"MrSnrub" (sv100)
06/02/2020 at 11:17 • Filed to: None
1
32|
"MrSnrub" (sv100)
06/02/2020 at 11:17 • Filed to: None | 1
| 32 |
I’ve been following this person for a while who’s been developing a theory about the processes that drive periodic waves of instability in complex societies . I’ve found h is research very interesting and potentially illuminating, so I thought I’d share it here. Note that this was written in 2016 and predicts rising political instability going into the 2020s.
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
While the role of inequality in fueling
unrest is obvious enough, there’s an interesting component to this model that I find intriguing - “elite overproduction”
:
Increasing inequality leads not only to the growth of top fortunes; it also results in greater numbers of wealth-holders. The ‘1 percent’ becomes ‘2 percent.’ Or even more. … from 1983 to 2010 the number of American households worth at least $10 million grew to 350,000 from 66,000. Rich Americans tend to be more politically active than the rest of the population. … In technical terms, such a situation is known as ‘elite overproduction.’ … Elite overproduction generally leads to more intra-elite competition that gradually undermines the spirit of cooperation, which is followed by ideological polarization and fragmentation of the political class. This happens because the more contenders there are, the more of them end up on the losing side. A large class of disgruntled elite-wannabes, often well-educated and highly capable, has been denied access to elite positions.
I’ve mostly followed his blog and read some of his academic papers but h e’s written a few books on the subject as well.
My bird IS the word
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 12:01 |
|
I definetly think the idea of elite overproduction is interesting, and very plausible. I think he might have overstepped in his “solution” though . Sometimes you just gotta quit while you are ahead.
DipodomysDeserti
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 12:15 |
|
If we’ve entered a period of political instability , it seems weird that the presumptive Democratic nominee is Joe Biden. I guess that demonstrates how aloof Democrats are. That or they think Joe Biden can wrangle then country in...
VincentMalamute-Kim
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 12:36 |
|
Interesting thought. The link is his “dumbed down for the general public” article and therefore just sounds like opinion fluff piece. I didn’t read his book which he says has all the science in it.
He cites rising wealth inequality from 1983 to 2010 but I’m pretty sure that’s been going on since the 50's.
“No, the only way forward is through an open discussion of problems and potential solutions, and broad-based collective action to implement them. It’s messy and slow, but that’s how lasting positive change usually comes about.”
The US doesn’t currently appear to be able to do any of that regarding climate change. It wasn’t able to take effective measures against the current virus until too late. Even with prior administrations, effective change in the police culture hasn’t happened.
Way back in the 80's Fukuyama also had
an interesting idea:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man
It reminds me of your article in that Fukyuyama
has
now
reconsidered
it and I wonder what
Turchin will say about his own ideas
in 25 years
:
TheRealBicycleBuck
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 12:45 |
|
Interesting thoughts. The idea behind “elite overproduction” also applies to higher education, especially at the doctorate level. Our universities are churning out more Ph.D.s than there are jobs available, leading to the “ disposable academic .” This results in a decrease in wages and to the hiring of less-than-desirable academics to teach undergraduates. There are opportunities abroad , but home-grown Ph.D.s don’t want to leave the U.S. and many of the foreign students don’t want to leave either. It’s part of the reason I left academia after teaching for several years. I held a 12-month position but was being paid as if it were a 9-month position. But I had a better situation than some. Imagine holding the education and the debt to go with it, but barely making above minimum wage .
Some would argue that we are pushing too many kids into college in the first place and I’m inclined to agree. Graduation rates are around 33% for four-year programs (57% if students are given 6 years to complete the 4 year program). Post-baccalaureate degrees represent roughly 7% of the total enrollment, including both M aster’s, Ph.D. and other professional programs. Attrition rates run from 18% to 34% in master’s programs , over 50% in some Ph.D. programs .
That’s a lot of wasted time and money and the return on the investment is only going down. I can see where this situation is going to lead to a similar instability in the academic institutions.
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> DipodomysDeserti
06/02/2020 at 12:45 |
|
I think the majority of Democrats felt too young/too gay/too female/too left/too ethnic was going to lose the centrists and lose the general election.
fintail
> DipodomysDeserti
06/02/2020 at 12:50 |
|
What we need is another septuagenarian corporatist centrist candidate!
