The Worlds Four Possible Futures...

[Cog]

Although analogies are suspect lets try one.

Progressives believe that there is one pie and it never gets larger. In their world there is a 5 inch diameter pie and the 10% eat half of the pie and are full while the 90% eat their pie and are still hungry.

The reality is the diameter of the pie gets larger each and every year. So while the 10% still take their half of the pie, the bottom 90% get more pie to eat in a quantitative sense.

As part of the 20%, I don't really care if the top 10% eat more pie than I do. I'm happy with my piece of pie. If I want to bust my ass and earn my way into the 10% so I can have more pie, its up to me to do so. On the other hand, if you are in the bottom 15%, I am buying your piece of the pie and giving it to you so STFU because your pie is free.

[rangerone314]

Although analogies are suspect lets try one.

Progressives believe that there is one pie and it never gets larger. In their world there is a 5 inch diameter pie and the 10% eat half of the pie and are full while the 90% eat their pie and are still hungry.

The reality is the diameter of the pie gets larger each and every year. So while the 10% still take their half of the pie, the bottom 90% get more pie to eat in a quantitative sense.

As part of the 20%, I don't really care if the top 10% eat more pie than I do. I'm happy with my piece of pie. If I want to bust my ass and earn my way into the 10% so I can have more pie, its up to me to do so. On the other hand, if you are in the bottom 15%, I am buying your piece of the pie and giving it to you so STFU because your pie is free.

I don't care if they eat more pie than I do. I do care about the 0.1% who mess with elections. I'd like to see their wealth gone simply because it takes away my political power.

I drive a fuel efficient car, so why should I worry on the daily drive to work about some 10% who drives a fricking hummer while talking on their cellphone killing me? Other people's poor choices affect me negatively, a lot more than social conservative crap like gay marriage or Jesus in the schools.

There are too many a$$h01es in the world, and every extra $ they have is another potential nail in my coffin.

[Cog]

What do you intend to do with their wealth? Burn it? Distribute to those who have not earned it? What is your game plan here if any?

I'm sure I'll be fascinated by your reply on how the rich are such a problem to you.

[Loki]

I really don't get this envy thing

“The bitter politics of envy.” Now that right there was the line that made me loathe Mitt Romney. The aristocrat's aristocrat, and clueless as the day is long. My earlier comment about the ultrawealthy not even being aware of the existence of the peasantry was motivated by guys like Mitt Romney.

And here's a nice data point showing the nature of American plutocracy and the class war that the rich have been waging (and winning) on the rest of us:

The median average net worth of a member of the House Tea Party Caucus was $1.8 million in 2010....That's significantly higher than the comparable number for the median House member: $755,000. It's also more than 130 percent above the $774,280 average net worth of the median, non-Tea Party Caucus House Republican.

That puts the representatives of the Tea Party squarely in the 0.5% category.

And yet another data point on the destructive consequences of gross concentration of economic power. This one's well worth reading in full. The author, an investment manager who works with the wealthy, parses the 1% down to the 0.1%, going in the opposite direction of Agent:

I think it's important to emphasize one of the dangers of wealth concentration: irresponsibility about the wider economic consequences of their actions by those at the top. Wall Street created the investment products that produced gross economic imbalances and the 2008 credit crisis. It wasn't the hard-working 99.5%. Average people could only destroy themselves financially, not the economic system. There's plenty of blame to go around, but the collapse was primarily due to the failure of complex mortgage derivatives, CDS credit swaps, cheap Fed money, lax regulation, compromised ratings agencies, government involvement in the mortgage market, the end of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999, and insufficient bank capital. Only Wall Street could put the economy at risk and it had an excellent reason to do so: profit. It made huge profits in the build-up to the credit crisis and huge profits when it sold itself as "too big to fail" and received massive government and Federal Reserve bailouts. Most of the serious economic damage the U.S. is struggling with today was done by the top 0.1% and they benefited greatly from it.

[Cog]

I see no blame was ascribed to the millions of idiots who bought more house than they could afford.

Typical progressive tripe.

[Loki]

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.

I agree feudalism is not the right term for what we face here in the US. I think Third Worldism might be better, and all the corruption, gross inequalities, poverty, and squalor that entails. We're more than halfway there already

It'll take a couple centuries for anything like feudalism to re-develop, though I suppose it's not out of the question.

[rangerone314]

I see no blame was ascribed to the millions of idiots who bought more house than they could afford.

Typical progressive tripe.

Yeah, its not the drunk bus driver responsible for the bus wreck and all the collateral damage. Its all the fools who bought bus tickets because they thought riding the bus was safe.

Fortunately I never bought into their con job.

[rangerone314]

What do you intend to do with their wealth? Burn it? Distribute to those who have not earned it? What is your game plan here if any?

