Hubbry Logo
OverproductionOverproductionMain
Open search
Overproduction
Community hub
Overproduction
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Overproduction
Overproduction
Overproduction
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

In economics, overproduction, oversupply, excess of supply, or glut refers to excess of supply over demand of products being offered to the market. This leads to lower prices and/or unsold goods along with the possibility of unemployment.

The demand side equivalent is underconsumption; some consider supply and demand two sides to the same coin – excess supply is only relative to a given demand, and insufficient demand is only relative to a given supply – and thus consider overproduction and underconsumption equivalent.[1]

In lean thinking, overproduction of goods or goods in process is seen as one of the seven wastes (Japanese term: muda) which do not add value to a product, and is considered "the most serious" of the seven.[2]

Overproduction is often attributed to previous overinvestment – creation of excess productive capacity, which must then either lie idle (or under capacity), which is unprofitable, or produce an excess supply.

Explanation

[edit]

Overproduction is the accumulation of unsaleable inventories in the hands of businesses. Overproduction is a relative measure, referring to the excess of production over consumption. The tendency for an overproduction of commodities to lead to economic collapse is specific to the capitalist economy. In previous economic formations, an abundance of production created general prosperity. However, in the capitalist economy, commodities are produced for monetary profit. This so-called profit motive, the core of the capitalist economy, creates a dynamic whereby an abundance of commodities has negative consequences. In essence, an abundance of commodities disrupts the conditions for the creation of profit.

The overproduction of commodities forces businesses to reduce production in order to clear inventories. Any reduction in production implies a reduction in employment. A reduction in employment, in turn, reduces consumption. As overproduction is the excess of production above consumption, this reduction in consumption worsens the problem. This creates a "feed-back loop" or "vicious cycle", whereby excess inventories force businesses to reduce production, thereby reducing employment, which in turn reduces the demand for the excess inventories. The general reduction in the level of prices (deflation) caused by the law of supply and demand also forces businesses to reduce production as profits decline. Reduced profits render certain fields of production unprofitable.

Henry George argued that there could not be any such thing as overproduction in a general sense, but only in a relative sense:

Is there, then, such a thing as overproduction? Manifestly, there cannot be, in any general sense, until more wealth is produced than is wanted. In any unqualified sense, over- production is preposterous, when everywhere the struggle to get wealth is so intense; when so many must worry and strain to get a living, and there is actual want among large classes. The manner in which the strain of the war was borne shows how great are the forces of production which, in normal times, go to waste; proves that what we suffer from now is not overproduction, but underproduction.

Relative overproduction there, of course, may be. The desires for different forms of wealth vary in intensity and in sequence, and are related one with another. I may want both a pair of shoes and a dozen pocket-handkerchiefs, but my desire for the shoes is first and strongest; and upon the terms on which I can get the shoes may in large measure depend my ability to get the handkerchiefs. So, in the aggregate demand for the different forms of wealth, there is a similar relation. And as, under the division of labor characteristic of the modern industrial system, nearly all production is carried on with the view, not of consumption by the immediate producers, but of exchange for other productions, certain commodities may be produced so far in excess of their proper proportion to the production of other commodities, that the whole quantity produced cannot be exchanged for enough of those other commodities to give the usual returns to the capital and labor engaged in bringing them to market. This disproportionate production of some things, which is overproduction in relation to the production of other things, is the only kind of overproduction that can take place on any considerable scale, and the overproduction of which we hear so much is evidently of this character.[3]

Inevitability

[edit]

Karl Marx outlined the inherent tendency of capitalism towards overproduction in his seminal work Das Kapital.

According to Marx, in capitalism, improvements in technology and rising levels of productivity increase the amount of material wealth (or use values) in society while simultaneously diminishing the economic value of this wealth, thereby lowering the rate of profit—a tendency that leads to the paradox, characteristic of crises in capitalism, of "reserve army of labour" and of “poverty in the midst of plenty”, or more precisely, crises of overproduction in the midst of underconsumption.

John Maynard Keynes formulated a theory of overproduction, which led him to propose government intervention to ensure effective demand. Effective demand are levels of consumption that corresponds to the level of production. If effective demand is achieved then there is no overproduction because all inventories are sold. Importantly, Keynes acknowledged that such measures could only delay and not solve overproduction.

Say's law

[edit]
Further information: Say's law

Say's law states that "The more goods [for which there is demand] that are produced, the more those goods (supply) can constitute a demand for other goods". Keynes summarized this "law" as asserting that "supply creates its own demand". The consumer's desire to trade causes the potential consumer to become a producer to create goods that can be exchanged for the goods of others, goods are directly or indirectly exchanged for other goods. Because goods can only be paid for by other goods, no demand can exist without prior production. Following Say's law, overproduction (in the economy as a whole, specific goods can still be overproduced) is only possible in a limited sense.

Environmental impact

[edit]

Overproduction raises issues about the disposal of excess product stocks, which may have a significant environmental impact as well as raising additional waste disposal costs. More raw materials than necessary will have been used in production and, in some production processes, more undesirable pollution may have arisen due to the excess level of productive activity.[2]

See also

[edit]
  • Demand shortfall – When the actual benefits of a venture are less than the projected or estimated benefits
  • Underconsumption – Economic stagnation from inadequate consumer demand
  • Common Agricultural Policy – Agricultural policy of the European Union
  • Resource exploitation – Use of natural resources for economic growth
  • Overdrafting – Unsustainable extraction of groundwater
  • Overfishing – Removal of a species of fish from water at a rate that the species cannot replenish
  • Overgrazing – When plants are grazed for extended periods without sufficient recovery time
  • Price stability – Monetary policy
  • Lean manufacturing – Methodology used to improve production

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Overproduction

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Overproduction refers to a situation in which the supply of goods or services surpasses effective market demand at current prices, resulting in surpluses, falling prices, unsold inventories, and often curtailed production or layoffs. This phenomenon is frequently invoked to explain sectoral gluts or contributions to recessions, as seen in agricultural surpluses under price supports or industrial booms followed by contractions. However, its status as a systemic driver of economic crises remains contested, with empirical analyses and first-principles economic reasoning—such as Say's law positing that supply generates corresponding demand through income creation—arguing that genuine general overproduction cannot persist in unhampered markets without prior distortions like monetary expansion or regulatory rigidities. In historical contexts, overproduction has been linked to events like the farm crisis in the United States, where technological advances and inelastic demand amplified surpluses, exacerbating downturns amid falling commodity prices. Proponents of theories, drawing from observations of inequality and wage stagnation, attribute recurring gluts to insufficient aggregate , though critics counter that such views overlook price adjustments and entrepreneurial corrections that realign supply with demand over time. Environmentally, modern overproduction in and contributes to resource waste and emissions, as excess output strains supply chains without proportional consumption. Beyond , the term extends to structural-demographic analyses of societal dynamics, where "" describes an surplus of educated aspirants vying for limited high-status positions, intensifying factionalism and eroding social cohesion—a pattern empirically traced across centuries of historical data in cliodynamic models. This causal mechanism, grounded in demographic pressures and inequality trends rather than ideological narratives, has been applied to forecast in contemporary polities exhibiting expanded higher education alongside stagnant elite opportunities.

