoners, the hoi polloi.
Its not just that he called progressive voters "stupid" (he most certainly did) he was also perfectly fine with using their ignorance of the tax code and their lack of economic literacy against them while enriching himself (by 400 grand from Uncle Sam) and growing the tentacles of the state AND corporations. All corporations pass any new taxation on to the end user and he knows that, thats the retail customer, thats you, dear reader.
And now let me turn my attention to "the right" and "Comprehensive Immigration Reform".
It doesn't take an MIT professor to figure out what these immoral, unethical, corrupt douchebags (Adelson, Jeb, the Chamber of Commerce etal) are doing. What they are too "stupid" to understand is we do in fact see the unholy alliance of corporations (wanting a cheaper labor pool)...unions (swelling its dues paying membership)...and the nanny-state government (a voting bloc more aligned with the Free Shit Army than the freedom and liberty army) as yet another direct attack on all of us...to empower and enrich themselves.
It may come down to pitchforks and wood chippers but it'll make great compost...lol.
Get a good, deep red hue out of your Chrysler Imperials!
"understand what he's really saying"
What he is really saying? What, that we all are so fucking stupid that he can sit there and call us stupid right to our faces and we will just sit there aghast that he would say such a thing. I am not even sure stupid is the right word. Like, "its stupid all the way down". A recursion of stupid or a "divide by stupid" error.
Is that what he was saying?
Sleigher - What Gruber was saying is that he is brilliant by working with a corrupt government and that the American voter is stupid for letting it rob them.
Actually, he did the citizenship a favor. That had to wake up a few million minds. And for those that in intelligence services that may have had a hand in making sure these kinds of things get out - well done and keep going ;/)
The truth indeed sets one free even if it is ugly and requires actions with the insights.
In essence, he's calling any voter who believed him (and them) and their lies...stupid...for believing their lies and deceptions. Its really quite remarkable for an elitist to come right out and be recorded saying it.
However, he was with "his own kind" and probably thought none of us dullards would sit through tedious hours of wonkish double-speak to get down to the real nub of it.
But we did, starting at 1:02 ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiFVbWOuxDM&feature=youtu.be&t=1h2m
And thats not all...
"Children under the age of 18 will be fined $162.50. The maximum amount an uninsured family will be penalized is $975 under the flat-rate method."
Cuz, its for the chilren or sumpin.
“The penalty is meant to incentivize people to get coverage,” Laura Adams, senior analyst of InsuranceQuotes.com, told CBS News. “This year, I think a lot of people are going to be in for a shock.”
"CBS News reports that many Obamacare plans will be charging more as a 27-year-old earning 250 percent of the poverty rate will now have to pay an average of 7 percent more for the lowest-cost bronze plan. The analysis from Investor’s Business Daily found that the lowest-cost silver plan will rise 9 percent and the lowest-priced catastrophic policy will go up by 18 percent."
Transparency!...lol.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/11/12/people-are-going-to-be-in-for-a-shock-penalty-for-uninsured-not-signing-up-for-obamacare-to-triple/#.VGO1JZa_fPY.twitter
Well, more or less, the article from the link above points the same thing:
"The dangerous illusion of the elites is that they consider themselves as something separate from the masses, as not being part of the society and therefore they can go away, as always in the past, in case of a massive, ugly collapse. This illusion is based on the fact that everyone operates through the same terms. Everyone seeks more money, either to survive, or, to climb up the social hierarchy. In reality, this is the recipe for the perfect destruction. Everyone wants the same thing, no one is trying a different approach, or even imagine a different approach, a different society based on different principles and values. No one seems to understand that this totalitarian, one-dimensional culture leads to a dead end. There are no dreamers who could inspire new revolutions towards a different direction and re-start the system."
[...]
"If there will be any Revolution in the 21st century soon, it will be done by those who became statistical figures of poverty, unemployment, inequality and social exclusion by this brutal system. People with no hopes and dreams, no better future to seek, no class consciousness. People who have nothing to lose. It will be bad, chaotic, unpredictable and rather doubtful that someone could call it 'Revolution'."
But I'm afraid it will be bad for all of us.
People like Herr Gruber?
OR the revolution could take hold and the many that are left, poor and rich, begin to understand the necessity for change.
This is the difficult part but basically this would be an ideal situation and a real evolution.
The other of the two fatal weaknesses of powerful psychopaths.
History has shown time and time again:
1. They may feel a sense of entitlement and are arrogant, but they are paranoid of being called out. They go full-retard when that happens.
2. They eventually are completely surrounded by other weaker wanna-be psychopaths. That and their own inability to feel normal emotions means they are lulled into an assumption that the entire world is control-driven like them and will respond to the promise of power in the same way.
The ultimate reward for humanity is the look in a psychopath's eyes when they are about to die and try to negotiate their way out (because everyone has their price, right?). Instead, some farmer about to sink a pitchfork in their skull will explain: "...No, I just want to kill you because you're a psychopath and I hate you. I'm not trying to fix ANYTHING..."
This isn't about inequality per se; it's about inequality that results from the rich robbing the poor. What do I care if Bill Gates or whoever is worth $100 billion dollars if I am making, say, $250,000 in today's dollars, with the prospect of earning more in an organically growing economy?
Does the article not say that "From 1800 to the 1920s, inequality increased more than a hundredfold"? Yet wasn't this the greatest, most egalitarian economic growth in the country's history? Or the world's history, for that matter?
http://csis.org/blog/19th-century-growth
The point, then, isn't whether the 0.01% are worth X times what the rest are worth; it's whether they are doing so at our expense. And since they are — entirely as a function of a corrupt, government-sanctioned money and banking cartel — this cartel must end, as it so obviously is.
Will war be resorted to first — i.e., will goverments try to "change the subject" in order to postpone the inevitable?
Count on it.
Count as well, then, on hunkering down — http://readynutrition.com/resources/52-weeks-to-preparedness-an-introduc... — and otherwise going about your busines, while staying the hell away from the voting booth, the better not to perpetuate a status quo that is the only real enemy we have.
Remember that the Great Depression occurred 15 years after the Bolshevik revolution, and the spread of international communism was real. Better to let the plebes have a few more crumbs than usher in Leninism, right? There was an understanding that unfettered capaitalism will eventually eat itself as wages approach zero and demand collapses.
Fast forward to today. Neoliberals pat each other on the back celebrating the 25th anniversary of the end of the Soviet Union. Capitalism won! Bring on the toll booths and the jackboots and the wages approaching zero again (through inflation). There is no memory of Bolshevism. No crumbs for you!
You may be right. But we are having a BTFD Zero Hedge Rally on all things.
Gold, Platinum, Silver, Copper, Stocks and even cotton. So, what's up.
it's because isis is buying them up to mint their new coinage:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-13/isis-unveils-its-new-gold-backe...
I love that.
On that note I conclude the work day and begin beer drinking period.
Slap me five!
Pouring a gin and tonic in honour of our dear beloved Queen right now. Toasting their continued success in the mandate to own as much as possible, to enslave as many as possible and to deny it all.
Cheers Queenie, and hubbie, and heirs, cheers BIS and IMF, cheers to Stephen Harper the court jester, cheers to Jamie and Lloyd, cheers to Ofoolo, I toast to Soros and Zigbee. Oh shite I jusst drink to all their good health, wealth and continued good fortune.