The Worlds Four Possible Futures...

[AgentR11]

But I can't really see much real difference between your "neo- feudalism" and the "neo-liberalism" that the radical left has been warning us about for years.

Difference in focus I think. Where the critic of neoliberalism wants to emphasize the negative of the corporate state and the exceptionally wealthy; a different viewpoint sees the princes of corporatism as leaders to whom they have an obligation towards, and upon whom they are completely dependent for their own wealth and station. So the critic sees the impact of the prince and his retainers on the lower income rabble; while one bound by feudal-like duty to that same prince sees the resources that are placed at their command for the comfort and security of their own family; not to mention the concern and trust that said prince places in his retainers to perform their duties with great autonomy.

** I don't use the word "prince" in a romantic sense... its unfortunately easy in modern English to go from "prince" to "prince charming" lol; where as just as easily, prince Bob turns out to be prince Bob the Impaler! muhahahah. Or at least prince Bob the trading genius and signer of pink slips.

EU nailed the technological advancement thing, when worries about food, health, employment, and retirement fall away because of the scale of the assets at your command, a lot of the "technological advancement" stuff just stops being interesting. Old car? New car? Don't care, sit in the back seat and listen to Metal, the driver can figure out all that car stuff. TV?? Entertainment station? eh? Just go walk the grounds, kick some grass, or play with the roses, till the chef calls out that lunch is served, ribeye and asparagus, and a glass of cabernet from West of the Brazos, in a far away land called Llano. Much more fun than watching Fox/CNN or some idgit movie actor guy pretending he knows something. Tough life, no?

[Loki]

Great post Agent. The top 20% will do practically anything to stay in that position because the next step down results in terminal poverty.

The 99% versus the 1% is pure myth.

Yes indeed.
We, or at least you, me or Agent know that...
99% v. 1% story is complete heresy.

It may be heresy, but it's hardly “myth.” The notion that America is a “classless society” is the real myth.

You all are taking political rhetoric WAY too literally. You do understand this is rhetoric, right? Not a scientific theory published in a peer-reviewed journal?

Agent, I think your 20% point is good as far as it goes, but you're beating this particular horse to death. You're assuming the lesser aristocracy is a coherent group that will unite behind the top 1%. And there IS a top 1%. Dismissing this fact by lumping them in with people at the 20th percentile is extremely misleading.

To use your feudal metaphor, it's like lumping in the wealthy yeoman class with the royals. Yes, both were considerably richer than serfs, but one was orders of magnitude richer than the other. And yeoman often sided with the peasants, e.g., England's 1381 Peasant's Revolt and Sweden's 1596 Cudgel War.

You're also assuming that the royal class (top 1%) won't parasitize the lesser aristocracy (top 20%) as they have the peasant class (bottom 80%). I wouldn't be so sure. Once the royals have soaked the bottom 80% for everything we're worth, the 20% is next.

[AgentR11]

Agent, I think your 20% point is good as far as it goes, but you're beating this particular horse to death. You're assuming the lesser aristocracy is a coherent group that will unite behind the top 1%. And there IS a top 1%. Dismissing this fact by lumping them in with people at the 20th percentile is extremely misleading.

As long as yall are pushing the silly notion that someone at the upper 19% percentile has anything at all in common with the schmoe in the bottom 40%, I'm gonna keep beating it. Besides, there is no UNITING BEHIND, if you think that's what I'm talking about, you are completely missing the point. There is no choice here, the top 20% cease to be well off the moment the 1% crash. And most would crash harder and faster than anyone in the lower middle class could even imagine. The 20% couldn't get out of the way of the ill intentions of the lower 80% if they wanted to. That is why the relationship is as feudal lord to lesser nobility and retainer. If the lord falls, its over for everyone in the chain.

They are only coherent in the sense that this dependency exists. Their political and social leanings will be all over the place, from extreme lefty, to arch conservative, from practicing catholic to atheist. And of course there is a top 1%, just as there is a top 2%, 5%, 8%, or 0.00001%. The question is who is dependent upon whom. Just observe the curves on income changes over time. There are two groups; those who are increasing their take, and those who are getting taken to the cleaners; and the split is right about 20/80.