Definition and Core Concepts

Conceptual Definition

Overproduction in refers to a condition in which the volume of goods or services produced exceeds the —the quantity consumers are willing and able to purchase at prevailing market —resulting in surplus inventories, declines, and unprofitable operations for producers. This mismatch typically arises in specific sectors rather than economy-wide, as adjustments and resource reallocation in competitive markets signal overcapacity and redirect production. The concept encompasses two primary forms: absolute overproduction, where output surpasses total societal consumption possibilities, which is theoretically improbable in resource-constrained systems guided by and profit motives; and relative overproduction, involving disproportionate emphasis on certain at the expense of others, often due to distorted signals or temporary fluctuations. Relative overproduction manifests empirically in events like commodity gluts, where, for instance, agricultural yields exceeding buyer absorption lead to storage costs and farm bankruptcies, as documented in historical U.S. crop cycles from the onward. Critics of broad overproduction narratives, particularly from classical and Austrian perspectives, argue that true general overproduction—simultaneous excess across all goods—violates the tautology that all production generates for , rendering it a unless precipitated by monetary distortions like credit-fueled malinvestment. Nonetheless, the term remains central to analyzing cyclical downturns, where sector-specific surpluses propagate through supply chains, amplifying and reduced until equilibrium restores via contraction.

Distinction from Underconsumption

Overproduction denotes a situation where the volume of commodities produced surpasses the market's ability to absorb them at prices that yield profits to producers, often manifesting as generalized gluts or excess capacity in capitalist systems. This concept, central to analyses of economic crises, emphasizes supply-side dynamics driven by the imperatives of , where production expands beyond the bounds of value realization. Underconsumption theory, by contrast, locates the origin of crises in deficient aggregate demand, particularly from wage earners whose incomes fail to match the output they generate, resulting in unsold goods despite potential use values meeting societal needs. Pioneered by thinkers like Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi in the early 19th century, it posits that maldistribution of income—favoring profits over wages—creates chronic shortfalls in effective demand, challenging Jean-Baptiste Say's law that supply inherently generates its own demand. Later formulations, such as those by John Maynard Keynes, advocated fiscal interventions to stimulate consumption as a remedy. The fundamental distinction resides in explanatory priority and scope: treats demand insufficiency as the causal root, implying crises could be mitigated by redistributing without altering production relations. Overproduction frameworks, notably in Karl Marx's analysis, reject this as superficial, viewing not as the primary driver but as an inevitable byproduct of extraction, which propels overinvestment and periodic collisions between and limited solvent markets. Marx contended that "overproduction is specifically conditioned by the general law of the production of capital: to produce to the limit set by the productive power," rendering crises expressions of systemic contradictions rather than mere consumption gaps. Critics of , including , argued it fails to account for capitalism's episodic upheavals amid perennial poverty, as overproduction relative to profitability— not absolute needs—triggers contractions.

Historical Context

Pre-Modern and Early Industrial Examples

In pre-modern economies dominated by and rudimentary , overproduction typically occurred in specific commodities where rapid expansion of cultivation outstripped demand, leading to sharp price declines and economic distress for producers. A prominent example arose in the colonies of during the . Following the introduction of as a in around 1614, production surged due to high initial demand from European markets, with exports reaching approximately 1.5 million pounds by 1630. However, by the mid-1640s, unchecked planting—enabled by abundant land and labor from indentured servants—resulted in chronic surpluses, causing prices to fall from about 3 pence per pound in the 1620s to less than 1 penny by the 1660s. Colonial assemblies responded with measures such as the 1663 law mandating the destruction of one-third of each planter's to curb output and stabilize prices, illustrating early attempts to manage relative overproduction in a single sector. This pattern persisted into the 18th century amid the wars for empire, where overproduction combined with disrupted shipping to exacerbate gluts; favorable weather in some years further slashed tobacco prices, prompting "busts" that bankrupted smallholders and shifted production toward larger plantations reliant on enslaved labor. Similar sectoral imbalances appeared in other pre-industrial contexts, such as wool in medieval England, though documented gluts were less severe due to export orientation and guild regulations limiting output; nonetheless, periodic market saturations contributed to price volatility for exporters between 1250 and 1350. These instances highlight how, absent modern inventory management or broad demand stimulation, overproduction manifested as localized crises rather than systemic ones, often resolved through destruction, diversification, or coercive controls rather than market adjustment. As economies transitioned to early industrialization in the late , particularly in Britain's sector, amplified overproduction risks by decoupling supply growth from demand. Innovations like ' spinning jenny (1764) and Richard Arkwright's (1769) boosted yarn output exponentially, with British consumption rising from 1 million pounds in 1760 to over 50 million by 1800, yet initial factory expansions often exceeded export and domestic absorption capacities. This led to periodic gluts, as competition among mills drove excessive production; for instance, by the 1780s, overstocked warehouses in forced price cuts and temporary shutdowns, foreshadowing cyclical patterns. Observers like later attributed such disequilibria to unchecked individual incentives under emerging , where maximized output ignored aggregate limits. These early industrial episodes marked a shift from agrarian sectoral gluts to manufacturing-driven ones, setting the stage for more frequent crises as accelerated.

19th-Century Economic Crises

The emergence of industrial capitalism in the early brought recurrent economic disruptions characterized by gluts in key commodities, where production outpaced , precipitating price collapses and financial panics. These events, particularly in and nascent sectors, highlighted relative overproduction—excess output in specific areas unsupported by or market absorption—amid credit-fueled expansions. Swiss economist observed such patterns, arguing that competitive pressures drove producers to maximize output, resulting in unsold inventories, wage reductions, and cyclical downturns, as evidenced in contemporary commercial slumps. The in the United States exemplified agricultural overproduction's role in crisis propagation. During the mid-1810s, American farmers ramped up and output to supply British and European markets, facilitated by loose credit and improved transportation like the , leading to a boom by 1818. However, in January 1819, prices plummeted—dropping 25% in a single day—due to British shifts toward cheaper Indian and robust European harvests that diminished import demand, creating a glut that eroded land values in regions like and triggered across banking and . , corn, and other staples similarly saw prices fall below production costs, compounding business failures and nationwide. Similar dynamics fueled the , where cotton overproduction intersected with speculative bubbles. U.S. cotton prices had surged to 16 cents per pound in 1835 amid land sales tripling from 1834 levels, but by early 1837, domestic oversupply combined with rising exports from and caused a 25% price drop in , followed by a further 17% decline from 13.8 cents to 11.5 cents per pound between March and April. This excess strained Southern exporters reliant on cotton revenues, amplifying credit contractions from policies like the and leading to bank suspensions, factory shutdowns, and a depression lasting until the mid-1840s. In Britain, the 1847 commercial crisis reflected industrial overcapacity amid railway speculation and agricultural shocks. The "Railway Mania" of the mid-1840s spurred excessive investment in infrastructure, resulting in collapsing share prices and overbuilt capacity that outstripped traffic demand. Concurrently, poor harvests drove food imports, but underlying production imbalances in textiles and metals—exacerbated by credit fragility—contributed to bank runs and a liquidity squeeze, with the Bank of England suspending restrictions under the 1844 Act to avert total collapse. These episodes underscored how sector-specific overproduction, amplified by monetary distortions, propagated systemic failures, influencing later analyses of capitalist instability.

