I'm not a historian, let alone of revolutions. I've heard it said too that starvation is the only thing that really causes a revolt - and yet I know of at least

I'm not a historian, let alone of revolutions. I've heard it said too that starvation is the only thing that really causes a revolt - and yet I know of at least one counter-example, the American Revolution. That revolution happened because the King would neither address the needs of the colonists nor allow them to address their own needs, and felt his position was so dominant that the colonists had no choice but to accept his rebuke. Perhaps if the King had been more considerate of the colonists' needs there would have been no revolution, and England could have traded away a small fraction of control to retain an enormous chunk of empire. I think the parallels to the modern situation are clear.