You're also assuming that the royal class (top 1%) won't parasitize the lesser aristocracy (top 20%) as they have the peasant class (bottom 80%). I wouldn't be so sure. Once the royals have soaked the bottom 80% for everything we're worth, the 20% is next.

We'll likely find out within our lifetimes, but I think that *IS* what is different this time around; because in times past it was the making of the nobility too exclusive that made it vulnerable to en masse protest and rebellion.

[Shaved Monkey]

Wealthy peoples hardly need an extensive civilization or infrastructure which is coming with it.
When said infrastructure is around they are using it, many of them enjoy using it, but it is not critical for them.
All what wealthy peoples *really* need is workers to work and customers to buy.
And what these customers are buying is of secondary relevance.

Would have thought the wealthy need a healthy civilisation and infrastructure and the other 99% believing that they have a chance of catching the carrot or the streets would be filled with rich peoples corpses and their lawns would be unkempt.

[Loki]

They are only coherent in the sense that this dependency exists.

Hmmm, this smells suspiciously like the "job creators" lie the GOP is pushing these days.

We'll likely find out within our lifetimes, but I think that *IS* what is different this time around; because in times past it was the making of the nobility too exclusive that made it vulnerable to en masse protest and rebellion.

Never underestimate the greed of the ultrawealthy. They WILL take your shit if they can. I doubt very much most of them subscribe to your "buffer" theory. I wonder sometimes if they are even aware the peasantry exists....

[AgentR11]

They are only coherent in the sense that this dependency exists.

Hmmm, this smells suspiciously like the "job creators" lie the GOP is pushing these days.

I don't much care for that lie either... but the truth is way to painful to speak aloud and still have the hope of getting elected.
Truth is, the civilian employment ratio still needs to go down significantly in order to reach a powerdown setting that still has the essence of modernity.

How does a candidate go out, and say, "ok guys, I think another 10 million or so of you need to lose your jobs. It really won't be so bad, living with your cousin's family and taking care of their laundry isn't as horrible as you might imagine."

Express ticket to crushing election defeat.

Never underestimate the greed of the ultrawealthy. They WILL take your shit if they can..

I do not suggest, nor expect benevolence. That's not how this game works. OTOH, the rules are fairly simple, always be worth more than your keep; buy for 1 sell for 2; if in doubt, don't sign.

[SeaGypsy]

I'm really enjoying your posts Agent. You are helping me be very lazy this morning...

[AgentR11]

I'm really enjoying your posts Agent. You are helping me be very lazy this morning...

I think the world would be a much nicer place if people spent more time playing with their roses, and less time thinking they absolutely must be at a chair, in an office, mushing piles of paper around inorder to look busy. Breaking away from that is going to be unpleasant for some, but if we aren't going to incinerate the planet and simultaneously starve a bunch of people, it kinda needs to happen.

[rangerone314]

I will add this in comment to the linked article, and exterminism; the author is very much still attached to this 99% vs 1% thing. Somehow thinking that the guy that has a million or so in assets, has something in common with a low class slob, simply because the rich guy he works for happens to have a couple hundred million in assets. And nothing could be further from the truth. Not only does that 10%'er type not have anything in common with that slob; that slob will be seen as much more danger by the 10%'er than it will the 1%'er. Add to that even further; everything that 10%'er has is likely dependent upon the health and welfare of that 1%'er boss and/or his family.

Looking at charts of income and wealth, a clear point of divergence between the top 20% and the lower 80% is happening... NOW. The 80% are falling away, losing ground steadily every year; while the upper 20% are gaining, steadily, lower rungs of the 20 have more modest gains, but they are most certainly gains.

The view the author takes that the vast horde vs the tiny 1% ends up requiring an extermination sysetm. Remove the 99 vs 1 numerical silliness, and the rest collapses. And we end up with Feudalism. Even at worse, if the 80% revolt; they show up at the gates per sea and note, "why the heck are there so many guns behind that wall!" And then they go away. Simplified for posting, but the point is real. a 4 to 1 engagement against defensive holders of superior position, training, equipment, and supplies, results in the annihilation of the 4.

There will be no revolts in the coming Feudal world. The 80 will take their food coupons, go to the grocery store, buy their oatmeal, and get *** **** out of the way.