Theoretical Frameworks

Classical Economics and Say's Law

In , overproduction was generally conceptualized as a sectoral or temporary phenomenon rather than a systemic, economy-wide crisis of , where exceeds . Economists such as acknowledged the possibility of localized gluts arising from misjudgments in production relative to specific markets, as discussed in (1776), but maintained that such imbalances would self-correct through price adjustments and resource reallocation without implying a deficiency in overall . similarly rejected the notion of a persistent , arguing in Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) that is not a fundamental barrier to production, as the value produced generates equivalent income distributed among —labor, capital, and land. Central to this framework was Jean-Baptiste , articulated in Traité d'économie politique (1803), which posits that "supply creates its own demand" by virtue of production itself generating the necessary to purchase the output produced. Say argued that every act of production yields a product plus an income stream (wages, profits, rents) equivalent in value, ensuring that total supply matches total demand in monetary terms, barring frictional delays or monetary hoarding. This law implied that claims of general were paradoxical, as they would require producers to generate wealth without corresponding claims on that wealth, a logical impossibility under barter-equivalent where money serves merely as a veil. Subsequent classical thinkers, including in Principles of Political Economy (1848), reinforced by emphasizing that market processes lack an inherent tendency toward economy-wide overproduction; any observed gluts stem from relative overinvestment in particular due to erroneous entrepreneurial foresight, not a failure of . Mill clarified that while partial overproduction could occur—such as excess supply in one sector forcing adjustments elsewhere—these are equilibrating mechanisms, with unsold representing real wealth awaiting rechanneling rather than evidence of systemic insufficiency. Critics of general glut theories, like Thomas Malthus, were countered by Ricardo's insistence that and naturally expand demand in tandem with supply, preventing chronic imbalances absent external shocks. This perspective underpinned classical advocacy for policies, viewing overproduction alarms as often rooted in mercantilist confusions between money and real goods, where monetary contractions might mimic gluts but resolve via deflationary adjustments restoring real . Empirical observations of 19th-century trade cycles were thus attributed to temporary disproportions, such as surges, rather than inherent capitalist tendencies toward breakdown, aligning with Say's emphasis on as the driver of economic expansion.

Marxist Theory of Overproduction

In Marxist theory, overproduction constitutes the fundamental cause of periodic economic crises under , arising from the inherent contradictions in the capitalist . posited that capitalists, driven by competition and the imperative to maximize , perpetually expand production beyond the limits of sustainable at profitable prices. This overproduction is not absolute scarcity of consumers but relative: an excess of commodities and capital relative to the valorization , where extraction from wage labor fails to generate sufficient profits to sustain expanded . Central to this framework is the tendency of the rate of profit to fall (TRPF), detailed in Capital, Volume III. Marx explained that competition compels capitalists to increase the organic composition of capital—the ratio of constant capital (machinery, raw materials) to variable capital (labor power)—through technological advancements that boost productivity. Since surplus value derives solely from unpaid labor in the variable capital portion, the rising share of constant capital dilutes the profit rate, calculated as surplus value divided by total advanced capital (s / (c + v), where c is constant capital and v is variable capital). This tendency manifests unevenly across sectors, leading to disproportional overinvestment and subsequent crises when profitability collapses. Marx distinguished overproduction crises from mere theories, which some later interpreters emphasized, arguing that the root contradiction lies in production for profit rather than use-value. Wages, suppressed to maximize , limit the working class's , but crises erupt not from absolute but from capitalists' refusal to sell below value, resulting in unsold inventories, bankruptcies, and mass . Engels echoed this in Capital's revisions, noting historical cycles like the 1847-1848 crisis as validations of overproduction dynamics. Resolution of these crises, per Marx, requires the violent devaluation of capital—through destruction of , falling prices, and proletarian immiseration—to restore the preconditions for accumulation. Counteracting factors, such as cheaper constant capital or intensified exploitation, temporarily mitigate the TRPF but exacerbate contradictions long-term, culminating in ever-deeper systemic upheavals. Lenin later applied this to as "overproduction of capital," where monopolies crises abroad, delaying but not averting .

Austrian School and Malinvestment Analysis

The , through its theory, explains economic crises not as instances of general overproduction but as corrections of malinvestments stemming from artificial credit expansion. In this framework, central banks or lower interest rates below the natural rate—determined by individuals' time preferences for saving versus consumption—falsely signaling abundant savings. Entrepreneurs, responding to these distorted price signals, allocate resources toward longer-term, capital-intensive projects in higher-order production stages (e.g., machinery and raw materials) that exceed actual voluntary savings, creating an unsustainable boom. What manifests as sectoral "overproduction," such as excess capacity in capital goods, reflects this misallocation rather than a failure of , as consumer goods sectors often face relative shortages during the expansion. Ludwig von Mises formalized this analysis in The Theory of Money and Credit (1912), arguing that credit-induced booms generate malinvestments by diverting factors of production from sustainable uses aligned with consumer preferences. In Human Action (1949), Mises elaborated that such expansions lead to "investments in wrong lines," where the boom's artificial prosperity collapses into recession as rising prices and tightening credit reveal the imbalance, necessitating liquidation of unviable projects to restore equilibrium. This process, Mises contended, corrects the errors of the boom, with depressions serving as periods of readjustment rather than inherent flaws in market coordination. Friedrich Hayek extended Mises's insights in Prices and Production (1931), emphasizing the structure of production as a temporal sequence of stages from higher-order (distant from consumption) to lower-order goods. Monetary expansion elongates this structure unsustainably by boosting demand for producers' goods while diverting resources from consumers' goods, resulting in overinvestment relative to savings; Hayek explicitly rejected overproduction as the crisis cause, attributing downturns instead to the reversal of these distortions when credit growth halts. For instance, he noted that crises arise from a mismatch where "the available supply of intermediate products... is greater than the demand for the former in relation to the demand for the latter," not from absolute excess supply. This relative overinvestment in capital leads to forced savings and eventual contraction, underscoring the Austrian view that fiat money and intervention, not inherent capitalist tendencies, precipitate cycles.

Causes and Mechanisms

Relative Overproduction in Specific Sectors

Relative overproduction occurs when the supply of in a particular sector exceeds the for those , while production in other sectors may align more closely with needs, leading to imbalances in . This phenomenon arises from producers directing disproportionate capital and labor toward sectors perceived as profitable based on current price signals, only for demand to shift due to changing preferences, technological advancements, or saturation. For instance, if entrepreneurs overinvest in while underproducing shirts and shoes in response to temporary trends, a glut of unsold depresses prices in that sector, freeing resources for reallocation but potentially causing temporary and idle capacity specific to production. Key causes include forecasting errors, where lagged production processes—such as multi-year investments in —fail to anticipate declines in demand growth. In the U.S. lumber industry, post-1914 expansion driven by wartime demand resulted in relative overproduction by mid-1915, as supply outpaced peacetime absorption, driving prices down to levels comparable to the 1907-1908 despite overall economic recovery. Technological gains can exacerbate this by accelerating output in one sector faster than parallel demand increases elsewhere; for example, in has historically led to relative overproduction of farm commodities compared to industrial goods, prompting price collapses and farm distress without aggregate excess. Herd-like investment behavior amplifies sectoral imbalances, as multiple firms respond to rising prices by expanding capacity simultaneously, creating a boom followed by bust confined to that industry. Mechanisms of propagation involve falling sectoral prices signaling malinvestment, which, if resources are not swiftly redirected, can spill over through supply chain linkages—such as reduced inputs from upstream suppliers—but remains resolvable via market price adjustments that incentivize shifts toward underproduced goods. Empirical data from interwar periods show such relative overproductions in consumer durables, where excess fixed capital in automobiles relative to complementary infrastructure like roads contributed to localized gluts, though overall output contraction required broader corrections.

