Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6580 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:28 pm Post subject: Serfs of the future?
Aaron mentioned the gap between executive pay and average workers pay being the largest since the ‘20’s.
This article talks about overall wealth.
Published on Tuesday, June 1, 2004 by the CBS.MarketWatch.com
Growing Wealth Gap Rates an 'Orange Alert''Inequality Matters' Conference Puts Nations on Alert
by Thomas Kostigen
Snip…
“Thursday is when the Inequality Matters conference begins in New York City to discuss the biggest wealth and income gap -- and its consequences on society -- since the Hoover Administration. The Congressional Budget Office says the income gap in the United States is now the widest in 75 years.
While the richest one percent of the U.S. population saw its financial wealth grow 109 percent from 1983 to 2001, the bottom two-fifths watched as its wealth fell 46 percent.”
------------
Bill Gates or the Waltons (the WalMart ones) have more wealth than many nations. I’m no expert in huge fortunes but assume much of the assets are only money. However, as the Great Decline becomes obvious, I can imagine the handlers deciding to cash out while they can and begin to acquire hard assets just as anyone hoping to survive.
As all fortunes, big and small, shrink over the next 50 years I would guess there would be a larger and larger stratification of wealth and power, with the wealthy buying up assets the rest can’t hold on to. After all, even most upper middleclass families’ assets are their home and possibly retirement accounts – all of which are bound to lose value dramatically if not completely.
So for you Doomers out there, what effect will this have on future society?
Serfdom?
Private armies?
Plantations?
All of the above? _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2004 10:18 pm Post subject: Distribution of wealth
One view I hold is that in a free society wealth would be distributed in a normal bell curve fashion, with the majority of the poulation possessing the majority of the wealth, and with extreme wealth and extreme poverty being statistical raraties.
In slave societies typically wealth distribution is skewed with the majority, the slaves, possessing very little wealth, and the minority, the masters, possessing the bulk of the wealth.
I think that wealth distribution is an indication of the degree of freedom in and economy. Typically the ruling class establish laws that give themselves an economic advantage (monopoly) to the detriment of the majority, a good example being the fractional reserve banking monopoly (find me a community where the banks are not among the nicest buildings in town, and the bank owners among the best off financially).
So if we have a shrinking economic pie, which is inherent in the peak oil theory, then overall wealth will decline, and of course those in power will see to it that they suffer the least. As a consequence the wealth decrease will fall upon the shoulders of the majority, and in most cases that means you.
There will likely be isolated cases that are exceptions to this general formula. Those who position themselves to bring people what they need may have some advantage, but this will be difficult , as is swimming against the current. Choosing a path will be a challenge, so I guess Mr. Charles Darwin's principles will be controlling factor.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 10:38 am Post subject: I wonder
I have a brother whom we debate the peak oil issue and more inportantly, what will follow.
The surfs of the future? One thing I can see is that the rich will be better able to prepare for the future. Having food supplies on hand. land enough to grow food.
Today right now. We have a working class poor. How does the working class poor prepare? Surfdom is really possible. Work for food to a new level.
Here's a shack and a plow and the animals and seeds. Get to work and I'll see to it that you and your family has food.
I wonder what will happen when a few have the land and the many need to grow food.
The gap between the wealthy and the poor grows wider......
I completely believe that we are heading towards a sort of neo-feudalism.
I mean, think about it. It makes complete sense. If you are rich, you want to either grow or preserve your money. So, when it becomes obvious that the equity market sucks, people will flood into the bond markets. When those begin to tank because the US Treasury cannot pay back the loans, people will fload into real estate and precious metals.
When it becomes obvious that the only business left making any money is
farming (because food is scarce, thus driving prices up), people will buy up land and work out some sort of "tennent farmer" aka serf, agreement.
Or at least, that's my opinion of the doom we are facing.
Serfdom doesn't fulfill the need for total global control for this manufactured total global crisis. We have machines to do most of the farming work, so tieing an individual to the land has little value for us. We win big if we can have people accept a total apparatus that will rule their lives forever. Global tracking via microchips, universal surveillance, working at gunpoint, you know... slavery.
