Rate Your Worries About Peak Oil

[Revi]

It's interesting that the number one concern is civil unrest/violence. I think that's my biggest worry about peak oil. As things unravel we'll see more and more violence and unrest. The poor will feel disenfranchised and the middle class, who usually uphold the standards are going to have less and less control over society. We'll all feel like Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino. Some of us already do.

[AgentR11]

Revi... note the rise of this thing they are calling "Castle Law".

Think about it from the nobility's point of view towards the middle class. They need the middle class to stay alive, and stay productive, *AND* stay in place. They need them in houses, for the most part, as that bulk forms the basis for real estate equities, beaten up as they are, its still an enormous market. What better way to get that, in the face of civil unrest, than saying, if you, Bob Middleclass, are attacked in your homestead, have no fear, waste the twits, and nothing bad will happen to you, other than you'll likely need to mop the floor afterwards.

How much fun, to a mob, would a subdivision appear to be, when its full of people shooting at you legally, with rifles, from behind cover, with complete confidence that there will be no legal repercussions. Castle Law has a lot to recommend it to the elite who have vast tracts of subdivisions laid out between them and the likely origination point of such violent mobs. Kinda like creating your own entrenched infantry, in place, and personally motivated and empowered to do exactly what you'd hope they'd do.

Yet another reason why I suggest to folks, that there will be no uprisings or revolutions within the borders of the US...

[mmasters]

The future of the US will eventually be the third world and there's always a level of violence that comes with that.

The things that worry me most are seeing overpopulation becoming reality, being stuck in some crappy survival situation where things are continually deteriorating, and that much of the best the human race has to offer has already happened.

On the positive side the US is sheltered from the worst overpopulation, the status quo continues that much of the world caters to us, we have more people working on solutions in all areas of life than ever before, and there's enough educated people out there that at some point there will have to be an awareness and large scale movement (or attempt) at getting on track.

[Pops]

I'm kinda surprised losing income isn't first, not that this is in any way scientific - heck I don't even give the polls much thought when I write 'em.

But logically, the only reason for zombies is poor economics and ya have to think you are somehow above the herd to think your income is immune. AR makes a good case agains any organized insurrection, secession, revolution or whatever. I think those are fantasies of the narrow-minded who figure if they can whittle down their universe sufficiently they will never be forced to look upon someone who is different from themselves.

I don't discount violence at all, I'd rate it at about the same threat as government repression since they will go hand-in-hand. Especially the localized more or less random kind of violence like we just witnessed in the UK and what I'm sure is now a much more intrusive police presence over there. Though I doubt we'll see anything large or organized, small and frequent and disjointed can getcha just the same.

[wisconsin_cur]

If I can keep the house, much else is mitigated. Note i did not say eliminated. Income is needed (at this point) to keep the home. Hunger is the prime motivator.

[pstarr]

The wealthy require an somewhat functioning lower and middle class structure, and so will ensure an orderly collapse where necessary. The lower class is responsible for important dangerous physical work---resource extraction, infrastructure maintenance, industrial manufacturing, handiwork, security/police, etc. A limited middle class is necessary to do the books and especially buffer the wealthy from the angry lower classes.

But only where necessary. The American consumer class is not necessary to the wealthy. Do not expect to be coddled, even defended in your old urban neighborhood or suburban tract home. Middle class suburbs will be downgraded.

[AgentR11]

But only where necessary. The American consumer class is not necessary to the wealthy. Do not expect to be coddled, even defended in your old urban neighborhood or suburban tract home. Middle class suburbs will be downgraded.

Yeah, don't misunderstand my point; no coddling should be expected, nor is it necessary. Do expect decisions to continue that permit most solid middle class productive people to continue to own and control their homes. OTOH, do not expect external, government forces to defend those neighborhoods. Do expect laws that permit residents to provide that defense, and with far lower liability than what is experienced by local governments. This is happening *now*.

You can kinda hear the chant too, a steady stream of reported mob related violence, never too much at once, but always just enough to keep the tension there, a steady increase in the number of shall issue CCW and "castle law" states, a steady alienation of the police from the middle class residents, the result almost seems inevitable. The nobility intend to use the middle class as their meat shield against the lower classes; and as long as those middle class families can maintain a home (regardless of its value as an asset), they will willingly serve that role. Because they have nowhere to run.

So don't read my discussion of "Castle Law" or even CCW as a triumphal success; its a very grim result being prepared for where we are headed.

[Alan Cain]

I'm kinda surprised losing income isn't first, not that this is in any way scientific - heck I don't even give the polls much thought when I write 'em.

Put losing income with loss of social safety net and you get 32 - the majority. Your off the cuff guess is absolutely correct.

