[americandream]

The existence of the financial sector should become meaningless then. Though they may still blow some bubbles for a bit of a while, perhaps.

The financial sector defines capitalism. It acts as the pump through which the momentum of capital is accellerated. When this sector goes, the end is nigh.

[Keith_McClary]

I've never been a conspiracy theorist, but when you look at the machinations of the ultra rich it sometimes seems someone is pulling the strings.

Too true, but who exactly are these people ?. There will be many we have never heard of, yet they wield much power over us, the 99.9%.

The 0.1% is 317,000 people in USA and 64,000 in UK.
If we are talking about the global 0.1% it is probably mostly the 1% in the wealthy countries. That would be your local car dealers, doctors, lawyers, etc.
I know people who are probably in the global 0.01% - just regular folks who got a good education, worked hard , and got a bit lucky with stock options.
Of course, they also benefited from favourable tax regimes.

[americandream]

The 0.1% is 317,000 people in USA and 64,000 in UK.
If we are talking about the global 0.1% it is probably mostly the 1% in the wealthy countries. That would be your local car dealers, doctors, lawyers, etc.
I know people who are probably in the global 0.01% - just regular folks who got a good education, worked hard , and got a bit lucky with stock options.
Of course, they also benefited from favourable tax regimes.

The proper definition of a capitalist as defined by Marx was essentially anyone with sufficient passive wealth to the extent that they did not have to work. Ordinarily, if there is a need to work despite appearances, you are either a mercantilist (small business owners for example...a class that has been known to throw in its lot with the workers) or a worker, whether a lawyer or a coal hod carrier.

[americandream]

we will be forced to socialise our resource use, or face extinction.

Do you have any kind of example of what that might look like?
Venezuela or KSA or Mexico or something else?

Whoops, Pops. Missed your post. So apologies if I appeared to be ignoring you which was not the case.

Basically, the only Iron Hand that dictates our collective destinies is the material domain. So to the extent that it confines our actions post an exhausted world, thus will our socialisation be determined. Elites are a function of surplus, even the shamanistic variety. Given the precarious state of a post exhausted planet, it is anyones guess whether we will retrieve certain elements from our times of surplus or whether we will devise social relations that are a necessary function of austerity. Marx's analysis advises that we contemplate and discern an objective path. Of course, he cautions that humankind requires a certain level of consciousness which may not emerge thus seeing us plunge into directionless socialisation that mixes and matches the unmatcheable and thus, as a species witness our decline to oblivion.

Time will tell.

[Quinny]

Keith, I think you underestimate the concentration and distribution of this .1%. How many people work in the higher echelons of the financial sector in London & New York (and other financial centres)? We're not talking about local car dealers, doctors and lawyers.

Each country has it's .1% who are basically in control of the majority of wealth.

I've never been a conspiracy theorist, but when you look at the machinations of the ultra rich it sometimes seems someone is pulling the strings.

Too true, but who exactly are these people ?. There will be many we have never heard of, yet they wield much power over us, the 99.9%.

The 0.1% is 317,000 people in USA and 64,000 in UK.
If we are talking about the global 0.1% it is probably mostly the 1% in the wealthy countries. That would be your local car dealers, doctors, lawyers, etc.
I know people who are probably in the global 0.01% - just regular folks who got a good education, worked hard , and got a bit lucky with stock options.
Of course, they also benefited from favourable tax regimes.

[careinke]

Trying to get a feel what people think might happen on the downslope. I most of all fear war!

I mostly fear big governments.

[dolanbaker]

Trying to get a feel what people think might happen on the downslope. I most of all fear war!

I mostly fear big governments.

Big governments will become small governments in the face of severe resource limitations.

[Quinny]

I hope this, but my experience makes me think this will only happen in a fast crash scenario.

[rollin]

We have two broad choices for what is next.

A) Continue with similar programs such as national governments, war machines, corporate systems, socialism, capitalism; that are modified to be more sustainable and less destructive systems. Essentially modified green BAU, not much shakeup in the system or TPTB.

B) Become custodians and caretakers of the earth. Realize that the only societal system that will work must be based on nature, not money, power, acquisition.
Basically mentally and then physically walk away from BAU and it's supporting structures.

Option A is easier to achieve, may buy us some time but will end badly as we lose all control over any possible outcome other than collapse and major destruction. Option B is more difficult to achieve but would have long lasting benefits mentally, spiritually and physically. Option B is hopeful but turns our current relationship with our world on it's head.

[americandream]

A government is a necessary evil as much as the head of a household is necessary for the functioning of that household. Doltish heads with households where the kids are out of control and raiding the larder in an uncontrolled manner will have issues. Equally, where the parents join said kids in raiding said larder, problems will develop. That is the same problem we confront with home planet, earth and our opportunistic leadership plus gluttonous elites. It is more of a testament of our failure to create a sufficiently wise population in terms of leadership rather than the mechanisms that are necessary to manage our planetary home.

[radon1]

One of the key tasks is to transform the state/government from their usual role of the "stationary bandit", as described by the gentleman at the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson

into a "creative" state/government.

With one or two exceptions, all states/governments since the most ancient times have been stationary bandits.

[americandream]

One of the key tasks is to transform the state/government from their usual role of the "stationary bandit", as described by the gentleman at the link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancur_Olson

into a "creative" state/government.

With one or two exceptions, all states/governments since the most ancient times have been stationary bandits.

Governments should govern, not divide. In division, they (those unscrupulous who can hook into these mechanisms) exploit for self gain. Local governments all working to an international rationale of planetary home management at maximum human and fellow planetary fellow sharers advantage without crapping the place would be the way to go.

[Pops]

Wishing for an end to government is pretty silly, LOL, there will always be government of one kind or another. Somalia has a government, it's the toughest guy on your block. So unless you're the toughest guy on the block - and the next block and the next, I can't figure why you'd not want a government and the rule of law rather than anarchy.

Like in any other area of life there are good people and bad people, why would government be different? What is most amusing is the folks who have made their fortune protected by government and enabled by the infrastructure paid for by those who came before but who now say that government is evil and should be eliminated because they want to keep their take.

Anyway, governments are a "condition" only to the extent that they do not change but since they can change rapidly, I personally put them in the "events" category.


My cynical take on "sustainability" (whatever that means) is that we won't transition to such a state until we come to grips with the fact that the current situation is in fact unsustainable and like I've always said, it's the getting to that point that is gonna hurt. But the real question is, will we ever admit our situation is unsustainable? And will we just let all the unsustainable stuff go and march bravely into the elbow-greased future or will we cling to the past and fight for it tooth nail right up to the end?

?

[radon1]

Ordinarily, if there is a need to work despite appearances, you are either a mercantilist (small business owners for example...a class that has been known to throw in its lot with the workers) or a worker, whether a lawyer or a coal hod carrier.

Indeed, many small business owners, and even large business owners, think that they are capitalists, while in fact they are selling their labor.