Simple how to deal with the 4 - 1 engagement thing: catapult dead bodies over the walls, and let them die of disease. If they have knowledge of plants like I do, and the defenders have a spring or stream as a water supply, use hellebore for something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sacred_War#Siege_of_Kirrha
After dispatching the defenders, do something like what that one Assyrian king (Ashburpinal?) did and kill all the survivors and non-combatants in various gruesome fashion except for one, gouge his eyes out after killing everyone in front of him, and then make sure the blind guy arrives at the next place you want to topple, and tells them what happens to places that put up a fight. Worked for that king.

[AgentR11]

I am so sorry for mentioning the wall illustration.
Please, have mercy!!!!

You won't need to catapult bodies to capture a place, because the defenders aren't defending the location; they'll leave at the first hint of anything serious. They'll get an insurance check deposited electronically to their accounts in NY or London, and will continue on as if nothing happened.

[ItalyRules]

It is clear that exterminism is the course they are pursuing. They, of course, do not need to actively kill the poor, they just need to take away any supports and they will die on their own.

Catastrophic Climate Change has come along as a convenient bludgeon with which to exterminate the masses. Massive famine can do the job far more effectively, efficiently, and quickly than anything they could devise, while keeping their hands clean.

I think the Russian elite solution will eventually be the model for all the elites. Enclosed cities in remote locations to wait out the die-off.

Once the die-off occurs, problems of scarce resources and carbon emmissions will be a thing of the past.

The planet may be barely habitable, but we have planned for the colonization of hostile environments for decades now.

Once 90%+ of the population is gone, the task of rebuilding can begin.

[rangerone314]

The planet may be barely habitable, but we have planned for the colonization of hostile environments for decades now.

Once 90%+ of the population is gone, the task of rebuilding can begin.

Then what? Same stupid elites rule, same stupid peons breed to max capacity until eventually a cycle occurs where everything collapses to completion.

Then the "elite" will be whatever chief of a hunter-gathering party is.

[ItalyRules]

I don't know what the critical level of pouplation is, necessary for scientific advancement, but with less than a billion on the planet or better yet only a few hundred thousand, perhaps we would have enough time to move out into the universe.

Recognition of the problem of overpopulation could finally result in social changes limiting the growth of population.

Hunter-gatherer only exists in times of natural abundance. Which makes human relations necessarily egalitarian. There would be no elites, as anyone could leave at anytime.

Ruling classes first appeared when societies began facing scarcity. Adoption of agriculture resulted in surpluses, whose trade then allowed for accumulation of wealth. Control of distribution created the first ruling classes.

[EnergyUnlimited]

You're also assuming that the royal class (top 1%) won't parasitize the lesser aristocracy (top 20%) as they have the peasant class (bottom 80%). I wouldn't be so sure. Once the royals have soaked the bottom 80% for everything we're worth, the 20% is next.

You need plenty of peoples to administer the system but to keep them loyal they must have a stake in it.
You need to provide various services and goods which are important but yet troublesome for royalties to take care of etc.
Such a situation (80/20 split) is also bringing in a sense of legitimacy of the system...

Royalties have plenty of evidence supported by history to realize that grabbing *nearly everything* is not the best idea and it may result in madame guillotine being called in...
By now they understand it very well, so it is unlikely for them to repeat the same errors.

So the actual split is rather 80/20, not 99/1.
This split is also reflecting general distribution of more capable/useful individuals in vastness of the mob.
In average class there is at most few bright kids, easy to distinct from background of remaining twenty.

I agree with Agent that 20% will wholeheartedly support 1% and by doing so they will exercise self preservation instinct.
And some particularly useless part of top 1% will be weeded out in castle intrigues which we don't know much about, just to ensure smoothness and efficiency of emerging neo-feudal system.
There is going to be some small mobility between 20/80 groups too so some hope for brighter poor will always exist.

[Loki]

I'm getting a bit bored with the amateur sociology and crystal ball gazing, but let's exam Agent's "lumping" problem a bit more closely. The allegation is that there is a 20% who form some coherent group. But when we look at the actual distribution of wealth, it appears that there is a clear break at the 5% level. The other 15%, while far wealthier than the bottom 80%, are nowhere near as wealthy as the top 5%. I'm basing this on this graph:

link

It's a moot point anyway, I think we'll likely see an acceleration of plutocracy in this country in the years to come. The peasants will be ground underfoot and wealth will continue to drift upwards. Whether the scum floating on the top of society will be 20%, 5%, or 1% of the total volume is something only time will tell.

