The Worlds Four Possible Futures...

[radon]

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).

For starters, that would require repeal of the Constitution. But even if this is the case, how will you be able to retain the "serfs"? They will simply "emigrate" to Canada, or tell you to mind your business.

[EnergyUnlimited]

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).

For starters, that would require repeal of the Constitution. But even if this is the case, how will you be able to retain the "serfs"? They will simply "emigrate" to Canada, or tell you to mind your business.

!. American Constitution is already a dead document.
Congress have passed certain laws declaring US a war zone and basic constitutional rights are now all but dead.
You can be detained indefinitely without a right to a court hearing.

2. As if Canada would like to be a refuge for serfs...
Perhaps some of them would get a right to stay, if they wished to be serfs there...
OK, Canada may not endorse *serfdom* as such but *illegal aliens* would not enjoy any protection afforded to *rightful Canadians*...
Also once refugees are becoming to be a problem for Canadian stability, they may well be deported back to their lords in US.
Very much what China does to North Korean refugees (albeit Chinese authorities are usually but not always retaining women...).

3. Lords of the past had some ways to deal with those who were telling them "to mind your business".
Future won't be different.

[Pops]

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.

Yeah, I think that will haunt him because it isn't envy at all. American's think people deserve what they achieve, that is the American Dream. But the key to that dream is believing anyone can be a 10%er and that isn't possible if the game is blatantly rigged. Just an example I saw this am:

Global audit and consulting firm Ernst & Young has named Mark Weinberger, a longtime Washington insider, as its next chairman and chief executive, a signal that connections in the U.S. capital may be growing in importance to a profession facing greater scrutiny.

Average wage earners are beginning to understand the line between the regulators and the regulated has disappeared and that they are on their own. This isn't the elitist left I'm talking about, it's blue collar, high school dropouts that are most effected by this recession. They were the Wobblies of the last century. Once they get understand that commie ≠ atheist they could be a huge problem for the status quo.

[Revi]

I think most people are in space, and can't figure out what's going on at all. They won't wake up until it's too late. The Republocrats have them in a trance. It's an empire of illusion.

[EnergyUnlimited]

American's think people deserve what they achieve, that is the American Dream.

So what do you think about those who wish to sell freedom for safety?

But the key to that dream is believing anyone can be a 10%er and that isn't possible if the game is blatantly rigged.

For those who start without much capital this game was always rigged as per my life experience and beliefs based on observation of surrounding world.
That did not stop me from succeeding, though.

If you want to get to top 5% you have to be creative and happy to play rigged games... and once you are playing rigged game fell no restrain to rig it further to your own advantage...

To get to top 1% you need to be well connected, or of good pedigree or *very* lucky, or just very good in some recognizable sport.
It is only top 0.001%, eg higher aristocracy, where the gates are firmly shut in front of you albeit you can still marry your way through if lucky enough.
Schwarzenegger did it, so why you should fail?

Average wage earners are beginning to understand the line between the regulators and the regulated has disappeared and that they are on their own.

But as long as they are doing what fits, regardless of societal expectations, there is still a good chance of success...

Once they get understand that commie ≠ atheist they could be a huge problem for the status quo.

Commie worlds still have their own aristocracies, far more powerful than corrupt US or Third World nations do.
Inequalities in commie world are far greater than in "rotten" capitalist systems.
I have seen it first hand in relatively mild form (in Poland which was a commie country but not a hardline one).
Read my post about North Korea v. US on the previous page for more details.

But believe me that commie systems also have power holding aristocracy (say < 0.1%), wealthy and influential class (20%) and worker-drones (rest).
Composition of wealthy and influential class is different than on the West (mid rank party officials, mid rank members of security and military, directors of non-critical state companies etc) but such class is still there regardless.

Base on my observations commie systems (those real, not an imaginary ones advocated by members like Americandream) are *more* feudal in nature than capitalist counterparts.
At the extreme we have hereditary monarchies there (North Korea).

