# How Poor is the Imperium of Man



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

Hi All:
After reading the Eldar "Path" series, it occurred to me as I read some literature on this "Imperium" that human society is almost completely backwards economically. Technological advancement and innovation, the true drivers of growth, are worse than stagnant. Between a grossly inefficient bureaucracy and highly corrupt local regimes, unthinkable amounts of resources are squandered on a daily basis. Capital accumulation and education also seem very low I do not even want to imagine what an average world's military budget looks like as a portion of GDP.

That said, it is entirely possible that the Imperium just appears to be poorer than it is because the setting tends to focus on extremely bad things happening all the time. What says Heresy?


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

LTKage said:


> Hi All:
> After reading the Eldar "Path" series, it occurred to me as I read some literature on this "Imperium" that human society is almost completely backwards economically. Technological advancement and innovation, the true drivers of growth, are worse than stagnant. Between a grossly inefficient bureaucracy and highly corrupt local regimes, unthinkable amounts of resources are squandered on a daily basis. Capital accumulation and education also seem very low I do not even want to imagine what an average world's military budget looks like as a portion of GDP.


You're generalizing here. There are some truly inefficient and poor worlds in the Imperium, there are also some truly advanced and wealthy ones. It's really hard to make blanket statements about the Imperium because it's composed of a million separate worlds, each with its own culture, economy, level of technological development, environment etc. The only thing tying them together is worship of the emperor, the imperial tithe, and the oversight of certain Imperial administrations. 

There is however no mandated standard of economic growth, technology level or anything. The Imperium doesn't care how a world is run as long as it abides by the Imperial Creed (which itself varies massively, you can worship the emperor as a sun god and not be a heretic) and provides the tithe. 



> That said, it is entirely possible that the Imperium just appears to be poorer than it is because the setting tends to focus on extremely bad things happening all the time. What says Heresy?


I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The setting, as a backdrop for a wargame, naturally focuses on the hell holes, the warzones, the horrible dystopian nightmares. We get glimpses of perfectly normal worlds however, with the advanced technology we'd expect of the 41st millenium. The Eisenhorn and Ravenor series for example. Know No Fear shows us a typical 40k shipyard and industrial hub. You often have to read between the lines and look at the stuff in the background to extrapolate how the Imperium functions. 

For example in one of the Soul Drinkers books there's an attack on a Mechanicus installation. The information to take away from this scene is that the Mechanicus has the ability to store information in some truly advanced ways; they've got solid data stacks, crystal based computers and all sorts of stuff. Or look at the data on the Leman Russ in the 3rd ed rulebook, it's got some really advanced systems in it.


----------



## Cowbellicus (Apr 10, 2012)

I'd argue that the Imperium is doing shockingly good all things considered. As you said, the amount of waste and loss that happens on a daily basis is bananas. How many billions of guardsmen die per day + who knows how much equipment?

The fact that the Imperium can keep that kind of pace up for ten millenia is incredible. It requires a proportionately huge amount of economic output. In modern times, maintaining a military is about one of the most expensive things you can do - and that's even in non-wartime. To keep a galactic-level civilization on a permanent war footing for that long? They have their economic shit _together_.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Cowbellicus said:


> The fact that the Imperium can keep that kind of pace up for ten millenia is incredible. It requires a proportionately huge amount of economic output. In modern times, maintaining a military is about one of the most expensive things you can do - and that's even in non-wartime. To keep a galactic-level civilization on a permanent war footing for that long? They have their economic shit _together_.


That's the thing, _most_ of the Imperium isn't under attack _most_ of the time. 

We get a distorted view of it because we're none too interested in a story of a Civilized World chilling and paying its annual tithes. We need action, and generally action where the combating forces have some level of parity. So it looks like every battle we see is a nitty gritty battle of annihilation or survival.


----------



## Over Two Meters Tall! (Nov 1, 2010)

Rems said:


> I think you've hit the nail on the head here. The setting, as a backdrop for a wargame, naturally focuses on the hell holes, the warzones, the horrible dystopian nightmares. We get glimpses of perfectly normal worlds however, with the advanced technology we'd expect of the 41st millenium. The Eisenhorn and Ravenor series for example. Know No Fear shows us a typical 40k shipyard and industrial hub. You often have to read between the lines and look at the stuff in the background to extrapolate how the Imperium functions.
> 
> For example in one of the Soul Drinkers books there's an attack on a Mechanicus installation. The information to take away from this scene is that the Mechanicus has the ability to store information in some truly advanced ways; they've got solid data stacks, crystal based computers and all sorts of stuff. Or look at the data on the Leman Russ in the 3rd ed rulebook, it's got some really advanced systems in it.


