[Ibon]

I thought this deserved its own thread. Very politically incorrect and meant to be. As we claim so much of the world to be in denial or asleep it is at times good to also confront the areas where we ourselves, peak oil aware members of the global middle class, our perhaps in denial as well. Blaiming the 1% is all the rage these days but is this partially motivated by our own denial of seeing clearly that the sheer bulk of consumption and damage to our planet today is being done by a group that we are all members of? Weakening this segment, by whatever means, even by the evil 1%, might indeed represent sound environmental policy

Consider that the erosion of the middle class, and the plundering of middle class wealth from retirement accounts and real estate, further enriches the elite or "one percenters". This massive transfer of wealth ensures that those of us who have worked our entire lives will barely scrape by, while those that are at the top of the economy prosper and will see minimal disruption of their lifestyles.

This was done by and for those wealthy individuals who bought the loyalty of Congress and the Senate and the White House. Now you understand why these things happened.

Like many of you fellow middle class members of our species I have witnessed some serious contraction of my net worth. On the other hand we middle class are the greatest percentage of consumers on the planet. If I wasn't a member of the middle class and seeing the depletion of my own net worth, I might be able to see more clearly that weakening this sector of our population is the greatest single way to cut back consumption. For the benefit of seeing this from outside our own proverbial "Middle Class" mind set I wrote a small short story this morning to help understand that the wealth disparity we see today is counter intuitively one of the strongest forces helping us cut back on global consumption of resources.

An alien arrives on planet earth and does a quick scan of the biometrics of the biosphere. He finally approaches a Kudzu Ape holding a leaf blower on a cul de sac and asks to speak to his leader. The alien eventually sits at a round table of top brass economic and military leaders who ask him for new technology to fix climate change and find new energy sources.
The alien replies, “You are asking me how to address your climate and energy problems which are both symptoms of your unsustainable population and consumption habits. You must go to the source. Your species has overpopulated your planet and are consuming resources to the point of overwhelming your biosphere's integrity. This is what you must fix. Any advanced technology I make available to you will exasperate this source of your problem. You must cut consumption back and you must cut your population back to within your biosphere's ability to contain a sustainable number of your species. This is the only solution."
The alien is scratching his head wondering why such a clever species can be so obtuse around solutions that are staring them in the face. One of the economic leaders confronts the alien. "We have spent several generations increasing our population fighting disease and increasing food supply and wealth. We have hundreds of millions of middle class world citizens happy to be able to consume abundant resources and have secure free lives. And now you are suggesting we go in the reverse direction? To decrease instead of increase, disable instead of enable, deconstruct instead of construct, weaken instead of grow. How can we do this when our population expects the opposite?

The alien replied, “What your population is asking for is not really what they want but rather what you have conditioned them to want since you and your fellow leaders are the principal beneficiaries of the economic system based on extraction of resources and growth. I talked to a member of your species, the guy holding the leaf blower, his name is AD and he explained it all to me. You have created hundreds of millions of individual high energy consumers so that you can increase your own wealth and privilege. This all worked fine while your resource base was growing and while your biosphere was stable. You, the 1%, got fabulously wealthy while hundreds millions of middle class citizens got to taste some affluence like never before in your species history. Kind of a win win situation. It was good for you to grow this strong consuming middle class. Now you have reached the point where growth and resource extraction will start to contract. Now this vast middle class, that enriched you, is now your greatest liability. The momentum of your economic system is committed to this growth based paradigm and it is too late to reengineer the system and the minds of these millions of consumers you have created. The only option is to constrain the consumption and reduce the numbers of this segment of your population. This is your task as world leaders to save your planet. It will happen anyway soon since your climate, food production and energy constraints are heading there anyway. You can now actively mitigate that which you have been in denial about. The quicker you constrain the middle class the more resources you will preserve and the quicker your climate will recuperate. You will do a service to your grandchildren. Also think about it, if you leave all these hordes of consumers to breed further there will be exponentially more suffering when their children and grandchildren suffer the consequences of overshoot. Better to actively mitigate now. It is an act of kindness and the only way to save your planet”.
The world leaders sat stunned and silent. Slowly the heads began to nod in unison with the new insights provided by the alien.

I cannot see a better way at the moment to curb global middle class consumption, the most egregious segment of our consuming global population, than by allowing this disparity of wealth to increase further.

[Plantagenet]

The 1% who controlled the Communist Part of China mounted a very strong attack on the middle class during the 20th century, with policies designed to stamp out private wealth and western culture, policies designed to forcibly cut population growth, and policies that led to millions of deaths due to famine. Nonetheless, the population of China grew just as rapidly in the 20th century as other countries.

Given the failure of the 1% in China to stop population growth during the 20th century, I don't think the 1% are going to be successful anywhere now in stamping out population growth and the rise of the middle class.