At least this one sometimes shows flashes of not being “civil”, another Dem failure.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/02/2020 at 12:54 |
|
IIRC the peak of wealth equality, ignoring how funny that term looks, was around 1970. Inequality has certainly been exacerbated with the embrace of trickle down fairytale during the past 40 years.
The idea of collective action has the word “collective”, which freaks out the so-called right who have created very little good over the past several generations.
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> fintail
06/02/2020 at 12:58 |
|
I don’t know what the author has to say about political instability in the 70s then. There was certainly social unrest but I don’t think there was any fear of our government falling back then.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/02/2020 at 13:05 |
|
I didn’t read it all, but I have been under the impression political unrest peaked around 1968 (multiple assassinations , riots everywhere even in the face of praetorian brutality) and faded within a couple years, due to an unjust war finally winding down, and maybe because some warriors killed unarmed students, which maybe scared off some opposition.
Today, it seems many
who once fought “the man” have become “the man”, and show not much more willingness to change than their parents and grandparents 50 years ago.
DC3 LS, Fuck Hyundai, now and forever
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 13:13 |
|
Joseph Schumpeter made a similar prediction during the beginning of the great depression. That over educated people with out a
place in the work force would usher in socialism rather than an
uprising by actual
working people.
|
MrSnrub
> DipodomysDeserti
06/02/2020 at 13:14 |
|
I think as far as the Democratic establishment is concerned the election is already over. One part of the theory of intra-elite conflict is that it is not just between the two parties, but between factions within those parties. The establishment (Clinton/Obama) Dems would rather risk remaining the minority party, but still be in control of that party, than being beaten by the insurgent Sanders/Warren wing and thrown completely out of the game. So they do everything in their power to prevent an insurgent candidate from winning even if it means the candidate they end up with is weak.
My only hope is that if Biden wins, the bar will not be quite so low anymore and the Dems will have to try a little beyond just saying “hey at least we’re not Trump”. I’m probably being naive though.
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> fintail
06/02/2020 at 13:15 |
|
I was
thinking of political unrest as fear of our government actually falling. I think of the stuff you list as being social unrest.
But I am wrong - the point of the “social unrest” in Hong Kong is for political purposes; they’re trying to fight and unseat the govt.
But I don’t feel any ‘revolution’ from our current rioting. They want social change, not govt overthrow.
You sound about as resigned to things as I am.
SiennaMan
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/02/2020 at 13:17 |
|
Exactly this. I think the other thing is there are a large number of people who don't want to see Trump going after those other viable candidates because of their identities in those areas. The worst things Trump can say about Biden are true about Trump too..
|
MrSnrub
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/02/2020 at 13:19 |
|
I should have posted a link to one of his academic articles. This one goes much more in depth :
http://peterturchin.com/PDF/Turchin_JPR2012.pdf
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 13:21 |
|
wow-yes it does! I can see why you did not post that link!
ranwhenparked
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 13:26 |
|
We’re in the middle of a depression and possible mass insurrection, its pretty doubtful any president could win reelection under these circumstances, regardless of his opponent. Biden could relax in his basement rec room for the rest of the year and never even go outside except to get the News Journal, and he’d still win, easily. The election still has to happen in November as a legal formality, but in reality, he’s already won it.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/02/2020 at 13:36 |
|
I think there’s a bit of both today. Politically, I think it was stronger in the late 60s, with leaders/candidates literally being murdered. Today, we have the same relatively stable shit from both sides.
But socio-economically, it is messier now, in my opinion. Wealth has consolidated, and the working class has been gutted. I agree re: social change vs gvt overthrow. Nobody is trying to literally kill 45, they simply want a more just society. The demonstrators are seeking wholesale change, and even the looters, as criminal and opportunistic as they are, are maybe a reflection of the reality of economic conditions.