Monetary and Credit-Induced Distortions

In , expansions of credit by central banks distort intertemporal price signals, particularly by artificially suppressing interest rates below their natural equilibrium level determined by voluntary savings. This misallocation encourages entrepreneurs to initiate more time-intensive, capital-heavy production processes than consumer preferences and available real savings can sustain, fostering an unsustainable boom in higher-order goods like machinery and . The resulting malinvestments manifest as relative overproduction in specific sectors, where output expands beyond what future demand can absorb at profitable prices once the credit-fueled expansion reverses. Empirical patterns support this mechanism, with credit booms often correlating to heightened resource misallocation across firms and sectors, amplifying vulnerability to downturns. For instance, excessive lending to non-tradable or capital-intensive industries during periods of loose leads to inflated capacity that contracts sharply when rates normalize, as seen in analyses of post-2000s credit surges. Historical data from the indicate that [Federal Reserve](/page/Federal Reserve) credit expansion in the , which doubled the money supply between 1921 and 1929, fueled overinvestment in sectors like automobiles and , contributing to excess capacity exposed in the ensuing contraction. Mainstream econometric studies, while sometimes attributing such distortions to shortfalls rather than supply-side malinvestment, confirm that rapid growth to productive sectors predicts lower medium-term output when it exceeds sustainable levels. Resolution of these distortions requires liquidation of unviable projects, but central banks' tendency to prolong low rates—evident in repeated post-2008 episodes—exacerbates overcapacity by delaying necessary reallocation. This dynamic underscores a causal chain from creation to sectoral imbalances, where -induced availability overrides , prioritizing short-term growth over long-run coordination. Critics from interventionist perspectives, often prevailing in academic and circles, downplay these supply-side effects in favor of fiscal stimuli, yet cross-country links unchecked expansions to amplified busts without addressing underlying malinvestment.

Government Intervention and Subsidies

Government interventions, including direct subsidies, price supports, and bailouts, distort price signals and , often incentivizing production levels that exceed market and . By artificially reducing the financial risks and costs of production, these measures encourage firms and farmers to expand capacity without regard for profitability or consumer preferences, resulting in relative overproduction in targeted sectors. Economic indicates that subsidies misalign prices with true production costs, leading to inefficient capital deployment and persistent surpluses that depress market prices and hinder adjustment to equilibrium. In , U.S. federal subsidies exemplify this dynamic, with programs like and direct payments—totaling approximately $20-30 billion annually in recent years—prompting overproduction of commodities such as corn, soybeans, and . These incentives distort planting decisions, drawing marginal lands into cultivation and inflating land values, while generating surpluses that require government storage or export dumping to manage. For instance, heavy subsidization of corn has contributed to excess output, lowering prices and fostering dependency on further interventions rather than market-driven diversification. Industrial subsidies similarly foster overcapacity by propping up uncompetitive producers, as seen in sectors like and renewables where government support sustains operations despite weak demand. In , state subsidies have been linked to excess capacity in solar panel manufacturing, where firms receive grants and low-interest loans that depress investment returns and global prices, crowding out unsubsidized competitors. Empirical studies confirm that such policies increase subsidized output while reducing overall , as expansions outpace absorption by markets. Broader interventions, such as bailouts during downturns, exacerbate overproduction by preventing the exit of inefficient entities, creating " firms" that continue outputting goods amid gluts. This delays necessary reallocation to higher-value uses, prolonging imbalances in business cycles. Critics from free-market perspectives argue these measures undermine Schumpeterian , prioritizing short-term stability over long-term efficiency.

Empirical Examples

The Great Depression (1929–1939)

The Great Depression commenced with the Wall Street Crash on October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday), when the plummeted 12% in a single day, following a speculative bubble inflated by margin lending and credit expansion during the 1920s. This event triggered a cascade of bank failures, , and contraction, with U.S. real output declining sharply from late 1929 onward, as evidenced by econometric analysis linking the crash to an acceleration in the downturn. Industrial production, which had surged during the decade's boom—reaching peaks in manufacturing and consumer durables like automobiles—collapsed, reflecting imbalances from prior overexpansion in capacity relative to sustainable demand. Sectoral overproduction was particularly acute in , where post-World War I and acreage expansion generated surpluses that depressed prices well before ; U.S. farm cash income fell from $438 million in to $229 million by , and continued declining into amid global competition. Farmers responded by increasing output to maintain revenues, further glutting markets and eroding , which econometric studies estimate contributed 10–30% to the 1930 output drop through reduced farm spending. In , techniques amplified output in autos and appliances during the , but weakening consumer demand—exacerbated by income disparities and credit contraction—left inventories unsold, prompting layoffs and factory shutdowns as firms liquidated excess capacity. Austrian economists, such as those analyzing malinvestment, attributed these patterns not to inherent capitalist overproduction but to artificial distortions from low interest rates set by the in the , which encouraged unsustainable investments in long-term capital goods over consumer-oriented production, necessitating a corrective bust. Empirical critiques of blanket overproduction narratives, including in global , highlight that terms of trade declines were not universal but tied to specific policy-induced imbalances rather than absolute excess supply. By 1933, peaked near 25%, and intensified as prices fell amid and reduced , prolonging the adjustment of overbuilt sectors like and . The episode underscored how credit-fueled booms can generate relative overproduction—misallocation across time preferences—rather than general gluts, with recovery delayed until wartime mobilization in the late .

Post-War Industrial Booms and Busts

In the , the immediate post-World War II period featured a robust industrial expansion driven by pent-up consumer demand, , and exports for European reconstruction, with production reaching 57 percent of global output by the late . This surge involved massive capacity investments, including and efficiency upgrades, but as wartime backlogs cleared and import competition grew, excess supply pressures mounted by the mid-1950s. The 1957–1958 , marked by a 3.7 percent GDP contraction and peaking at 7.5 percent, highlighted overproduction dynamics, particularly through inventory buildups in and durable goods sectors that forced widespread and plant idling. European economies, rebuilding from wartime devastation via the Marshall Plan's $13 billion in aid from 1948 to 1952, rapidly scaled up and output to support infrastructure and manufacturing revival. production in rose from 200 million tons in to over 500 million tons by 1957, while capacity expanded similarly amid subsidized investments. However, this led to structural overcapacity, culminating in the 1959 steel recession and a coal crisis of oversupply, where global price declines and shifting energy demands to oil exposed uncompetitive facilities, prompting the to impose production quotas and begin capacity rationalization. Japan's industrial miracle, characterized by average annual GDP growth of 9.3 percent from 1956 to 1973, relied on high investment rates exceeding 30 percent of GDP, directed by the Ministry of International Trade and Industry toward heavy sectors like (output tripling from 1955 to 1970) and . These policies fostered boom phases with excess capacity expansion during demand peaks, but recurring busts ensued, as seen in steel gluts during the shocks and amplified by the asset bubble's loose , which inflated and encouraged overinvestment. The bubble's 1991 collapse triggered a banking and the "Lost Decade," with industrial overcapacity persisting due to zombie firm support, resulting in utilization rates dropping below 70 percent in the and minimal net job creation in .