I suppose it will look a bit like serfdom as the credits we give can buy some things, mostly food but maybe a trinket or two to keep people as complacent as possible. But the orders cannot get contravened in the same manner as serfs do. To disobey will mean death. Only terrorists disobey governments. We have gotten the police to believe this, and through our managed die-off, we will get the rest to believe too.
And if you have never heard of any of this, you have been slated for the "slave" spot. Enjoy! We mandate it so.
I fear it's likely we will revert to feudalism, or become something a police state, with the government confiscating all arable land.
In any case, it will be a drop in our standard of living. Even a poor person in the U.S. today lives better than the lord of the manor did in the old days.
The reason we abolished slavery (and indentiture) wasn't because we suddenly became morally enlightened. It's because the industrial age made it more profitable to use machines instead of people. It's not a coincidence that slavery was abolished in the industrial north first.
Even a poor person in the U.S. today lives better than the lord of the manor did in the old days.
Please elaborate. If watching 8 hours of tv a day is better then I would agree with you but who would argue such a thing?
I don't buy this comparison, because (I'm assuming) it only compares the technological paradigm. The lord of the manor did not live or die based on the whims of his employer. The lord of the manor had a vastly greater degree of control in his daily activities than today's average worker bee.
Please elaborate. If watching 8 hours of tv a day is better then I would agree with you but who would argue such a thing?
I'm not talking about technology. I'm talking about the standard of living in general: sanitation, quality and quantity of food, medical care, how much hard work you had to do, infant mortality, average lifespan. The idea that most of your children won't live to adulthood is a foreign idea to most of us, but all too common in the old days.
Quote:
The lord of the manor did not live or die based on the whims of his employer.
Well, neither does today's wage slave. You can always quit, you know.
Quote:
The lord of the manor had a vastly greater degree of control in his daily activities than today's average worker bee.
I think that's questionable. Today's worker bee is hardly a slave. You can quit. You can open your own business. You can move somewhere else.
And keeping a large estate running is a lot of work, especially when you have to depend on other people to do a lot of the labor. Slaves and serfs are a lot more trouble than employees or machines. They rebel, which annoys the neighbors. When they're injured or sick or too old to work, you still have to take care of them. They are your responsibility from cradle to grave. It's a lot easier to just shell out for a machine to do the work - assuming they are available.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:37 pm Post subject: Where did you get this idea from.
What?
Quote:
And keeping a large estate running is a lot of work, especially when you have to depend on other people to do a lot of the labor. Slaves and serfs are a lot more trouble than employees or machines. They rebel, which annoys the neighbors. When they're injured or sick or too old to work, you still have to take care of them. They are your responsibility from cradle to grave. It's a lot easier to just shell out for a machine to do the work - assuming they are available.
When surfs did the work. A person was required to be in good favor to be taken care of. Surfs lives were much more dependant on the master than the worker of today.
I can quite my job any time I want. True! If I want to take a huge pay cut. I can't start at near what I make.
Have you looked at how many people start their own companies and fail? Last week I worked 7 days strait 12 hours a day. Mandatory. Failure to be at work would add to my 'points' and lead to loss of job. I just finished working nights shift from 6 pm to 6 am for a month. Mandatory again. We have new people with 3 years at our company that can't cut the mustard so a few of us get to 'help them because we are team players'.
Ya, I am not a surf of old that can have my food rations cut off. My life does require I get my paycheck or I will not be able to by food and my rations will be cut off.
My company pays electronically. This was mandatory about 2 years ago. No more paper. Friday morning. Nobody had received their pay. Being one of the highest paid people in the plant. I can make it for a few days with out starving. The majority of employees really cried. 75% of the people there claimed they didn't have money to eat. Modern surfs without a doubt. Wait we can all quit and begin our own businesses or get a minimum wage job! yea right. Wake up and smell the coffee. _________________ Peace out!
I think that's questionable. Today's worker bee is hardly a slave. You can quit. You can open your own business. You can move somewhere else.