[Cloud9]

The concept that the castle doctrine was to provide a barrier between the elites and the great unwashed is a fascinating idea. I had not really thought about it in that sense. Usually when we think of the second amendment , we look at it through the lens of it serving as a check on a government run amuck. The idea that it would serve as a check on a citizenry run amuck has been largely ignored. Now that I think about it, the Korean shop keepers in L.A. served as a pretty serious check on the rioters that would have looted their shops.

If this premise is correct, then we should see a more liberal reading of the second amendment over the coming years along with statutes that expand the use of deadly force to protect property.

[Loki]

But only where necessary. The American consumer class is not necessary to the wealthy. .

Plutonomy.

There is no “average” consumer in Plutonomies. There is only the rich “and everyone else.” The rich account for a disproportionate chunk of the economy, while the non-rich account for “surprisingly small bites of the national pie.” Kapur estimates that in 2005, the richest 20% may have been responsible for 60% of total spending....
The best way for companies and businesspeople to survive in Plutonomies, Kapur implies, is to disregard the “mass” consumer and focus on the increasingly rich market of the rich.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2007/01/08/plutonomics/

We are indeed living the Chinese curse. The death of the American middle class, peak oil, climate meltdown, economic meltdown. And we all get a front row seat!

[AgentR11]

re: plutonomy..

That is certainly true of some markets, like say luxury cars, boats, fancy rifles, SLR cameras, home accessories, jewelry, clothing; it doesn't work to well in others, say food, commodity electronics, suburban residential property, general home appliances. It depends on whether the product requires extremely high volumes in order to manufacture cost effectively. Take a Nintendo DS for a moment, it has a sophisticated CPU and a pair of pretty fair resolution screens. If I went to manufacture those CPUs and screens, with the idea of only selling a few ten thousands, I'd have to charge many thousands of dollars per unit, just to break even. Rich or not, the upper 20% aren't idiots, and they generally won't spend thousands on just any ole toy; and then at those unit volumes, you, as the manufacturer would have to seriously subsidize the production of games for the platform because the unit count is just too low.

Food, same deal, try to produce quality food for just the top 20%, and you get "Whole Foods" prices, mediocre end user quality (time on shelf too long), and not much profit. Stick with producing grains by the square mile, and the price is lower, but the quality is decent, and the profit / hour is also good.

Or take a refrigerator, yeah, I can put stainless steel doors on it, and some flickering LED lights, and perhaps a readable thermometer, and call it "Elite"; but it still won't sell for all that much more than the generic version with the white doors.. because in the end, it doesn't do anything interesting, it sits there and is cold.

On the other side, say a fancy watch, or home generator system, or that new BMW, or Armani dress, buying a sailing yacht new instead of used, sure, that sort of thing CAN be pushed to gain business from the nobility at enhanced profit margins. Those are good business models, but the NUMBER of vendors who can successfully pursue this will be limited by the total number of patrons. Walmart and Target will fill the need for the rest of us. Is that so bad? The middle class here live so much more comfortably than most of the humans who have ever existed, why complain? Is one harmed by some guy who wants a $40,000 watch? Does the image of a new beamer bother people that much?

[Loki]

Those are good business models, but the NUMBER of vendors who can successfully pursue this will be limited by the total number of patrons. Walmart and Target will fill the need for the rest of us. Is that so bad?

It's bad because it undermines equality of opportunity and the republican ideals that the nation was founded on. A vastly reduced middle class, a large permanent underclass, fewer and fewer small businesses (unless they serve the ultra-rich), republicanism perverted into plutocracy. And why? So the economic royalty can get even filthier rich than they already are? I don't think that's an acceptable compromise, even if the peasants do get Xboxes and Twinkies.

Besides, who says this system of total reliance on the welfare state and big box stores filled with foreign goods that you've outlined is sustainable long-term? All indications are that it is not. If current economic trends accelerate I think poor Americans in the decades to come will be eating a lot fewer Twinkies and a lot more stale bread from the bread line, and maybe a block of commodity cheese if they're lucky. At least it'll solve the obesity problem.

This obscene wealth inequality will make it a lot harder for the average American to weather the storms that peak oil, climate change, and our Ponzi economy will be throwing our way in the decades to come. The Great Recession is the tip of the iceberg, all bets are off if real unemployment reaches 30%+ as it did in the 1930s. I imagine that will trigger some real changes. Whether those changes will be good (pulling back from globalist policies) or bad (World War III) is beyond the capabilities of my crystal ball (purchased at Wal Mart, damn Chinese crystal balls).

[papalegba]

'Civil unrest/violence' is the number one fear - not surprising, and for the most part, though there will be the odd outbreak here and there, I don't think it will be dramatic mob violence.

In the future most of us will be a lot poorer, and with poverty comes violence - most of it petty property crimes, but occasionally against person. The best defence against that isn't more guns, it's a strong community where people look out for one another.