Modern Cases: China's Overcapacity in Steel, Solar, and EVs (2000s–2025)

China's industry exemplifies overcapacity driven by extensive state subsidies, including subsidized energy, inputs, and access to cheap credit, which expanded production far beyond domestic and global demand starting in the early . By the mid-2010s, China's steel output accounted for over half of global production, with rates dropping below 70% amid pledges to cut 100-150 million metric tons that were repeatedly unmet. This surplus led to exports of low-priced , undercutting competitors in Europe and elsewhere, prompting anti-dumping measures and tariffs from the and . By 2025, global steel overcapacity was projected to exceed 680 million metric tons, surpassing total steel output, with carbon border adjustment mechanisms raising costs for high-emission producers and hindering decarbonization efforts in importing nations; China's subsidization rate—measured as a of firm revenues—standing at ten times that of countries, distorting markets. In the solar photovoltaic sector, 's industrial policies from the onward, including subsidies for expansion, resulted in production capacity tripling worldwide between 2021 and 2023, predominantly in , outstripping installation even under aggressive net-zero scenarios, with severe excess capacity prompting low-price dumping and policy controls on further expansion. Domestic overcapacity intensified by 2025, with output exceeding amid weakening internal , sparking collapses and industry calls for self-regulation to avoid "malignant ." Exports of surplus panels flooded global markets at below-cost s, contributing to surpluses and tensions, as subsidies post-2015 amplified capacity beyond sustainable levels, echoing patterns in where excess fed downstream distortions like shipbuilding declines abroad. This state-directed push, prioritizing scale over profitability, has locked resources into unviable expansion, with utilization rates strained despite 's dominance in three-quarters of global solar since 2010. The (EV) and battery industry mirrors these dynamics, with subsidies initiated in 2009—totaling billions for production and consumer incentives—propelling to dominant global market shares over 60% by the early , but fostering overcapacity as domestic demand saturated, price wars eroded margins, and export surges triggered anti-subsidy probes. Although direct subsidies formally ended in 2022, implicit support via loans and policies sustained factory builds, leading to excess capacity estimated in the millions of vehicles annually by 2025, prompting government warnings against further frenzy. This overproduction has driven aggressive exports, distorting international markets through dumping and eliciting provisional tariffs from the EU (up to 37.6%) and U.S. measures, as Beijing's model exports deflationary pressures rather than absorbing domestic weaknesses. China's chemicals and petrochemicals sectors have experienced similar issues, with rapid capacity expansion—such as additions of 18.7 million tonnes per year in key areas—outpacing limited demand growth, leading to weakening margins, global oversupply, and intense competition. Across these sectors, 's approach—rooted in mercantilist —has amplified trade surpluses by $775 billion in from 2019 to 2023, challenging global competitors and underscoring how non-market distortions perpetuate cycles of excess beyond natural demand signals.

Debates on Inevitability

Claims of Inherent Capitalist Instability

Marxist theorists, following , assert that 's structure generates recurrent overproduction crises as an intrinsic feature, stemming from the tension between the unbounded expansion of production aimed at extraction and the limited purchasing power of the . In this view, production under is anarchic and profit-driven, lacking centralized planning to align output with societal needs, resulting in gluts of unsellable commodities relative to effective (solvent) . Marx described this as the bourgeois containing "a barrier to the free development [of the forces of production], a barrier that comes to the surface in crises, and, in particular, in overproduction," where the system's logic compels capitalists to overaccumulate capital beyond market absorption capacity. The mechanism hinges on the tendency of the to fall, prompting intensified and technological that boosts but depresses prices and profitability, exacerbating overproduction. Marx emphasized that "the ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the and restricted consumption of as opposed to the drive of capitalist production," distinguishing this from mere by framing overproduction as capitalism's unique pathology—production exceeding not absolute needs, but profitable realization of value. Adherents argue this dynamic manifests in boom-bust cycles, with resolutions temporary via mechanisms like for new markets or destruction of excess capital during slumps, but ultimately intensifying contradictions toward potential breakdown. Historical instances invoked include the 1930s , where factories idled and goods spoiled amid widespread , interpreted not as demand failure from external shocks but as systemic overproduction revealing capitalism's inability to sustain without . Similarly, the 2008 financial meltdown is cited by some Marxists as a modern iteration, with overinvestment in and leading to a broader realization . These claims, rooted in analyses like Marx's Capital (Volumes 1–3, 1867–1894), maintain that such instabilities are not aberrations but inevitable outcomes of value production under private ownership, contrasting with pre-capitalist economies prone to underproduction scarcities.

Evidence of Market Self-Correction and Adaptation

In commodity markets, triggers declines that erode producer margins, prompting high-cost operators to idle facilities, reduce investment, or exit entirely, thereby contracting supply until equilibrium is restored. This mechanism, observed in deregulated sectors, contrasts with subsidized industries where interventions prolong distortions. For instance, during the 1986 oil price collapse, crude benchmarks plummeted to approximately $12 per barrel from over $25 earlier in the decade, halting non-OPEC production growth as marginal fields in regions like the and became uneconomic; rigs declined by over 50% in the U.S. alone, and global spare capacity absorbed the glut, enabling s to rebound to $18–$20 by 1988 without comprehensive cartel enforcement beyond quotas. The U.S. sector in the and provides further illustration, where overcapacity—exacerbated by global competition and stagnant —drove prices below costs for integrated blast-furnace mills, leading to capacity reductions of about 25 million tons annually through closures and bankruptcies between 1982 and 1987. Market-driven complemented this contraction: minimills employing furnaces and scrap inputs, with 20–30% lower than traditional methods, expanded from 20% of U.S. output in 1980 to over 50% by 2000, reallocating resources toward efficiency and restoring sector viability amid minimal long-term reliance on trade barriers. Agricultural cycles similarly exhibit adaptive responses, albeit with lags due to biological production timelines. Post-World War I overproduction in U.S. grains and depressed prices by 40–50% from 1920 peaks, triggering farm foreclosures (over 13% of mortgaged farms by 1929) and acreage abandonment, which reduced planted corn hectares by 15% between 1920 and 1929 and stabilized prices absent prior interventions; such adjustments underscore how distress sales and land idling realign supply with demand, fostering subsequent booms in underproduced alternatives like soybeans.

Economic Impacts and Resolutions

Effects on Business Cycles and Employment

Overproduction, particularly when induced by artificial credit expansion or subsidies, precipitates downturns in business cycles by generating sectoral imbalances where supply outstrips sustainable , leading to inventory accumulation, price in affected goods, and eroded profit margins. Firms respond by curtailing capital expenditures and production scales, which manifests as widespread layoffs and heightened as excess labor capacity emerges in overexpanded industries. This adjustment amplifies cyclical contractions, as reduced feeds back into weaker , potentially extending the duration and severity of recessions until resources realign with genuine market signals. In , this dynamic arises from malinvestments during the boom phase, where low interest rates distort intertemporal preferences, fostering overproduction in higher-order capital without corresponding savings to sustain them. The ensuing bust enforces of unviable projects, displacing workers from mismatched employments and causing frictional and spikes—often reaching double-digit rates in historical episodes—as wages fail to adjust downward promptly due to institutional rigidities or policy interventions. Empirical patterns from sectoral shocks, such as fluctuations altering relative wages, confirm that such overcapacities correlate with short-term surges, as labor reallocates across industries. While short-term employment dislocations impose substantial costs, including lost output and erosion, the process theoretically enables longer-term efficiency gains through reallocation toward higher-productivity uses, though persistent high —exacerbated by wage floors or delayed price signals—can hinder swift recovery and prolong economic malaise. Evidence from analyses indicates that without mechanisms to facilitate rapid labor mobility, overproduction-induced busts contribute to elevated natural unemployment rates during transitions, underscoring the role of flexible markets in mitigating these effects.