[Pops]

Yeah, there is a fundamental difference between the owners and workers.

The difference between "net worth" and "financial worth" is that the latter excludes the value of a primary residence. So looking at Loki's financial pie, the 1% owns half of everything and the the top 5% owns 3/4 of everything except primary homes - everything.

The rest of the 20% have some stocks and bonds and a little in the IRA, maybe a second home but I'd think they have much more in common with the next lower 5% than the top 5%. The 20%ers are simply the top rung of the 99ers, they work for a salary mostly, professionals, managers, etc. They own small business of course but still gotta work every day to stay above water and don't have anything like the independence of the top 5 or the real wealth of the top 1% or the power of the 0.1%.

[EnergyUnlimited]

I'm getting a bit bored with the amateur sociology and crystal ball gazing, but let's exam Agent's "lumping" problem a bit more closely. The allegation is that there is a 20% who form some coherent group. But when we look at the actual distribution of wealth, it appears that there is a clear break at the 5% level. The other 15%, while far wealthier than the bottom 80%, are nowhere near as wealthy as the top 5%.

Incidentally you have confirmed my off hand crystal ball estimate:

Wealth is a *relative* issue.
You are comparing yourself with others and as long as you come within higher bracket (say 10-20%) you will be a *well off guy*, go to top 2-5% and you will be *wealthy*, go to top 0.1% and on the top of being wealthy you will also be powerful...

As we can find, I have named 2-5% *wealthy* and remaining balance of higher bracket (what gives us 5-15%) to be *well off guy*.
0.1% of those *wealthy and powerful* were not discussed in your post.

Incidentally that 20% of *haves* is typical for social systems of various, often vastly different countries, means nothing unique for US.

So for example in North Korea we would have quite similar situation:
Out of ca. 22 millions it is estimated that top 20 000 (0.1%) are wealthy and powerful as per their wealth standards.
2000 of these have some family links with rulers (Kim Il Sung descendants, cousins etc).
These peoples btw are far more powerful in their country comparing to even most powerful Americans.
They are also controlling ca. 90% of North Korean wealth.

Then we have about 4-5 millions (ca. 20%) of wealthy North Koreans.
Definition of a wealthy North Korean is a person who doesn't need to worry about his food supply, has a hefty $ 500 of savings sometimes even held in gold, owns house or flat, has TV and 2 or three dozens of chickens and rabbits.
Heck, such a *wealthy North Korean* may well have much more savings than working class American who has often none at all.
These wealthy North Koreans are probably owning something like 8% of nation wealth.

Then we have 12-15 millions (say 60%) of North Korean mob.
They are not wealthy at all but (by their standards) not poor either and from their perspective they are scrapping by.
They are dodging a hunger every day, albeit they are eating only 2 meals a day, they are not endangered with obesity for sure and for as long as they are not falling victim of some systemic disease they have more physical stamina than an average American does.
They are controlling ~2% of nation wealth.

Finally we have bottom 20% of North Korean poor.
They are eating one meal a day... or sometimes a week... so they are constantly at risk of hunger death.
They are disliked by remaining parts of North Korean society.
Authorities are telling that these peoples are hungry because they are lazy and not really a good citizens.
And if they only started to make troubles authorities would detain them in Yodok or summarily execute, perhaps to shorten suffering.
These peoples are controlling 0.1% of national wealth, maybe less...

So being wealthy is a very *relative* impression, eg it means entirely different things in various locations.

However (few exceptions notwithstanding) what we have in common across the world, as per a given society standards:

ca 0.1% or less at power
20% of well off
60% scrapping by
20% of really poor.

The same in US and in North Korea...

[AgentR11]

The other 15%, while far wealthier than the bottom 80%, are nowhere near as wealthy as the top 5%.

That is true enough. And makes sense, if a 1%'er commercial ventures require a dozen or few highly skilled, vested professionals; does said professional want his livelihood dependent upon someone who's worth 500k, or 500 mil? To me, this seems exactly as it should be expected.

