The Worlds Four Possible Futures...

[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.

[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.