[Lore]

I question the emphases placed on trying to be in the top 5%.

[Revi]

It would be nice to be in the top 10%, but most of us are not going to be in that club. We need to find ways of living decent lives without a lot of money from now on. There are only a few people in the lifeboats, so we must make a raft out of the deck chairs. That's the way it is.

[Pops]

People have always known that breaking into the upper class is a long shot and that without a little inherited wealth probably close to zero.

Which is why the great real estate haircut of the oughties is so important. Starving US education investment (higher education has a higher inflation rate than health care) was a good start but "financializing" then crashing the US real estate market vaporized the only path to "wealth" most of the lower classes have. Here from the same Charles Hugh Smith blog as Kub's above:

n the good old days circa 1945-2005, buying a house opened up a much broader pathway to upward mobility than a slot in an Elite university. Regardless of one's education or job, if you could buy a house, then the big tax breaks of homeownership began cutting one's taxes while increasing the "savings" in home equity. Even without any appreciation, a mortgage was still a type of forced savings; the accumulated equity could be passed on to one's children when the mortgage was paid off.Inheritable wealth defines "middle class:" poor people don't have any assets to pass on, and so three generations later, the family is still poor.

People are coming to realize that the upper class is not only actively working to move wealth up and trickle them down to the lowest class but that they are pushing to consolidate their position via legalizing monetary political influence.

[EnergyUnlimited]

People have always known that breaking into the upper class is a long shot and that without a little inherited wealth probably close to zero.

Which is why the great real estate haircut of the oughties is so important. Starving US education investment (higher education has a higher inflation rate than health care) was a good start but "financializing" then crashing the US real estate market vaporized the only path to "wealth" most of the lower classes have.

It slaughtered part of *one generation* only, eg the unlucky ones who have ended up holding this financialized bag or to say it more brusquely the trick finished off *dumb money* invested at the final stages of property bubble...
Unfortunately it have failed to finish off many dumb bankers, and it should...

However discussed "crash" of real estate prices actually have opened this avenue to wealth once again.
Now it is open again and intelligent poor (but not mindless consumers who are on the way to become new bondsmen...) are free to try their luck.
In many areas prices are affordable again...

I would contest that getting into an upper class, say top 5%, without inheritance is nearly impossible.
It is possible but 5% means just that: 5%.
You cannot have egalitarian access to top 5% for all...
Maths doesn't work that way.
So lets say, out of top 5% of the wealthiest 2/3 - 3/4 inherited at least partially and remaining balance made it in.
Still it is below 1.5 chance in hundred for the poor but... that's maths...

[Pops]

I'm still not making my point: It isn't about the money, it's about the power.

People are coming to realize that the upper class is not only actively working to move wealth up and trickle them down to the lowest class but that they [the 1%] are pushing to consolidate their position via legalizing monetary political influence.

It isn't about the money except for the push to make money equal power expressly, constitutionally, blatantly.

[EnergyUnlimited]

It isn't about the money except for the push to make money equal power expressly, constitutionally, blatantly.

You have certain points here.

Even as per my believes money *should* translate into power, the exercise should be linear in nature.

I agree that we are observing substantial amount of *phantom, dishonest money* in the game.
Just meaningless numbers increasing bargaining powers of elites but entirely useless for purchasing of goods.
There is at least an order of magnitude more money than items which money could buy.
At least 90% money translate into nothing real except of means of power grab.

[Plantagenet]

So what do you think about those who wish to sell freedom for safety?

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.