With the Space Marines being the primary focus of WH40K, most of their home worlds or recruitment worlds are intentionally feral; kept that way to ensure an environment that will breed the kinds of ultra-violent psychopaths perfect for recruitment as Astares. Even when they go into hive worlds, we're usually just seeing those that have been corrupted enough to necessitate SM intervention/destruction. It really does skew the optics on the state of the Imperium.

If anyone hears Beirut described (formerly) as the 'Paris of the Middle East' they might think that Paris is a bombed out war zone too, without the perspective on the history


----------



## Romanov77 (Jan 27, 2013)

I suppose Ultramar would have some nice welfare system...for an evil dystopian empire standards.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

Rems said:


> You're generalizing here. There are some truly inefficient and poor worlds in the Imperium, there are also some truly advanced and wealthy ones. It's really hard to make blanket statements about the Imperium because it's composed of a million separate worlds, each with its own culture, economy, level of technological development, environment etc. The only thing tying them together is worship of the emperor, the imperial tithe, and the oversight of certain Imperial administrations.


That's the name of the game with statistics--people living in Shanghai have average incomes as high as anywhere in the West but China is still a relatively poor country. There are more billionaires in India than there are in the UK (they're richer too) but there are 15 times as many people living in poverty as there are Britain. I imagine something like that writ large when I think of the Imperium of Man. For the most part, it looks like they're coasting on older technologies that they also think are "magical."

Looking at it from a table top perspective (bad idea, I know) and from the implied methods of the Imperial Guard, it seems to me to me that the Imperium has more spare men lying around than capital. While the individual trooper is no badly equipped he certainly doesn't stack up well against, say, the Tau. The Tau certainly invest a good deal of resources into their individual troopers--much better weapons and better armor for the average grunt. While the Lords of Terra and their commanders must have nerves of steel, I doubt that they would not give their troops better equipment unless there were some sort of cost consideration.

Finally, the war footing bit--yes, the Imperium definitely has their shit together but I imagine that the efficiencies are overcome more the the highly productive and rigorous nature of STCs than anything else. If you can make a bunch of things, you can lose sum too and still come out ahead.


----------



## Rems (Jun 20, 2011)

LTKage said:


> Looking at it from a table top perspective (bad idea, I know) and from the implied methods of the Imperial Guard, it seems to me to me that the Imperium has more spare men lying around than capital. While the individual trooper is no badly equipped he certainly doesn't stack up well against, say, the Tau. The Tau certainly invest a good deal of resources into their individual troopers--much better weapons and better armor for the average grunt. While the Lords of Terra and their commanders must have nerves of steel, I doubt that they would not give their troops better equipment unless there were some sort of cost consideration.


However there are far less Tau soldiers in a much smaller area of space. There are billions, perhaps trillions of Imperial Gaurdsmen scattered across the galaxy. Even then a Gaurdsman is at near parity with a Firewarrior. 

By contrast there are only millions of Fire Warriors concentrated in a small area. A Tau 'battle' 5000 to 18000 strong is a temporary formation. An standard Imperial Guard regiment is easily that size, a lot being far larger. 

The Tau can afford to equip their warriors so well individually and have a small enough empire that they can achieve it logistically. If they had the territory ans threats of the Imperium i bet you'd see the equipment standard fall. by the same token if the Imperium was just Segmentum Solar you'd see hellguns and carapace armour (or better) the standard equipment.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

Meh,to me the currency of the warhammer universe is military power. And while the Imperium might be a fascist,theocracy of ignorant space faring ********,say this for them. They make damn sure they churn out plenty of fire power,and thus are doing ok "economically" speaking.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

mob16151 said:


> Meh,to me the currency of the warhammer universe is military power. And while the Imperium might be a fascist,theocracy of ignorant space faring ********,say this for them. They make damn sure they churn out plenty of fire power,and thus are doing ok "economically" speaking.


Your view does not meet the commonly accepted parameters of wealth. Military power is certainly to be desired and respected but it does not readily improve the quality of life of individuals outside of security affairs. If you go with your definition, then countries that experience economic growth during a war or natural disaster are materially "better off." Putting it another way, your analysis would make North Korea look notably richer than it actually is.