Price Signals, Innovation, and Resource Reallocation

In instances of overproduction, where supply exceeds at prevailing , market decline, signaling to producers the need for corrective action to restore equilibrium. This incentivizes inefficient or marginal producers to curtail output or exit the market, thereby freeing capital and labor for reallocation to sectors with higher marginal . According to supply-side economic analysis, such price adjustments prevent persistent gluts by aligning production with consumer valuations, as falling expand and stimulate demand while compressing profit margins that reward only the most efficient operators. Declining prices further catalyze by imposing competitive pressures that favor technological advancements and process improvements aimed at reducing unit costs or creating . Joseph Schumpeter's concept of posits that economic downturns associated with overcapacity destroy obsolete capacities, paving the way for entrepreneurial that reallocates resources toward novel applications with greater value creation. from the solar photovoltaic industry illustrates this dynamic: Chinese state-subsidized overproduction from the mid-2000s onward drove global module prices down by over 89% between 2010 and 2020, compelling surviving firms to innovate in cell efficiency, bifacial designs, and integrated systems, which accelerated deployment and cost reductions beyond initial expectations. Resource reallocation manifests through labor mobility and capital redeployment, often hastened by and consolidation in overproducing sectors. For instance, in the U.S. steel industry during the 1970s-1980s, import-driven overcapacity and falling domestic prices led to the closure of inefficient minimills and integrated plants, reallocating workers to service and high-tech while spurring innovations like technology that halved energy use per ton by the 1990s. This process, while causing short-term dislocations, enhances long-term efficiency by directing scarce resources away from low-return activities, as evidenced by Austrian economic critiques of interventionist delays that prolong malinvestments. Overall, unobstructed price signals facilitate a Schumpeterian gale of restructuring, converting overproduction crises into drivers of sustained growth rather than permanent stagnation.

Policy Responses

Interventionist Measures and Their Outcomes

The U.S. of 1933 represented an early interventionist effort to combat overproduction in during the , authorizing payments to farmers for plowing under crops and slaughtering to reduce supply and stabilize prices. The program disbursed over $1 billion in subsidies by 1936, temporarily boosting farm incomes by about 50% in participating sectors, though it drew ethical condemnation for destroying 10 million acres of crops and 6 million hogs amid widespread hunger. The invalidated key provisions in 1936 for exceeding federal authority, leading to a revised version, but critics argue such supply restrictions prolonged by interfering with rather than addressing deficient demand. In industrial contexts, the (NRA) under the sought to curb overproduction through industry codes limiting output and enforcing minimum prices, affecting over 500 industries by 1935. Outcomes were largely negative: the NRA stifled competition, raised costs for consumers and small firms, and failed to restore , with remaining above 14% until wartime mobilization; it was struck down as unconstitutional in 1935. Empirical analyses indicate these measures delayed necessary price adjustments and resource shifts, contributing to a slower recovery compared to market-driven corrections in prior downturns. China's state-directed interventions have both generated and attempted to mitigate overcapacity in sectors like , solar panels, and electric vehicles (EVs). Subsidies exceeding $100 billion annually since the 2000s fueled output surpassing 1 billion metric tons yearly by 2020—over half global production—leading to domestic gluts and export dumping. From 2016 onward, mandated capacity cuts, closing inefficient mills and consolidating firms, reducing crude overcapacity by about 150 million tons by 2020. However, enforcement has been uneven, with new "green" capacity additions offsetting reductions; overcapacity is projected to persist or grow through 2025, consuming less than half of global while exporting surpluses that depress international prices. In solar and EVs, Chinese authorities urged curbs in 2025 amid layoffs of 87,000 workers and firm bankruptcies, yet policy signals of continued subsidies have sustained output exceeding domestic needs by 30-50%. These efforts have yielded limited success, as state support redirects excess via exports, prompting retaliatory measures abroad and domestic deflationary pressures that eroded profits across . Protectionist tariffs serve as external interventions against foreign overproduction, exemplified by U.S. 25% duties on Chinese imports imposed in 2018 under Section 232, extended and expanded in 2025. These shielded domestic producers, adding about 12,000 jobs by 2019, but raised input costs for U.S. manufacturers by $900 million monthly, offsetting gains with 75,000 lost jobs in steel-using sectors like autos and . Chinese rerouted through third countries mitigated direct impacts, while global prices fell 20-30% due to persistent dumping, underscoring tariffs' inability to address root subsidies without international coordination. Similar tariffs on Chinese EVs in 2024, up to 37.6%, have slowed imports but not curbed China's overall expansion, highlighting interventions' role in escalating frictions over structural reforms.

Laissez-Faire Adjustments and Long-Term Growth

In approaches to overproduction, markets rely on price signals to prompt adjustments without government subsidies or bailouts, allowing falling prices and profits to deter further investment and force the exit of inefficient producers. This process, as described in Schumpeterian economics, facilitates , where excess capacity is liquidated, enabling resources to shift toward sectors with unmet demand and higher potential. Empirical analyses indicate that such unhindered reallocation accounts for over 50% of long-term growth in market economies, as innovations supplant obsolete technologies and capacities. A historical instance occurred during the 1920–1921 U.S. depression, triggered by postwar overexpansion in inventory and production amid wartime inflation. Federal policies under President Harding emphasized fiscal restraint, with federal spending cut by 50% from 1920 to 1922 and no significant stimulus or price controls imposed, permitting deflation to restore equilibrium. Unemployment peaked at 11.7% in 1921 but fell to 2.4% by 1923, coinciding with a rapid GNP recovery and the onset of the 1920s expansion, as wage and price flexibility cleared malinvestments without prolonging distortions. Schumpeterian growth models, validated by firm-level data across industries, demonstrate that periods of destructive adjustment from overcapacity correlate with accelerated rates, as surviving firms invest in process improvements and entrants exploit vacated niches. For example, cross-country regressions show economies with fewer and exit—hallmarks of regimes—exhibit 1–2% higher annual GDP growth over decades, driven by the reorientation of capital toward dynamic sectors like . This contrasts with interventionist delays, where propped-up capacity stifles such transitions, but evidence underscores that market-led corrections enhance and sustain compound growth. Over the long term, these adjustments promote resilience by weeding out low-return investments, fostering a toward high-yield opportunities that compound into broader prosperity. Studies of U.S. from 1970–2000 reveal that sectors experiencing capacity shakeouts via bankruptcies saw subsequent gains 20–30% above stagnant peers, as labor and capital migrated to innovative applications such as . Thus, mechanisms transform overproduction crises into catalysts for structural upgrades, underpinning endogenous growth without reliance on exogenous policy props.

