3 ms·
A propos, there was a review on slatestarcodex for "Secular Cycles" effectively tracking the rise and fall of civilizations if I remember correctly. The argumen
by slothtrop 6y ago
A propos, there was a review on slatestarcodex for "Secular Cycles" effectively tracking the rise and fall of civilizations if I remember correctly. The argument is societies start to destabilize and stagnate once wealth concentrates to a certain point, after which war and strife levels the playing field once more. Except, we don't much expect that same sort of upheaval to happen today in Western society.
All of which to say, you could liken periods of high wealth concentration as lending to decadence, though I'm not sure how useful that would be as the same argument could be made of golden ages. Decadence itself doesn't seem suspect but I would expect it to be around before things go awry.
edit: here - https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/08/12/book-review-secular-cycles/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/08/12/book-review-secular-cy...
- AngrySkillzz 6y agoThat correlation might be reversed, though. The author of The Great Leveler makes the argument that in peaceful times, inequality almost always rises to the maximum level that society can bear. It remains that way until a destabilizing event occurs (plagues, state collapse, destructive revolution, mass-mobilization warfare) which decreases inequality (mostly through wealth destruction - the wealthy have the most to lose). So it's possible that rather than high inequality leading to destabilization, it's the opposite: destabilization leads to decreased inequality.
- slothtrop 6y agoWhy "rather"? They don't contradict each other. The aforementioned argument I linked to suggests it's both.