I'm sure I'll be fascinated by your reply on how the rich are such a problem to you.

I already told how they are such a problem. I gave more than one example.

Of course I could also add investing in commodities driving up the price of energy for transportation and heat in the winter, for putting food on the table, for driving to work. (as opposed to "earning" it through capital gains and paying only 15% tax on it)

How about put it into a national trust only to be spent when their speculative binges drive the country into a recession/depression? Burning it is one idea. I'm not fond of re-distributing it... but you could use it to ameliorate price differences caused by tariffs (that we should place) on foreign goods that they produce overseas to the detriment of American workers.

How about taking that rich money and using it to pay the difference between a new minimum wage of 50 cents per hour and what the poor earn now? Pull in the jobs from overseas and the poor have more money to spend and the rich would probably make up the money anyway (from a stronger & healthier economy).

I'm not a progressive or a liberal and I don't buy into their ideological tripe, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the system is f**ked up and needs something a little more intelligent than the usual mind-ending liberal tripe or the conservative do-nothing approach.

Conservatives twiddle their thumbs while a house burns down while liberals try to put the fire out with gasoline. Typical thought-ending ideologies.

[SeaGypsy]

It'll take a couple centuries for anything like feudalism to re-develop, though I suppose it's not out of the question.

Properly and respectfully put I think. Compared to what is coming next feudalism could be relatively paradisical. At least in Feudalism your leaders are right there in front of you, with you. When they deserve to be strung up and replaced it can happen in short order. It is the most natural human system of organisation. Compared to happy motoring it's pretty miserable by some folk's opinion. Been around a lot longer and will re-emerge as sure as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.

[pstarr]

Although analogies are suspect lets try one.

Progressives believe that there is one pie and it never gets larger. In their world there is a 5 inch diameter pie and the 10% eat half of the pie and are full while the 90% eat their pie and are still hungry.

The reality is the diameter of the pie gets larger each and every year. So while the 10% still take their half of the pie, the bottom 90% get more pie to eat in a quantitative sense.

Cog, do you really believe that? I mean really?

You mustn't have heard of peak oil.

[AgentR11]

The reality is the diameter of the pie gets larger each and every year. So while the 10% still take their half of the pie, the bottom 90% get more pie to eat in a quantitative sense.

Cog, do you really believe that? I mean really?
You mustn't have heard of peak oil.

That's kinda the rub, is this transition period where we're in an economic system that wants the pie to get bigger each year; but we have resource constraints that are starting to say, "no mo pie". Current solution seems to be working ok, where we value the pie numerically higher and higher each year, even though the pie didn't get any bigger. Considering that the numbers only need be 2-3% positive to continue to work; the system can continue to do this for a very long time; basically so long as it remains possible to get sufficient grain into the hands of the poor.

Its flaw though, is again this income&wealth degradation for the lower 80%; they aren't gaining numerically, and the price of their essentials is creeping up. I suppose there's no fundamental law that prohibits the issuing of EBT cards to fully employed people all the way up to the 70th percentile, but it sure would be an obnoxious turn of events. "Oh look, me and my wife work full time jobs... and we need to be on Food Stamps to avoid starvation!" Odd.

[radon]

It'll take a couple centuries for anything like feudalism to re-develop, though I suppose it's not out of the question.

Still, my guess that it is not very likely. Regress has not been typical in the history. Medieval Europe did not regress to the ancient Roman/Greek system. Whether due to the introduction of monotheism, or introduction of Arabic digits instead of awkward Roman ones, or other things mostly called progress. And despite the absence of the fossil fuel energy intake at that time.

A fundamental difference between the pre-crash and post-crash world is the relative importance of the financial assets vs tangible ones. Post-crash the financial assets will decline in their significance, maybe even totally evaporate. Tangibles, especially land, will become the key assets, as they used to be at the time of feudalism and prior to that.

The ascendance of the financial assets has coincided with the development of the modern (fossil) energy generation techniques, unsurprisingly. With that development the relative power and wealth of the military/security class has been declining, as the muscles/military skill were being substituted by automated/gas-electricity-fueled modern military/security machinery.

At the same time, the relative power/wealth of "intellectuals", like bankers, scientists, lawyers, doctors, musicians, heirs etc. has grown, as they were now able to accumulate financial assets that could be easily converted to tangibles and back, meaning that their protection required far less raw security/military power.

What happened was that the financial assets enabled segregation of the provision of the physical security of the asset holder and provision of his/her financial security. The former was still provided by the security/military men, while the latter by the lawyers and alike. This greatly enhanced the overall security of the asset holder, as the security men would now need to conspire with the lawyers in order to grab the wealth from the asset holder. By contrast, in the feudal times, in the absence of the financial assets, both financial and physical security of the asset holder was in the hands of his(her) security guards because the assets were tangibles (land) that the guards were well aware off - an position vulnerable to abuse by the guards. This is why the military commander and the feudal lord was normally the same person who guarded himself.