Broader Implications

Relation to Environmental Narratives

Environmental narratives often frame economic overproduction as a driver of ecological overshoot, asserting that capitalist production exceeds planetary by prioritizing endless accumulation over sustainable limits. In this view, surplus output generates streams that pollute air, water, and , while resource extraction for unsold goods accelerates and ; for instance, overproduction in sectors like and contributes to an estimated 92 million tons of annual textile , much of which ends up in landfills or incinerators, releasing and toxins. Eco-Marxist theorists extend this critique by linking overproduction crises to a "," where the of under disrupts biogeochemical cycles, as seen in depletion from scaled to meet perceived surpluses. Such arguments, drawn from analyses of industrial , posit that resolving overproduction requires systemic to align production with ecological throughput constraints rather than market signals. Empirical evidence, however, challenges the inevitability of overproduction-induced degradation, highlighting how wealth generated from high-output economies enables technological decoupling of growth from . The Environmental Kuznets Curve, supported by cross-country data from 1960–2010, demonstrates an inverted U-shaped trajectory where intensities—such as emissions—rise during early industrialization but decline post-per capita income thresholds around $8,000–$10,000, as innovation in cleaner processes and regulations takes hold; this pattern holds in 70% of studied pollutants across nations. Overproduction gluts, rather than causing permanent harm, trigger price adjustments that incentivize efficiency, as evidenced by post-2008 manufacturing contractions reducing use without proportional output loss. These dynamics suggest environmental narratives may overstate causal links by conflating temporary surpluses with chronic unsustainability, often drawing from ideologically aligned academic sources that discount market-driven adaptations. Critics of dominant environmental framings argue that overproduction rhetoric serves agendas but ignores first-order data on human welfare gains: global absolute fell from 42% in 1981 to under 10% by 2019 amid rising production volumes, correlating with expanded protected areas (now 17% of terrestrial land) and shares surpassing 30% in by 2023, funded by economic surpluses. While externalities like unpriced emissions warrant correction, historical precedents—such as U.S. air quality improvements under the Clean Air Act despite GDP tripling since 1970—indicate that policy-augmented markets, not production halts, better address degradation without invoking unsubstantiated crisis inevitability. This perspective underscores a causal realism where overproduction's environmental ties are mediated by institutional responses, not inherent systemic .

Elite Overproduction as a Sociopolitical Variant

denotes the condition in which a society's output of individuals qualified or aspiring for status—typically measured by advanced , accumulation, or administrative roles—exceeds the limited supply of high-status positions, fostering intra-elite rivalry and sociopolitical strain. This concept forms a core element of structural-demographic theory, pioneered by , who quantifies it through historical datasets on , inequality, and structures. In Turchin's framework, elite expansion during prosperity phases outpaces contraction during stagnation, yielding "surplus" elites willing to undermine established order for advancement. The mechanism operates via intensified competition for scarce resources like political offices or economic rents, which erodes cooperative norms and incentivizes factionalism. Frustrated elite aspirants, facing downward mobility, often form counter-s or back populist movements, amplifying state fiscal burdens through demands and escalating as peaceful avenues close. Turchin's cliodynamic models, drawing from centuries of European and data, correlate with cycles of instability lasting decades, where elite numbers relative to positions rise 2-3 times before peaks in . For example, in medieval prior to the 17th-century , noble lineages proliferated amid land scarcity, doubling effective elite claimants by the early 1600s and precipitating partisan strife. Historical precedents abound in premodern states, where overproduction precipitated regime crises. In the Warring States period of ancient China (475-221 BCE), the surfeit of educated scholars and nobles amid fragmented polities fueled incessant warfare and philosophical upheaval, resolved only by Qin unification after elite consolidation. Similarly, the French Revolution of 1789 stemmed partly from an oversupply of noblesse d'épée and robe, with administrative posts stagnant while aspirants swelled via primogeniture evasion, leading to 18th-century debt spirals and revolutionary alliances between disaffected elites and masses. These cases illustrate causal pathways: elite-driven fiscal extraction heightens popular immiseration, while internal elite schisms weaken repression capacity, culminating in state breakdown. In contemporary contexts, Turchin applies the theory to Western democracies, positing as a driver of polarization since the . In the United States, the proportion of adults with bachelor's degrees rose from 10.7% in 1970 to 37.7% by 2022, while top-income brackets (e.g., 0.1% wealth share) captured disproportionate gains, leaving many credentialed individuals in precarious "" roles despite expectations of ascent. This mismatch correlates with rising partisan animosity, as measured by Turchin's instability index peaking near 2020 amid events like the Capitol riot, echoing historical intra- contests. Evidence includes administrative bloat in sectors like higher education, where U.S. non-teaching staff grew 28% from 2010-2020 versus 6% enrollment rise, signaling diluted elite opportunities. Critics challenge the empirical fit for modern affluent societies, arguing that high among degree-holders (e.g., U.S. for graduates at 2.1% in 2023) and elastic expansion via tech/finance negate true "surplus." , for instance, contends Turchin's metrics overlook adaptive wage premiums for skilled labor, attributing instability more to cultural divides than demographic mismatch. Yet Turchin's longitudinal analyses, validated against pre-20th-century benchmarks, underscore that overproduction's destabilizing effects manifest gradually, often via norm erosion before overt , as seen in Chile's 2019 unrest where wage stagnation amid inequality fueled protests. Resolutions historically involve contraction through catastrophe (e.g., wars numbers) or reforms expanding positions, though modern interventions like risk prolonging disequilibrium.