----------



## Creator of Chaos (Feb 8, 2012)

I wouldn't Say the imperium is poor, for if it was it would have already crumbled long ago. The problem at large is wealth distribution and no Im not talking socialism before anyone brings it up. The wealth distribution problem is specicifcally stemed from the structure of local economies, Galactic warzones and the leaderships of those worlds in Question. For example a Planet on the edge of the eastern fringe under the threat of alien Invasion with a corrupt government isn't going to have much in the way of wealth. Likewise a Forgeworld whose government is the mechenicus maybe economically strong but none of the wealth is spread to the populace.

These are the worlds along with the ones that have been under constant attack are what you usally see as there gernally the most vulnerable either strategically or psycollogically and tell a great story. I'm sure there are many earthlike worlds out there where People enjoy decent lifestyles, The arts and joys of other cultures and do Idle things like Play warhammer, Collect Figurines and Watch movies without much worry at but outside a necron tomb awakening these worlds usally dont make for great scenes of battle on the tabletop and thus aren't heard about. Heck theres probably even a few worlds that engage in trade with Xenos Species.

The only real unifying facters through-out the imperium are the blackships collecting psykers, Imperial Tithes, worship of the emperer and a loose imperial Creed. It does not matter really how rich or poor a world is. Thats up to that worlds leadership and Situation. So to say the imperium is poor is false. Its just a victom of Bad wealth distribution


----------



## Calistrasza (Mar 11, 2013)

I think the issue with the Imperium appearing poor is based solely on our point of reference- we only see the worst examples that the Imperium has to offer. Cadia, for example, with it's ludicrous percentage of population under arms, is entirely non-self sufficient over a prolonged period. 

The vast majority of the Imperium's worlds are the ones we never see, where people get up, go to work, come home, eat dinner, go to sleep, and never get eaten by gribblies coming up their shower drains or get turned inside-out by daemons spewing from the weird little kid next door who was always 'such a nice boy'.

These "non failure scenario" worlds are likely far greater in number than the miserable hellholes we love to read about and fight over, and those worlds are the ones that support the rest. As far as drivers of growth, the Imperium is essentially running on fumes on all fronts- the Mechanicus and the Munitorum have a monopoly that would make early 20th century businessmen weep with glee at, and since they aren't progressing barring sudden "leaps" whenever someone discovers a fragment of an old instruction manual from Imperium-R-Us in their basement, that monopoly just sits stagnant. With no positive or negative determiners except in the supply chain, and with demand more or less equal (or even growing), it provides enough capital movement down to keep the peasants from eating boiled shoes (though likely some still do, if they own shoes), and makes the upper tiers of manufactory magnates and Munitorum/etc toadies ridiculously wealthy.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

LTKage said:


> Your view does not meet the commonly accepted parameters of wealth. Military power is certainly to be desired and respected but it does not readily improve the quality of life of individuals outside of security affairs. If you go with your definition, then countries that experience economic growth during a war or natural disaster are materially "better off." Putting it another way, your analysis would make North Korea look notably richer than it actually is.


It was mostly in jest,because I wanted to talk about space hillbillies. However historically,the best way for western countries to get their economies going? War.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

The thing is, the gross inequalities across the Imperium mask how rich the Imperium is. There are clearly people in China, India, and elsewhere who are as rich or richer than anyone in the West. Two of the richest men in history were clearly from economically backwards, stagnant, and poor countries--Tsar Nicholes II, the Nizam of Hyderabad . In present dollars, these people were worth Bill Gates four and three times over, respectively. Or Carlos Slim of Mexico--he's worth $10 billion more than Bill Gates and $20 billion more than Warren Buffet. While I have no doubt that many economies in the Imperium are more wealthy on a per capita basis than we are today. But are they really wealthy in the context of what they could be given their tech level? I doubt it. I mean, given how massive wealth disparities are between countries, I find it astounding that many of the richest people in the world do not hail from the developed West.

Then again, as has been said by many people (myself included), there is certainly a great deal of bias in what we see.