I’m not optimistic about much change with current demographics. Maybe in another generation, if we don’t launch into full blown fascism by then.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 13:43 |
|
Biden ain’t too far off from Trump. Looks more like they dipped down to the new low.
|
DipodomysDeserti
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/02/2020 at 13:44 |
|
I which case, even if they win, we aren’t too far removed from where we were with Trump. Same rich white people, afraid of everything that’s “other”, running the show.
|
MrSnrub
> ranwhenparked
06/02/2020 at 13:48 |
|
Well, yeah, that’s what the Democrats think, and they’re probably right. It means nothing will substantially change though, so the unrest will only get worse
|
MrSnrub
> DipodomysDeserti
06/02/2020 at 13:54 |
|
Exactly. So things won’t improve even if Biden wins. I’m hoping more and more people will notice that everything is still falling apart even with a Democrat in power, and start to realize that simply getting rid of Trump isn’t enough. It’s going to be a long, long process though.
nermal
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 13:54 |
|
It makes sense that the wealthiest are also the most politically active. They have the most to lose / gain. Plus, they can afford it.
The instability is intentional, and both parties benefit from it. Plus, both the Ds and the Rs are looking at least 6-12 months ahead, not at today or tomorrow. Some are already planning their 2024 president ial runs. To say that there isn’t a long term plan is foolish.
Go back and watch all of the D debates now, knowing that Biden will become the eventual nomination. They all come across completely differently in hindsight. It’s almost like.... he knew....
GLiddy
> MrSnrub
06/02/2020 at 18:02 |
|
I’ll just say this and move on. Placing an arbitrary, non-inflationary adjusted cutoff from 1983 to 2010 doesn’t make sense. $10 million in 1983 was seriously wealthy. $10 million in 2010 was merely very well off. The average house price (US Census) in 83 was $89,800. In 2010 it was $272,900. T hat’s 3x right there. A more fair comparison may be to move the scale to $20 million at a minimum in 2010.
I’ve read in a few places that to really think of someone as a “millionaire” now as they did in the old days, they should have about $5 million. That’s the point where people can actually think of having not-work-again, never-worry-about-money money.
Anyway, that’s just my nit to pick. I’m commenting without reading the linked article right now. I will go read it and am curious what he thinks about social and economic mobility. My kid is heading to college next year and so many colleges promote how many admitted kids are first in their family to go to college. (UT Austin). I believe there is still great opportunity in the US that gets much less coverage than it should.
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> fintail
06/03/2020 at 00:00 |
|
“if we don’t launch into full blown fascism by then.”
yike! And a few nuts are talking of civil war.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/03/2020 at 00:09 |
|
There are some who really want it, and they are playing a role in the current unpleasantness:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/02/tech/antifa-f ake-twitter-account/index.html
In my area, which saw some looting and what counts as a scary riot in a suburban Seattle way, there have been plenty of vehicles from out of the area roaming the streets - there are some armed wannabe heroes just looking for a fight.
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> fintail
06/03/2020 at 00:18 |
|
I really hope that
even the people who don’t like
Biden or pissed off that Bernie didn’t win
can see that not voting is the same as voting for Trump.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/03/2020 at 00:32 |
|
It’s all about the lesser evil. Biden isn’t great, but compared to the alternative.
|
MrSnrub
> GLiddy
06/03/2020 at 11:24 |
|
The $10 million figure is in 1995 dollar s , according to a Bloomberg piece linked in the article.
There is evidence to suggest that s ocioeconomic mobility in the US is on the decline, and it’s certainly below other developed countries.
https://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-on-the-decline-and-with-it-american-dream-2017-7
There are no silver linings here. One of the points Turchin makes is that the number of people with degrees is increasing but there is not a larger supply of jobs for them, which adds to the instability .
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> fintail
06/03/2020 at 12:37 |
|
Agree. Just surprised many people don’t see that.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/03/2020 at 13:05 |
|
I think many, especially on the right, vote just to fuck over someone else.
|
VincentMalamute-Kim
> fintail
06/03/2020 at 13:23 |
|
Damn, y
ou’re almost as cynical as I am.
I’m thinking of a left leaning Oppo or two who said they didn’t vote in ‘16 because they didn’t like Hilary and may do the same this year.
I’ve also
read
about Bernie Bros who
say they won’t vote out of anger or will vote third party this year
as they did in ‘16
.
|
fintail
> VincentMalamute-Kim
06/03/2020 at 13:57 |
|
Those people hold more responsibility for this mess than they’ll ever take - spoiled children upset because they didn’t get the choice they wanted, not realizing that it is never about what you really want. Not voting, or voting for a pie in the sky candidate, is the same as voting for team MAGA.