The advent of the financial assets enabled the asset holder to anonymize his wealth and hide it from the sight of the guards (and the laymen), so that the latter no longer knew what to grab.

This process changed the composition of aristocracy, with the emphasis shifting from military men to the "intellectuals".

As the things develop post-crash, the opposite process will take place. The financials will decline in significance, the tangibles will take hold, and the wealthy will have to openly declare themselves as the holders of these tangible assets (land), as they will be physically unable to hide them. At the same time, for the reasons described above, the relative power of the military men will be growing, while the security of the "intellectual" aristocracy will be weakening.

In these circumstances the existing aristocracy of "intellectuals" has no other choice than seek to legitimize (sanctify) their asset holdings in order to preserve them. The best, and may be the only way, to achieve it is to try to preserve the existing system, as its duration itself provides legitimacy to whatever arrangement is already in place, simply by means of established customs and traditions.

So, the democracy in a democratic country is likely to demonstrate resilience, as both the aristocracy and the 80%s will be interested in its continuance. Even if there is a move towards plutocracy, the reverse will likely take place shortly as the aristocracy will feel endangered by the security/military class (19%) and seek an alliance with the 80%s.

Similarly, a non-democratic country will likely seek to preserve its existing system, whatever it is, for the same reasons.

[SeaGypsy]

I don't see the argument. Loki's 200 years is plenty enough.

[The Practician]

I think This article by Mark Ames from The Exiled might shed a little light on at least one faction of the lower top 20% and their motives for supporting the top 1% (or whatever) in spite of their supposed "class interests"

http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/

[Cog]

Although analogies are suspect lets try one.

Progressives believe that there is one pie and it never gets larger. In their world there is a 5 inch diameter pie and the 10% eat half of the pie and are full while the 90% eat their pie and are still hungry.

The reality is the diameter of the pie gets larger each and every year. So while the 10% still take their half of the pie, the bottom 90% get more pie to eat in a quantitative sense.

Cog, do you really believe that? I mean really?

You mustn't have heard of peak oil.

I'm very much aware that peak oil will result in pie shrinkage. Probably soon. That is why its better to be in percentage that gets the larger slice.

[rangerone314]

Although analogies are suspect lets try one.

Progressives believe that there is one pie and it never gets larger. In their world there is a 5 inch diameter pie and the 10% eat half of the pie and are full while the 90% eat their pie and are still hungry.

The reality is the diameter of the pie gets larger each and every year. So while the 10% still take their half of the pie, the bottom 90% get more pie to eat in a quantitative sense.

Cog, do you really believe that? I mean really?

You mustn't have heard of peak oil.

I'm very much aware that peak oil will result in pie shrinkage. Probably soon. That is why its better to be in percentage that gets the larger slice.

And then there are those, who when denied a slice, will be content to watch the world burn, and nobody gets a slice.

[Cog]

Some will have to be content with gruel while others enjoy their pie.

[pstarr]

Some will have to be content with gruel while others enjoy their pie.

you the man cog. huh

[radon]

I don't see the argument. Loki's 200 years is plenty enough.

Another way to look at it: the entropy accumulated in the system in 200 years time will be greater than it was 500 years ago (though I dislike this argument). And so will the accumulated knowledge. Both will hinder any regress to a pre-existing state of things.

[EnergyUnlimited]

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.

Actual *princes* would constitute ca 0.001 - 0.01%.
But lets talk about 1% of those best off.
They will rather share with 19% of followers up and marginalize 80%.
At the end part of this 80% will end up as a low wage workers serving resource owners and viable businesses and remaining bit will turn into *redundant urban population* with a very bleak prospects indeed.
Those will be *contained* in their towns...

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.

American legislation is gradually transformed towards a system which would allow for that and hardly anyone complains...
These days American citizens are willing to sell *freedom* for *safety*...
Authorities are not facing *any* meaningful challenge on this front.

And of course on the way to serfdom there will be a nice excuse:
First lets reintroduce a debt bondage (and 70-80% of American population is immediately on hook).
Then serfdom (only small proportion of these facing debt bondage would ever wiggle out of their miserable situation and other would be turned into serfs as time pass).

It'll take a couple centuries for anything like feudalism to re-develop, though I suppose it's not out of the question.

One century, two at most...
Feudalism is a naturally stable situation when most of wealth is delivered from control of land and resources within said land (like water rights).
So collapse of industrial behemoth will lead to feudal world.
Initial stages of forming feudal world are going to be very ferocious in nature.
You may well witness these stages in your life.
Think Pickens and his accumulation of land and water rights for a foretaste...
Later system will become to be a bit more humane.