I really don't get this envy thing though, so let me ask you this, is there a reason someone in the upper 20% should care that those in the upper 5% make more than them? You act like they should somehow feel harmed by this fact; when they themselves live a life more comfortable than most humans could ever have imagined, even to this very day.

It's a moot point anyway, I think we'll likely see an acceleration of plutocracy in this country in the years to come. The peasants will be ground underfoot and wealth will continue to drift upwards. Whether the scum floating on the top of society will be 20%, 5%, or 1% of the total volume is something only time will tell.

Its 20%, look at the curves for who's incomes are rising, and who's are falling.

[vtsnowedin]

I'm getting a bit bored with the amateur sociology and crystal ball gazing, but let's exam Agent's "lumping" problem a bit more closely. The allegation is that there is a 20% who form some coherent group. But when we look at the actual distribution of wealth, it appears that there is a clear break at the 5% level. The other 15%, while far wealthier than the bottom 80%, are nowhere near as wealthy as the top 5%. I'm basing this on this graph:

link

It's a moot point anyway, I think we'll likely see an acceleration of plutocracy in this country in the years to come. The peasants will be ground underfoot and wealth will continue to drift upwards. Whether the scum floating on the top of society will be 20%, 5%, or 1% of the total volume is something only time will tell.

Interesting link you have there. I've heard most all of that before and the fallacy I find is the presumption that total wealth is a fixed figure. As in if the wealthy go from having 60% of the total wealth to 70% of the total wealth they must have stolen (or some other evil method of procurement) that 10% of the wealth. That is not usually the case. What happens is that the wealthy use their resources to create more wealth. Wealth that was never there before, and as no one else helped create it (other then paid labor etc.) they rightly think that new wealth is theirs to keep and if some one else wants some they should go make their own.
To illustrate what I mean let us consider what the total wealth of the human race was at the end of the last ice age!? What did we have? Some stone tools. some hides and furs, some straight sticks to make spear shafts with, Perhaps a few nuggets of gold and a few shinny stones the girls liked. Pretty much a world net worth of Zero as defined today. How did we get from this zero start to where we are today where we add up everything from air craft carriers to hula hoops?
This stuff didn't just appear, some one had to make it, and the makers got paid for it if they sold it.
Some of us are better at thinking up stuff and making it. The fact that they now have a lot of gold nuggets and shiny stones that we traded them for the stuff they created shouldn't be a concern.
Them getting us to do the work for them and then not paying us , now that's another issue.

[radon]

Not sure why this 80/20 (or other ratio) social structure should be called feudalism. 80/20 is not something pertaining specifically to feudalism, other social structures have had similar ratio. Contemporary Russia is close to that, for example.

Feudalism main feature is land ownership (feud), and it is perhaps reasonable to extrapolate that the land will be the key asset in the post-crash world as all the vital resources will be either on the surface (water, air, crops, timber), or underneath it. But then again the question is how you are going to enforce your paper title to the land estate in a big country with a profound Wild West (wild east etc.) experience and established democratic tradition, in the world of scarcity. With the spears? You may give it up and collect the insurance check, but how you are going to cash it? Buy land? Who would be willing to sell it to you for paper money, given that land is now the primary asset?

A prince's main potential enemy is the head of his security guard. Look at the history of Roman emperors vs the praetorian guards. So in order to secure himself against the immediate subordinates the price has to somehow legitimize his status by creating a brand (cult) of himself with the masses so that any attempt at his assassination would be viewed as illegitimate (blasphemy). Stalin succeeded with it, many western European medieval kings succeeded with it. The institute of the church helped with it in the medieval times.

Similarly, the new post-crash princes will have little choice but to disclose their personalities to the wide populace and somehow win popularity with them. They will not be able to afford to stay anonymous because they will be quietly slaughtered by their security guards, who will just wisely wait a bit until this moment with the creation of dependable families. So the princes (1%) will have to somehow carefully balance the 80% against the 19% in order to preserve their status. To these ends, they will inevitably have to forego some of their wealth (land) in favor of the 80%s.

Feudalism has also some other very peculiar characteristics, like serfdom, vassal structure, states fragmentation. Difficult to imagine the contemporary 80%s being limited in their freedom of movement by their (legal) serfdom dependency towards their masters, even in the post-crash scenario.