The argument that wars have directly contributed to a meaningful increase in economic welfare is suspect. If that were true, then many sub-saharan economies would be doing well compared to east Asian economies. Africa was something like 20% richer than Asia and the turn of the century and now it's twenty five percent poorer. Or Russia and the Soviet Union after the First and Second World Wars. The West also indirectly gained from conflicts because they de-capitalized many countries and milked their populations with trade monopolies. Or in the case of World Wars I & II, the massive mobilization of human resources contributed to social change that coincidentally made economies more efficient (the peace dividend in Germany and Japan, increased African America/female participation in the work force, and so on).

After reading people's opinions and thinking about this more thoroughly, I think it is safe to say that this question is unanswerable.

Thank you all for your input! It is much appreciated.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

mob16151 said:


> It was mostly in jest,because I wanted to talk about space hillbillies. However historically,the best way for western countries to get their economies going? War.


Because everyone was doing great after WW1 and WW2, right?

The United States began its rise precisely because WW1 screwed the hell out of everyone else's labor force and infrastructure. WW2 just compounded it.

We came out ahead because war never really touched us directly.


----------



## Magpie_Oz (Jan 16, 2012)

hailene said:


> Because everyone was doing great after WW1 and WW2, right?
> 
> The United States began its rise precisely because WW1 screwed the hell out of everyone else's labor force and infrastructure. WW2 just compounded it.
> 
> We came out ahead because war never really touched us directly.


War does create an insatiable market that has continuing demand and no limits on price so it is a rather good economic stimulant.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

Magpie_Oz said:


> War does create an insatiable market that has continuing demand and no limits on price so it is a rather good economic stimulant.


I don't think that anyone doubts that war can be strong driver of economic activity.


----------



## hailene (Aug 28, 2009)

Magpie_Oz said:


> War does create an insatiable market that has continuing demand and no limits on price so it is a rather good economic stimulant.


In the short-term, maybe. I don't really buy the "war is good for the economy" business, though. I fall into the broken window fallacy camp.

The fallacy runs like this: Yes, the government is spending a lot of money on weapons and hiring people like crazy. This stimulates the economy. The problem is, the government could easily spend their resources on other sectors of the economy and stimulate the economy. New public works, improving infrastructure, subsidies, ect.

And lest we forget the real cost of war, look at the world post WW2 (sans North America). Millions upon millions of dead young men. The men that survived are probably scarred for life. Infrastructure destroyed either by carpet bombing, artillery, or street by street fighting.

If the United States didn't escape the war virtually unscathed AND decided to pour billions of dollars rebuilding the rest of the world, the post war boom would probably not have happened.

Also, stimulate the overall economy or not, funding a war can beggar a country. The Dreadnought arms-race preceding WW1 sapped the British treasury. And of course an important factor of the collapse of the Soviet Union was because of the cold war and its cost.

Even if an economy does "grow" under war time conditions, the standard of living for the majority of citizens tends to fall due to rationing and shortages, anyway.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

hailene said:


> The fallacy runs like this: Yes, the government is spending a lot of money on weapons and hiring people like crazy. This stimulates the economy. The problem is, the government could easily spend their resources on other sectors of the economy and stimulate the economy. New public works, improving infrastructure, subsidies, ect.


I think an important component of your assessment that is missing is differentiating between just spending and investment. Arms production and the elimination of unemployment do, as we can all agree, cause economic growth. This growth can be good (creative destruction) but it is usually bad. The functional difference between military spending and investment has to do with wealth. Warring societies are often more productive but are less wealthy because of the nature of the items produced. Tanks do not make a society wealthier but washing machines do.

That said, I agree with you entirely and just wanted to spell that out more clearly.



hailene said:


> And lest we forget the real cost of war, look at the world post WW2 (sans North America). Millions upon millions of dead young men. The men that survived are probably scarred for life. Infrastructure destroyed either by carpet bombing, artillery, or street by street fighting.


Just think about what might have happened if Operation Downfall took place. Scary stuff.


----------



## BlackGuard (Sep 10, 2010)

To my knowledge the Imperium maintains no standing currency. Though every individual world likely does, and maybe in the more populated and/or advanced regions or sectors of the Imperium they may follow common currency -- it isn't universal at all. In the eyes of the Imperium the only currency worth keeping up with are the Tithes of Flesh (Guardsmen). Anything else is left to local or sector economies.

The Imperium, in general, is economically unstable. You must look to every world and take it on a case by case basis. Ultramar has a far better standard of living than say Baal or Fenris. One world may prosper under a semi-republican system of government with a senate or assembly and its people may have more freedom (relatively speaking) than other worlds. Its economy may be booming and its local regimes by and large efficient. Then you look at that backwater world on the ass end of the galaxy, ruled by a dynasty of psychopathic tyrants who massacre millions of their people in the name of purity or religious dogma.