References

  1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/oversupply.asp
  2. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/principles-econ/overproduction
  3. https://www.netimpact.org/blog/overproduction-overconsumption-consequences
  4. https://fee.org/articles/theres-no-such-thing-as-overproduction/
  5. https://fiveable.me/key-terms/apush/overproduction
  6. https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/capitalisms-overproduction-problem-a-primer
  7. https://www.qalara.com/blog/the-dangers-of-overproduction/
  8. https://peterturchin.com/structural-demographic-theory/
  9. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10621949/
  10. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0299063
  11. https://ligsuniversity.com/overproduction/
  12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882465
  13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/45334146
  14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1172704
  15. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/123281/1/MPRA_paper_123281.pdf
  16. https://marxist.com/underconsumption-and-marxist-theory-of-crisis.htm
  17. https://critiqueofcrisistheory.com/crisis-theories-underconsumption/
  18. https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/tobacco-in-colonial-virginia/
  19. https://fee.org/articles/crop-controls-and-indian-raids-in-colonial-virginia/
  20. https://webpages.cs.luc.edu/~dennis/106/106-Bkgr/20-Industrial-Rev.pdf
  21. https://economichardship.org/2023/05/overproduction-and-its-discontents/
  22. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2014/12/crisis-chronicles-the-panic-of-1819americas-first-great-economic-crisis/
  23. https://www.economic-historian.com/p/panic-of-1819
  24. https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3531
  25. https://lehrmaninstitute.org/history/Andrew-Jackson-1837.html
  26. https://www.familysearch.org/en/blog/living-through-panic-1837
  27. https://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2015/06/crisis-chronicles-railway-mania-the-hungry-forties-and-the-commercial-crisis-of-1847/
  28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23738299
  29. https://www.elgaronline.com/edcollchap/book/9781784715489/C23.xml
  30. http://la.utexas.edu/users/hcleaver/368/368SayTreatiseBk1Ch15table.pdf
  31. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Say.html
  32. https://cruel.org/econthought/essays/classic/glut.html
  33. https://oll.libertyfund.org/publications/reading-room/2023-11-07-candela-mill-on-says-law
  34. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/says-law.asp
  35. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm
  36. https://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/1960/rateofprofit.htm
  37. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch25.htm
  38. https://isreview.org/issues/32/crisis_theory/
  39. https://mises.org/mises-wire/austrian-business-cycle-theory-explained
  40. https://www.econlib.org/library/Mises/HmA/msHmA20.html
  41. https://cdn.mises.org/prices_and_production_and_other_works.pdf
  42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25118339
  43. https://fee.org/articles/lord-keynes-and-says-law/
  44. https://ekipbg.com/en/keynes-zakonyt-na-say/
  45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1882520
  46. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1809719
  47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1230777
  48. https://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/c6abc.htm
  49. https://mises.org/quarterly-journal-austrian-economics/explaining-malinvestment-and-overinvestment
  50. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2002/wp0202.pdf
  51. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002205312030003X
  52. https://fee.org/articles/monetary-policy-disasters-of-the-twentieth-century/
  53. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/allaboutfinance/why-credit-booms-go-bad
  54. https://cdn.mises.org/The%2520Austrian%2520Theory%2520of%2520the%2520Trade%2520Cycle%2520and%2520Other%2520Essays_3.pdf
  55. https://departments.gmu.edu/rae/archives/VOL19_4_2006/6-Mulligan.pdf
  56. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w14049/w14049.pdf
  57. https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/fandd/issues/2023/06/B2B-subsidy-wars-elizabeth-van-heuvelen
  58. https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/915/economics/effect-of-government-subsidies/
  59. https://www.cato.org/briefing-paper/cutting-federal-farm-subsidies
  60. https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/agriculture/subsidies
  61. https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/primer-agriculture-subsidies-and-their-influence-on-the-composition-of-u-s-food-supply-and-consumption/
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261923013235
  63. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-the-us-should-address-chinese-overcapacity-and-its-impact-on-international-trade/
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S093936252400013X
  65. https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/stock-market-crash-of-1929
  66. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Reprints/CRomerQJE1990.pdf
  67. https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c12794/revisions/c12794.rev2.pdf
  68. https://www3.mnhs.org/mnopedia/search/index/agricultural-depression-1920-1934
  69. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/farm-product-prices-redistribution-and-the-early-us-great-depression/C6328C8469E09F4564AA4F8DF2E1E881
  70. https://eh.net/encyclopedia/the-u-s-economy-in-the-1920s/
  71. https://www.auburn.edu/~garriro/r31parker.htm
  72. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3874910
  73. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Reprints/The%2520Nation%2520in%2520Depression.pdf
  74. https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zyhttrd/revision/1
  75. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/past-recessions.asp
  76. https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/kal438/KarenJAlter2/ECJsPolitical_Power_files/ECSCTheory%2526Reality.pdf
  77. https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1991/9112/911208.PDF
  78. https://oxfordre.com/asianhistory/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190277727.001.0001/acrefore-9780190277727-e-688
  79. https://usw.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Broken-Promises-2017.pdf
  80. https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/OvercapacityReport2016_R3.pdf
  81. https://merics.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/MERICS%2520Report%2520Overcapacities_2025%2520final.pdf
  82. https://www.steelorbis.com/steel-news/latest-news/oecd-warns-global-steel-overcapacity-could-surpass-680-million-mt-in-2025-threatening-decarbonisation-goals-1418220.htm
  83. https://merics.org/en/report/beyond-overcapacity-chinese-style-modernization-and-clash-economic-models
  84. https://www.oecd.org/en/about/news/press-releases/2025/05/surging-excess-capacity-threatens-steel-market-stability-employment-and-decarbonisation-plans.html
  85. https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/china-spare-solar-climate-energy-opportunity/
  86. https://ember-energy.org/chapter/how-chinas-transition-is-reshaping-the-global-energy-landscape/
  87. https://www.opis.com/resources/energy-market-news-from-opis/chinas-solar-installations-slow-on-policy-pressure/
  88. https://www.opis.com/blog/solar-photovoltaic-overcapacity-sparks-market-turmoil-in-china/
  89. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/china-urges-solar-industry-regulate-090305728.html
  90. https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/china-can-decarbonise-world-even-wont-fix-its-overcapacity-problem
  91. https://orcasia.org/article/1091/sources-and-impacts-of-chinas-industrial-overcapacity
  92. https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/02/21/1068880/how-did-china-dominate-electric-cars-policy/
  93. https://insideevs.com/news/772659/china-ev-overcapacity-byd-government-subsidies/
  94. https://theconversation.com/battle-of-the-giants-the-eu-and-u-s-are-concerned-about-chinas-industrial-overcapacity-239713
  95. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/02/business/china-electric-vehicles-overcapacity.html
  96. https://manufacturing-today.com/news/the-eu-and-us-challenge-chinas-overcapacity-in-electric-vehicles-and-solar/
  97. https://thediplomat.com/2024/08/chinas-ev-overcapacity-is-inevitable/
  98. https://www.icis.com/explore/resources/chemical-market-overcapacity/
  99. https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-petrochemical-sector-set-expand-even-losses-deepen-2025-08-14/
  100. https://rhg.com/research/how-chinas-overcapacity-holds-back-emerging-economies/
  101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21598282.2023.2296167
  102. https://faculty.rsu.edu/users/f/felwell/www/Theorists/Essays/Marx5.htm
  103. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1986/06/1986b_bpea_gately_adelman_griffin.pdf
  104. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/tbp-004.pdf
  105. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc700066/m2/1/high_res_d/thesis.pdf
  106. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/dp/dp28.pdf
  107. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292122000411
  108. https://www.chicagofed.org/publications/chicago-fed-letter/2003/december-197
  109. https://fee.org/articles/supply-side-economics-and-austrian-economics/
  110. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CreativeDestruction.html
  111. https://www.bruegel.org/analysis/how-innovation-competition-exacerbating-global-overcapacity
  112. https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2025/08/04/non-stop-solar-innovation-despite-module-oversupply/
  113. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1026&context=econrealestatefacpub
  114. https://mises.org/online-book/introduction-austrian-economics/5-market-and-market-prices
  115. https://www.anbound.com/Section/ArticleView_7982_1.htm
  116. https://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/politics/great-depression-government-response.php
  117. https://ari.aynrand.org/the-great-depression-and-the-role-of-government-intervention/
  118. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Economics/Introductory_Comprehensive_Economics/Economics_-_Theory_Through_Applications/22%253A_The_Great_Depression/22.06%253A_Policy_Interventions_and_the_Great_Depression
  119. https://solarvision.org/china-says-solar-sector-needs-to-curb-overcapacity/
  120. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/06/china-overcapacity-instability-home-and-abroad-rail-housing
  121. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-steel-and-aluminum-tariffs-wont-solve-chinese-dumping-problem
  122. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/021716/how-china-impacts-global-steel-industry.asp
  123. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/china-models-fatal-flaw-lizzi-lee
  124. https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/publications/creative%2520destruction.pdf
  125. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2025/10/advanced-economicsciencesprize2025.pdf
  126. https://mises.org/mises-daily/forgotten-depression-1920
  127. https://fee.org/articles/the-depression-youve-never-heard-of-1920-1921/
  128. https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/sustained-growth-through-creative-destruction-nobel-laureates-philippe-aghion-and
  129. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2025/popular-information/
  130. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/marxism-and-ecology/
  131. https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=113806
  132. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665972720300271
  133. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-04820-0
  134. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8353307/
  135. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140988323002323
  136. https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/globalization-effects-on-environment
  137. https://peterturchin.com/elite-overproduction-brings-disorder/
  138. https://peterturchin.com/who-are-the-elites/
  139. https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/the-elite-overproduction-hypothesis-994
  140. https://medium.com/lessons-from-history/how-elite-overproduction-explains-the-american-revolution-72c9d8597f56
  141. https://www.niskanencenter.org/are-we-overproducing-elites-and-instability/
  142. https://www.persuasion.community/p/there-is-no-surplus-elite-in-america
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.