And keeping a large estate running is a lot of work, especially when you have to depend on other people to do a lot of the labor. Slaves and serfs are a lot more trouble than employees or machines. They rebel, which annoys the neighbors. When they're injured or sick or too old to work, you still have to take care of them. They are your responsibility from cradle to grave. It's a lot easier to just shell out for a machine to do the work - assuming they are available.
Very true. In our return to slavery we will have to ensure that the population never gets out of control and doesn't feel that they should get called "slaves". To do this we will require a control structure that can easily and remotely destroy any dissent. In the past, we had to keep and care for the sick and elderly. In our brave new order, the sick and the infirmed will make up that 4% that we have to kill each year to maintain our godlike standard of living. You have heard of TD correct? Notice how all the people talking about it say that we can get so much oil from the human body. I wonder why. Obviously we would need to "disappear" the old and sick. And we would need to ensure that no one can speak about those disappearances to quell dissent. You've read the Patriot Act II haven't you?
The machines need oil to run and that costs energy too, just like the food supplies for our slaves. Humans being less efficient than our machines will loose out to the energy needs of our machines. 80% of you have been slated to lose to them. What comes beyond that die-off should not interest you much as you will not exist to see it.
I can quite my job any time I want. True! If I want to take a huge pay cut. I can't start at near what I make.
Well, that's not true for everyone. And even with a pay cut, you're living very well in the U.S., by historical standards.
Quote:
Have you looked at how many people start their own companies and fail? Last week I worked 7 days strait 12 hours a day. Mandatory.
I'm sorry to hear that. I wouldn't do that unless it was a job I truly loved. What can I say, I'm a lazy slob.
Quote:
Modern surfs without a doubt. Wait we can all quit and begin our own businesses or get a minimum wage job! yea right. Wake up and smell the coffee.
It's your choice. I wouldn't put up with that, but I'm not in your situation. However, IME many people stay in jobs much longer than they should, because they are afraid to leave. Once they do leave, they wish they had done it earlier.
In any case, I don't deny that work life in the U.S. can suck. But it did in the days of feudalism, too. In fact, agriculture was the beginning of the downward slide. We evolved to live as hunter-gatherers, and in many ways, that is still the life we are adapted for. Unfortunately, that lifestyle requires a lot of land per person. Agriculture is a way of supporting more people on less land...but at a great sacrifice in quality of life and leisure time. And industrialization has just continued that.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:53 pm Post subject: ?
Quote:
But it did in the days of feudalism,
Comparing today to history. Yea we are modern surfs. A few things have changed, and a few things have not. Its a matter of perspective. I too am lazy! I need to pay my house payment and buy food so I work.
I don't hate my job. I dislike not being able to set on my but and relax with a fishing pole in my hand and a beer in the other. I mean really. I would RATHER BE FISHING! LOL
Seriously, I am well for working and I do make extra money for the overtime. So we are better off than the surfs of old. Butt there really is parallels if you look to see. There is also differences if you look for them. So its a matter of prospective. _________________ Peace out!
I don't hate my job. I dislike not being able to set on my but and relax with a fishing pole in my hand and a beer in the other. I mean really. I would RATHER BE FISHING! LOL
In that case, you want to be a hunter-gatherer, not a feudal lord. Hunter-gatherers work only 3 hours a day to get food, clothing, and shelter. And that's in very marginal lands, like the Kalahari desert or the Artic. In the past, before they were pushed off the best land, they likely worked even less.
Hunter-gatherers also tend to be healthier than farmers. The skeletons of stone age people are as tall as modern Europeans. While even kings and queens of a couple of centuries ago were very short compared to modern people.
Joined: Apr 17, 2004 Posts: 984 Location: Tulsa, Ok
Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2004 12:35 am Post subject: Ok
I guess that is why I have several books on wild edible plants of North America. I want to just pick what grows and catch a few fish and shoot a few animals. Hunter gatherer wound be acurate except all land is owned and I can't hunt and gather and fish on private land.
The land"LORD" won't let me! _________________ Peace out!
Yeah, well, the hunter-gatherer lifestyle only works with a low population density. That's the big drawback. But if there's a big dieoff, you could be set.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
and a beer in the other. I mean really. I would RATHER BE FISHING! LOL 
