
The Only Thing, Historically, That's Curbed Inequality: Catastrophe - fraqed
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/02/scheidel-great-leveler-inequality-violence/517164/?single_page=true
======
virmundi
It's nice to see that The Atlantic caught up with Thomas Jefferson [1], "The
tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots
and tyrants. " The question now before us is can we live with the inequality
or destroy it without destroying ourselves?

1 -
[http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_l...](http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...%28Quotation%29)

\- Edit: grammar

~~~
dmix
There's also the whole question of the state's total monopoly on violence
being unchallengable since the mechanization of the military in late WW1 and
all of WW2. Even more so with the NSA and the surveillance state we all live
in.

That said, that Thomas Jefferson quote is still relevant. Bureaucracies and
systems do become stagnant, grow in power to become oppressive, and
occasionally need to be rebuilt or evolve to be made better. This is true in
industry and is true in government too. The question is how does this change
come about?

Considering the modern state of warfare this must now be viewed as "shaking
the tree of established ideas and systems", rather than any form of violent
revolution or coup.

I'm currently making my way through the Oxford History of the United States
and the entire reason the US revolutionary army - a loose collection of poorly
armed and trained militias - was even able to win against the biggest imperial
army in the world was because:

\- a big ocean separated US/Britian, making reinforcements and most
importantly communication challenging.

\- the British army and economy was largely depleted due to their long war
with France, they were in no position to win a war, especially a half-hearted
war

\- the British crown was totally oblivious to the fact that the support for
royalists was insignificant, due to their distance and distraction with
France, their intel was simply awful

\- France joined in to support the war at a critical time

Unless America joins another costly deeply unpopular world war or somehow
becomes in financial ruin, I doubt there will ever be an internal revolution
again. Even then it would be risky and probably a bad idea. Therefore an
entirely non-violent peaceful shaking of the tree is the only practical option
:).

~~~
goldmouth
Uhmm... maybe you're not there yet but we had a civil war a hundred years
after the revolutionary war :).

~~~
dmix
That wasn't a revolution? And it wasn't post-mechanization of the military?

Not sure which part you are challenging.

------
YCode
In a similar vein Dan Carlin has repeatedly brought up in his podcasts the
concept of the "historical arsonist" [1] or those great leaders/peoples who,
on their rampage of murder and mayhem across their respective continents
burned away the old making room for growth.

[1] [https://warisboring.com/dan-carlin-explains-historical-
arson...](https://warisboring.com/dan-carlin-explains-historical-
arsonists-2199c93ace22#.5fv9dvpo5)

------
openasocket
I find this entire argument suspect. It all boils down to pointing to
instances when catastrophe lowered inequality, ignoring all the instances when
catastrophe increases inequality, and then claiming that's the only thing that
causes inequality. The entire line of reasoning is specious. You can't prove a
negative. It confuses correlation with causation.

~~~
Nomentatus
It would have been nice to have a control group, true, but howya gonna do dat?
We have to look at the evidence we have, and there is a fair bit of it, so we
might as well take a look. I don't think the author is cherry-picking. There's
nothing shocking about stability increasing organization and stratification
that's hard to maintain during chaotic times. Power tends to concentrate, I
think that was noted before Marx came along. And I've read books highlighting
the phenomenon from a couple decades back that focused more on China and the
east, as warlords rose and fell in three-century cycles. A better argument
against this idea is that the article mentions that reductions in inequality
continued a full thirty years after WWII, which doesn't fit the thesis all
that well.

~~~
openasocket
> It would have been nice to have a control group, true, but howya gonna do
> dat? We have to look at the evidence we have, and there is a fair bit of it,
> so we might as well take a look.

I totally get that, but that's no excuse for saying you have causation when
you have only correlation. It's also no excuse for claiming to have proved a
negative.

> I don't think the author is cherry-picking

Calling it cherry picking is generous: this is anecdotal evidence. You need
more than a half dozen examples to prove a trend, and I'd prefer examples more
precise than the events that occurred across an entire country over the course
of decades.

To be clear, I don't question that catastrophe can reduce inequality, but I
don't think it is the only thing.

~~~
Nomentatus
Only if you assume the data have been fiddled do you have to worry about
correlation not being causation; otherwise the law of large numbers applies
thoroughly - if not coincidence, that leaves causation in this case. Why?
Because present inequality can't be causing previous peace; and as for both
being a downstream cause of something else ... well that just beggars my
imagination - Descarte's Evil Genius or Aliens with a sense of humor are the
only such upstream causes I can imagine. But if you can do better, I'm open.

