Can too many brainy people be a dangerous thing?

The idea that there is some sort of magic cycle that links 1870s to 2020 is patent nonsense. No cycle could survive the technological and political disruptions of the last hundred years. The current problem is the same old one where available real resources are growing more slowly than the population. If real stuff is becoming available faster than the population, we have golden ages. When population grows faster than stuff, the walls fall in and people start fighting each other.

It would really be in the best interests of everyone if some of the infighting would stop and people start looking for ways to increase general prosperity by creating more instead of coming up with clever justifications about why we have to take stuff away from people who have it.

And fire all the bankers. They aren't fulfilling their part of the social contract and investing in improving the future. We found that out in 2007 and the situation will keep getting worse until incompetent financiers start losing money.

Fearmongering at it's greatest. Instead of looking for possible solutions. It downplays the worst case scenarios by having "Too Many" educated people. Both the article and the study. Instead of asking why we should fear having too many educated people. Shouldn't we instead be asking the question why should we fear them in the first place? Rather, the government policies at place and the systemic issues which affect the people we should "fear". What am I to say. The study itself is from 2010.The effects of it are about to come anyways for the good and bad. It's just about how you deal with the issue. The call for higher education is a bipartisan belief in America. In which both sides already agree that student grants should be in place rather than student loans. While the candidates running may not agree with that in the coming presidential election both republic and democratic leaders agree that grants should replace loans. The main problems which they address really aren't likely to be problems in the near future.

Malthusian arguments are outdated by atleast a 100 years. Where is the proof that “real stuff” is growing slower than the population? Seems like there is too much stuff TBH.

And banker-scapegoating is also outdated by ~10 years. The regulations passed after ‘08 have made banks boring and powerless.

The focus should be on the tech industry.

"Cliodynamics" sounds a lot like psychohistory. I always appreciated azimov as a sci-fi writer for psychohistory. Sci fi and fantasy have a common form where it's the world and regular people, but a technology (or magic) exists. The world + the fictional technology make the setting for the story. Usually the device is a time machine or magic hat. In Asimov's story, the device is a theory. I always thought making the device abstract was a genius novelty.

The whole idea came from what if one of these broad economic disciplines actually worked? Especially marxism, objectivism, and such. As the article mentions, these use economics broadly to explain history... and predict it.

"Psychohistories" are compelling, interesting and intellectually engaging. We have a tendency of adopting them though. That's the problem. They aren't scientific. They aren't even theories in a popperian sense. Ultimately, it's punditry. A perspective. I enjoy it. I enjoyed this article. It's neither true or false though, in any kind of global sense.

All that said, this take augments the (also economist friendly) "anywheres vs everywheres" take on Brexit. That take also had to do with an increase in uni graduates.

A narrower version of Turchin's concept might also be true. Rather than a surplus of (all) graduates crowding the top... this might be an issue of very specific surpluses. EG Journalism, specific government agencies, professorships, political positions... Those are a tiny portion of people overall, but highly influential to the political mood. If most journalists, academics, political aids are competing for a limited pool of jobs... These professions really are tense. Most people who want to can't get a job in these fields. Many want to. There's often no fallback. If you're a journalist/activist/campaigner type... you're either in that insider group or you have nothing. Academics is similar. A phd historian can either be a professor or very little else. No consolation prizes.

In Peter Turchin's book War and Peace and War [1], the term "elite overproduction" does not refer to an overproduction of smart people, education, or college degrees. Instead, it refers to an overproduction of nobility, individuals who extract income but who do not perform useful work.

For example, France during the population boom of the high middle ages overproduced knights and minor nobles from 1200-1300. The nobility increased from around 2% to 4% of the population, while the incomes of the richest nobles soared. Eventually, peasants could no longer produce enough to feed themselves and provide income for all the nobles: this was a contributing factor to the famines and wars of 1350-1400.

The most straightforward modern equivalent to Turchin's "elite" nobility would not be people with advanced degrees: it would be investors who do not work for wages. (Not to say there is no overlap between those groups.)

[1] Turchin, Peter. War and peace and war: The life cycles of imperial nations. Pi, 2005.