> It was mostly in jest,because I wanted to talk about space hillbillies. However historically,the best way for western countries to get their economies going? War.


Space Hillbillies? I do believe the Imperium is more based around Medieval Europe and the Holy Roman Empire than it is "hillbilles" or "********". I'd appreciate it if you would take your slander elsewhere.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

BlackGuard said:


> Space Hillbillies? I do believe the Imperium is more based around Medieval Europe and the Holy Roman Empire than it is "hillbilles" or "********". I'd appreciate it if you would take your slander elsewhere.


THey look different than us Cletus,purge em with flame. Yeeehaw. You have obviously never been to the deep south. lol


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

mob16151 said:


> THey look different than us Cletus,purge em with flame. Yeeehaw. You have obviously never been to the deep south. lol


Either US or UK :laugh:


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

Ehh the US south aint that bad if you have some family there or are going to disneyland but otherwise I keep thinking of the movie with one of the best/worst lines ever in it. Forgot it's name but the lines is "you got perty mouth there boy." Think it's from desperation or something I forget but damn wouldnt that be scary? So there anywhere like that in the UK?


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

High_Seraph said:


> So there anywhere like that in the UK?


Every County has it's areas of animal-worrying sister-shagging locals...

OT: I'm sure I remember something about pay/overtime in one of the HH books. Know No Fear maybe?


----------



## BlackGuard (Sep 10, 2010)

mob16151 said:


> THey look different than us Cletus,purge em with flame. Yeeehaw. You have obviously never been to the deep south. lol


I live in the South. We do not act or talk like that. Cletus is a dead name for all intents and purposes and no one says Yeehaw. I'll make the point again to please take your baseless, ignorant, uneducated comments elsewhere. Whatever stereotypical image you have of the southern states is wrong.


----------



## High_Seraph (Aug 28, 2009)

Tawa said:


> Every County has it's areas of animal-worrying sister-shagging locals...
> 
> OT: I'm sure I remember something about pay/overtime in one of the HH books. Know No Fear maybe?


Yeah that is kinda what I though but didn't want to make any assumptions.


----------



## mob16151 (Oct 20, 2011)

BlackGuard said:


> I live in the South. We do not act or talk like that. Cletus is a dead name for all intents and purposes and no one says Yeehaw. I'll make the point again to please take your baseless, ignorant, uneducated comments elsewhere. Whatever stereotypical image you have of the southern states is wrong.


I live in North Carolina,so whats your point? lol The fact that your getting worked up about this is HILARIOUS.:angel:


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

OT: Good, we have established that there are some progressive labor policies in M31.


----------



## Tawa (Jan 10, 2010)

LTKage said:


> OT: Good, we have established that there are some progressive labor policies in M31.


Christ I hope it isn't Labour in charge...... :laugh:


----------



## daxxglax (Apr 24, 2010)

BlackGuard said:


> To my knowledge the Imperium maintains no standing currency. Though every individual world likely does, and maybe in the more populated and/or advanced regions or sectors of the Imperium they may follow common currency -- it isn't universal at all. In the eyes of the Imperium the only currency worth keeping up with are the Tithes of Flesh (Guardsmen). Anything else is left to local or sector economies.


I'd agree. The Imperium is absolutely vast, and though there does appear to be some form of common currency among the more well-connected worlds, in the grand galactic scheme of things, money itself doesn't mean anything. All the tithes are for tangible things: soldiers, psykers, natural resources, etc. In that regard the Imperium is absolutely "wealthy" but all of those things have practical uses. At its core, currency is just representation of wealth. A desperate, galaxy-spanning institution such as the Imperium has no time for that kind of symbolic malarky.


----------



## LTKage (May 2, 2012)

Agreed, neutrality of money stands. I think there needs to be a distinction between the "government" of the Imperium and the Imperium itself. Just as inequality distorts our understanding of wealth across the Imperium of Man, so too do the vast governmental structures that prop up the whole system. Huge amounts of resources are concentrated into the hands of the few private actors and the government.

My guess is that if were to qualify inequality and wealth across the Imperium, it would look something like today except worse. By some estimates, the globe has a GINI Coefficient of ~.7 with a PPP per capita GDP of $12,500.


----------