---Benjamin Franklin

[vtsnowedin]

I don't buy the you can't move into the top ranks argument. Sure those that inherited the money have an easier time staying on top but many an enheritence is wasted. And there are not a fixed number of seats at that table. New people are moving up into those ranks every year.
I'll tell you the tale of two brothers, second or third generation Americans same upbringing, same high school etc. One brother gets into drugs, fails at every job or business he tries and is pretty much a lost cause. The other brother is a workaholic, works his way through college and beyond and gets a professional license. He then works his job six days a week and lets no opportunity past him. He is now worth several million dollars and his children are all professionals in their own right.
The door to riches was just as open to one brother as it was to the other the difference is in the application of the first law of capitalism "Increased effort yields increased results".
And money equals power always has always will. The very first US congress had lobbyist on the payroll of people with the money. They don't need any legislation to confirm an established fact of life.

[Pops]

Don't you see, you are still talking about money and "hard work" as some kind of proof of morality. The guy you describe is a hard working guy with a good job and a little luck in my book. People with a net worth of a few million is not what anyone is worried about - I should say not what I'm worried about. There are millions of millionaires in the US and I don't blame them in the least for voting their best interest.

The people who want to buy elections could also buy that guy with a amount equal to a rounding error on their tax return but you are insistent on comparing him instead to his brother the loser drug addict as if that somehow excuses the grasp for power of the actual owners.

Obviously, The Practicians' link a few pages back is about the best explanation.

[Pops]

On morality, capitalism, and the 1%

[The Practician]

It isn't about the money except for the push to make money equal power expressly, constitutionally, blatantly.

You have certain points here.

Even as per my believes money *should* translate into power, the exercise should be linear in nature.

I agree that we are observing substantial amount of *phantom, dishonest money* in the game.
Just meaningless numbers increasing bargaining powers of elites but entirely useless for purchasing of goods.
There is at least an order of magnitude more money than items which money could buy.
At least 90% money translate into nothing real except of means of power grab.

I don't agree with the idea that money should translate into power, but you've nailed it on the implications of massive amounts of "phantom" Money in the hands of the elites. This situation makes a fair bit of sense given where we likely are in regard to peak oil and resource limits. A large middle class that consumes massive amounts of energy and materials is just plain not going to be allowed for by reality. This is the main rationale behind the "feudal" or "neoliberal" vision of the future from a peak oil standpoint.

In my experience as a student, almost none of my peers that are concerned about issues of income inequality have an easy time understanding the problem of a consumptive middle class on the North american scale. They tend to understand wealth as something that is measured mostly in dollars, not resource use/ownership. I think we would be in for a very rude awakening indeed if a large portion of the "wealth" controlled by the top 5%(or whatever) was put into the hands of the masses.

One last observation: Some of you are taking Agents Feudalism hypothesis way, way to literally.

[rangerone314]

Winter takes all philosophy encourages people with nothing to lose to burn down the bingo hall.

[The Practician]

Winter takes all philosophy encourages people with nothing to lose to burn down the bingo hall.

Yeah but at this point it should be pretty obvious that you can layer a bunch of crap about freedom and democracy on top of that philosophy, call it "America", and nobody but nobody is going to say sh*t.

[rangerone314]

Winter takes all philosophy encourages people with nothing to lose to burn down the bingo hall.

Yeah but at this point it should be pretty obvious that you can layer a bunch of crap about freedom and democracy on top of that philosophy, call it "America", and nobody but nobody is going to say sh*t.

Ain't that the truth.

I like what Sinclair Lewis said in the 1930's: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross". And what Yeats said "The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity" seems to fit politics today.

[SeaGypsy]

In my experience as a student, almost none of my peers that are concerned about issues of income inequality have an easy time understanding the problem of a consumptive middle class on the North american scale. They tend to understand wealth as something that is measured mostly in dollars, not resource use/ownership. I think we would be in for a very rude awakening indeed if a large portion of the "wealth" controlled by the top 5%(or whatever) was put into the hands of the masses.

In 6 months it would be 90% in possession of what is commonly known as the Mafia. Drugs, gambling, prostitution, fast cars and wastefull living will see to that in short order. The plebs have not been educated to hold and control wealth/ power, but to waste it, spend it, enjoy it for the split second they have a little bit.