Most eras of history consist of anecdotal evidence; ya gotta examine and play
the cards you have, not those you'd prefer. You infer that you've done a lot
of reading plump with evidence contradicting this without ever offering
bibliography or counterexamples; but my reading, which I mentioned, supports
the thesis (for example, in the East as well) (and as it happens, supports
Marx in this matter.) Please raise, call, or fold.

------
curiousgal
A current counter-example would be the Tunisian revolution[0], started because
of economic inequalities, 6 years later, said inequalities are still there if
not deepened.

0.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunisian_Revolution)

~~~
jandrese
I don't think a catastrophe is sufficient, only necessary.

------
notdonspaulding
Inequality != Injustice

Imagine a society where the poorest person had a standard-of-living on par
with Warren Buffet, but where the richest person was richer than the poorest
by a factor 100-times greater than we find in our world today. Does anyone
argue that such a society is worse than the one we find ourselves in? Wouldn't
everyone jump at the chance to live in that society, regardless of which
strata they found themselves living in?

Another thought experiment: Imagine you could wave a wand today and
redistribute everyone's wealth such that everyone had exactly _equal wealth_.
Further assume you could find a set of laws which guaranteed nobody would
exploit anyone else, and dictate and enforce them perfectly on this utopic
society. Would you allow trades in your society? If so, how long would it take
before some people had _more wealth_ than others? Would it just never happen?
If not, why not?

Inequality is no great evil to be banished. Even if it were, you couldn't do
it and maintain the freedom of _different people_ to value _different goods
/services_ at _different amounts_ and to make trades based on their values.

Fighting Poverty is a worthy goal.

Fighting Injustice is a worthy goal.

Fighting Racism is a worthy goal.

Fighting Inequality is tilting at windmills.

~~~
thatcat
Fighting poverty sometimes implies fighting inequality, such as in a zero sum
resource struggle. Poor people aren't warren buffet yet.

------
godmodus
It's hard to argue against trivial equality, the state of being reduced to
zero.

But that's not what modern equality proposes.

The argument against Trump is this case, in my opinion, void.

What he is is proof of systemic weaknesses and corruptions in our
beurocracies.

The right sentiment, but the argument is too reductionist.

Sort of like saying If we're all dead, we're all equally alive. Not false
perse, but it's an absurdity.

Edit: coming from an active conflict zone, I often comfort my western
colleagues by arguing that everything we have that's worth anything is often
built on blood sacrifice, and that the west is in need of fewer conflicts,
because it learns and ends up prefering peace over conflict, as will my region
someday. War a d conflict are natural to us but so is peace and love of kin.

I understand the author, but it's a bit grim. That said, hope for the best,
prep for the worst.

~~~
bryanlarsen
The great compression and several of the other examples in the article were
times of economic growth.

~~~
Nomentatus
Indeed, it's just how you get there that's economically catastrophic.

------
bobbington
It bugs me when people obsess over equality, and not the standard of living.
Today's poor have it better than kings in many ways. Running hot water, air
conditioning, much more.

If people would stop coveting what everybody else has, society would be much
better off. Instead of saying "he has more than me" say "I have enough for my
needs".

There will always be someone with more. Don't be greedy be grateful, or you
will never be happy.

The commies obtained "equality" but did standard of living improve? No many
people starved, and millions were murdered. They depended on the west for
their very food. Now China is becoming less authoritarian and is able to grow.

------
APCarr
An interesting article and some valid points, though I'm confused as to how
they ignored the MASSIVE growth of equality due to the Industrial Revolution,
or was that a catastrophe? I'm sure there are some that would think so...

------
rwmj
The trouble is the next total war will be a nuclear war.

------
yuhong
In this case, the US decline probably started in the 1970s when they left the
gold standard.

~~~
runeks
Something certainly happened around 1970-ish: [https://www.mises.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/graph-1.png](https://www.mises.ca/wp-
content/uploads/2013/12/graph-1.png)

Looks like 1st percentile wage growth stagnated right around 1970, but 99th
percentile wage growth didn't start accelerating until around 1980 - right
around when bond prices started rising again, after falling through the 70s.
And they've been rising ever since.

~~~
dTal
You bet your ass something happened. I'd love to know what.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._inc...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/U.S._incarceration_rates_1925_onwards.png)

~~~
diogenescynic
Nixon and then Reagan's policies.

~~~
runeks
Which policies, exactly, caused the discrepancy we see in pre-tax income
growth?

Or are only only referring to incarceration rates?

