[mmasters]

Controlling resources along with the media brainwashing machine is hard to beat. My vote goes for high tech feudalism.

[Alcassin]

If change wouldn't be possible any revolution couldn't succeed. I remeber one thing from history - when depression hits hard people are far more radical, and nobody can predict what will happen next.

In recent history - Cochabamba or Zapatistas are just quite good examples. During Great Depression in '30 there was a clash of ideologies around Europe. It depends how the powers will try to deal with declining economy.

Seriously, I'm not so sure what will happen next - there are many factors still to be put in equasion - like how big is depletion rate, what will survive after recession etc.

I've got some scenarios, and slavery is not excluded.

[Heineken]

One thing I'd bet most of us would agree on: Things will move from bad to worse. Probably much worse.

The only question is the exact shape "worse" will take.

It's very depressing.

[NotMyBlood]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', 'O')ne thing I'd bet most of us would agree on: Things will move from bad to worse. Probably much worse.

The only question is the exact shape "worse" will take.

It's very depressing.

[Tinman]

The rich will run hide and hire mercenaries such as blackwater to protect their ASSets.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skeptik', ''')Intelligent socialised psychopath' would be a better description, or one of the 'Snakes in Suits' as the acknowledged world expert on the subject, Dr. Robert Hare calls them. 'Sociopath' doesn't quite fit.

[Tinman]

there are many examples in history of those in positions of powere and wealth hiring thugs to put down strikes (pinkerton guards for exemple)And protect proporty in times of disater and unrest. Blackwater protecting certain N.O. neighborhoods after Katerina while state and federal law inforcement disarmed American citizens of there firearms.

[Tinman]

long strory short the game is fixed so the rich and powerful stay at the top of the great human pecking order and that not to many get a chance to join their club figuativly and literally.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I') agree with Tinman - the rich will hire mercs, and lots of them.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')And, in your vision, you'll be one of those doing the hiring, right Jack?

[NotMyBlood]

well, i wasnt thinking along those lines, although it makes perfect sense.

However, I was thinking of a return to strong Unions backed by the likes of characters like Jimmy Hoffa and Sid Hatfield. A return to collective bargaining, early 20th century style. :):)

[Pretorian]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I') will seek to be a hired thug. I'll enjoy my work.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I') will seek to be a hired thug. I'll enjoy my work.

[mark]

Too many here are equating money, having lots of money, as being rich. If I’ve got a billion dollars in the bank, t-bills, stock market, etc, does that make me rich? I don’t think so. Only if gold were the currency of record and one had lots of gold would I consider that person rich.

To be rich in today’s world means, to me, owning productive assets. In a world of uncertainty, where even the currency is uncertain, simply having money, even cash, is no guarantor of being rich.

It is even uncertain what a productive asset would be in a fiat money world when the life blood begins to vanish! That’s why those with assets have the advantage; they simply have more resources to acquire more assets, meaning there’re more likely to stumble on the right asset for changing times. .

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pretorian', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jack', 'I') will seek to be a hired thug. I'll enjoy my work.

[Jack]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Heineken', '
')Friend Jack, what experience do you have that qualifies you to be a hired thug? Other than sociopathy, of course.

[Madpaddy]

There will always be rich people with us but not necessarily the people who are rich now.

A person can get rich today by hitting a small ball accurately with a stick and somehow, society thinks it worthy to reward that person with millions of dollars every year.

In the future, IMO, a person who can hit a human head accurately with a 7.62mm round from 1000+ yards every time will be far better rewarded.

[Madpaddy]

Mark,

You make excellent points in your last post.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')oo be rich in today’s world means, to me, owning productive assets. In a world of uncertainty, where even the currency is uncertain, simply having money, even cash, is no guarantor of being rich.

[gg3]

Re. "wealth."

OK, so let's start with the doctor who lives up in the hills. He owns a house with a half million in equity, has various accounts with another million or two in equity, lives within his means... let's say his net asset worth is about $2 million. He's a millionaire, which makes him conventionally wealthy.

Now the doctor has a gardener, who doesn't own a house but owns his truck and tools, and has some equity in his business, maybe in the range of about $20,000 altogether. He's a deca-thousandaire, if you will.

Now take a look in the stratosphere. A billionaire with let's say $2B in net asset worth.

Who has more in common with whom, we ask...?

Well, the doctor's assets are worth 100x as much as the gardener's. But the billionaire's assets are worth 1,000x as much as the doctor's.

When it comes to tax policies and suchlike, the doctor's interests and the gardener's are more alike than the doctor's and the billionaire's.

---

There's wealth and there's wealth.

Those parasites referred to a few pages back, who buy companies and vivisect them for a trifle, are scum and deserve to be fed to the proverbial fishies, after a trip through the wood chipper feet first. They are producing nothing, they are destroying productive enterprises and livelihoods, and in physics terms they are agents of entropy. Morally they are no better than robbers and looters.

On the other hand there's Bill Gates. Even despite whatever criticism might be raised about monopolistic business practices, the fact is that the guy got his the oldfashioned way, with brains and hard work and a little help from his friends and more brains and more hard work. And now he's giving a good chunk of it back by supporting public health research and applications worldwide, to the tune of billions per year. Gates is the opposite of the pond scum in the preceding paragraph, as is Steve Jobs, as is many a wealthy entrepreneur and competent business manager both large and small: these are people who have produced far more for the world than they have taken for themselves. In physics terms they are agents of syntropy. IMHO they're welcome to the rewards of their efforts.

Wealth, like anything else, is as it does.

Or as I'm fond of saying, money is a tool, it's worth what you build with it.

---

On the other hand, all the Bill Gates Billions in the world, by themselves aren't going to save our collective ass from the climatic alligators: for that it takes the actions of governments, making and enforcing laws, and engaging in international treaties. The treaties and the laws will shape the markets, and thus set the stage for conversion to climate-clean energy sources and powerdown.

Or they won't, at least not in time.

And we'll all die miserable deaths.

There's your more likely future. Cowering in caves near the tropically-warm north and south poles, consoled by the absence of hungry polar bears who perished previously, and starving slowly into stick-figures that would be too meagre to make a meal for a polar bear anyway. Oh happy happy joy joy... and pass the Prozac this way.

---

As for feudalism being more stable because it's been around longer: nope, I'll disagree with that one. Past success is no guarantee of future performance. Feudalism existed for a long period while world population was low and net knowledge was infinitesimal compared to the present.

Increasing knowledge is mutually reinforcing with representative democracy and free & fair markets. OTOH in America at present, 30% of the population believes humans had dinosaurs as pets or something similar. Hmm.

---

Re. the UK, poverty = not having a TV in every room. You know what's up with that one, don't you? The new TVs will contain little webcams. Everyone will have to have one in every room. Now you'll be photographed on average 300x a day whlist out and about, and another 300x a day whilst going about your business at home. Yes, and the working classes will want their proof-of-prosperity in every room too, all the better for their "betters" to head off any unrest at the pass.

Here's to HRH the Prince of Wales, may he accede to the throne before all has been lost to the prying eyes and flying spies. May he, and Al Gore as US President, jointly rescue the English-speaking world from the brink of climate catastrophe, and thereby give the rest of the world just a little more wiggle room to rescue itself before our collective goose is cooked like an egg frying on a southern summer sidewalk.

[Heineken]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Madpaddy', 'I') see ownership of land (preferably hundreds of feet above sea level) as being the best bet in the future. This however, will have to be allied to being in a position of political influence. Even the large landowner can just have their property confiscated for the "common good". Influence = Power = Wealth.