The 1% in China failed to stop population growth in the 20th century despite draconian "one child" policies and the almost complete economic suppression of the middle class

[Ibon]

Given the failure of the 1% in China to stop population growth during the 20th century, I don't think the 1% are going to be successful anywhere now in stamping out population growth and the rise of the middle class.

The growth of the chinese middle class for the elite in China was similar to the growth of the middle class in western democracies in how it served the wealthy elite as pointed out in the short story. The economic system that enabled affluence to trickle down to the middle class made the wealthy fabulously rich. During the whole last hundred years of increasing resource extraction the middle class was thus an enabler of the elite to get richer.

As we move from resource abundance to constraints wont the elite increasingly view middle class consumption as more of a liability rather than an asset? To what degree will this result in policies that further weaken and constrain the middle class.

That is one of the many points of the story.

There is a cognitive dissonance out there. We complain of the disparity of wealth and the growing disenfranchised middle class by the 1% and yet this is the segment of our global population that most needs constrained from a pure consumption point of view.

Another way to look at it. All of us who are peak oil aware and voluntarily powering down and going super frugal and resourceful are just ahead of the wave of policies that are doing this anyway to the middle class. Whether it is the 1% economic policies or the Overshoot Predator doing this is largely irrelevant for those of us stepping off the consumption train.

For those middle class deepest in denial and / or unwilling to understand the constraints coming their way, why shouldn't we secretly be encouraging economic policies that further constrain this most egregious consuming segment of our global population??

[americandream]

If we stepped past the emotional self interest and viewed this through the prism of objective circumstances, we would better be able to:

1 Ensure we do not fall prey to these tendencies:

2 Develop a logical political stance.

Capitalism is premised on the value of accumulation and its perfection. In other words, striving to master accumulation is a virtue. If it be by selling as many widgets as you can or outwitting other would be competitors, that is all par for the course. Obviously, those at the receiving end develop a certian paranoia as they watch themselves being outwitted, all the while, venting their impotent spleen at the those who are following the rules of capitalism, to the letter.

This underlying driver is part and parcel of capitalism's gradual globalisation as the battle grows for places further up the queue of the finite value bank.

Calling these astute players the one percenters does not and will not alter the fact that they:

1 Have mastered capitalism:

2 Dominate it:

3 Subsidise its supplicants.

I would suggest ensuring that you upskill yourself to ensure that you can preserve equity over the ensuing decades as well as

Develop a viable political and social awareness.

edit: as a day trader I witness this spectacle every day as the rules of war are brought to the fore in the zero sum game of the market.

A benevolent capitalism should appear patently counter-intuitive to fully paid up conservatives such as Plantaganet and yet it takes a Marxist such as myself to educate him on how to master it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

edit: as a day trader I witness this spectacle every day as the rules of war are brought to the fore in the zero sum game of the market.

A benevolent capitalism should appear patently counter-intuitive to fully paid up conservatives such as Plantaganet and yet it takes a Marxist such as myself to educate him on how to master it.

A Marxist day trader?

As a capitalist who tries to minimize my footprint on the planet (no kids, minimal energy usage including travel, minimal consumption of "stuff" compared to most of the middle (much less upper) class, etc.) -- good for you being a day trader if that works for you.

On the other hand, methinks Karl Marx wouldn't smile on you as an owner of the means of production (vs the 99%) as being much of a "Marxist" in the conventional sense.

I think one of us is confused.

[americandream]

Absolutely not.

Kapital is an analysis of capital, not a personal diatribe. Marx lays out is tendencies and thus leaves it to the reader to take the necessary precautions. Which would be:

1 You either reject it outright including as a source of value, labour or capitalist ad live the live of a self sustainig hermit: or

2 You participate and:

Play by the rules all the while using that political consciousness to remove it (most of the Marxist rank and file in the 20th century uprisings were decidedly from well read backgrounds, middle class or labour). In fact almost all of its participants were reasonable successful within their "middle class" vocations or working class trades. Bitching on inanaely about something that is a fact whilst you are being systematically ass whipped will not change things one iota. Obama Mr Change should have convinced you of that fact ny now. Even a recruit from US capitalism's most marginalised group enthusiastically acts to preserve it.

In other words, cover your behind at the personal level whilst equipping yourself for the bigger battle. Wittering on inanely about saving tha planet will not alter consciousness one iota. Political consciousness is all that matters. How you then go on to apply that consciousness both at the pesonal level and the broader level of activism is another thng. The key is to be risk secure whilst ensuring that you don't start to believe in the bollix (or do an Obama about face).

[rollin]

Once private property or it's other version government owned property laws were established, the rest was inevitable. It set up the possibility of personal or corporate accumulation, which of course was pursued by some. Money is just another version of private property.

In the natural world the world is shared, no overwhelming force is applied to those who live and eat in a place. In a natural world forces act to limit population and there is generally always new territory to migrate. When there isn't population falls.

The current situation is the result of certain governments being formed that push us toward accumulation and growth. The governments control everything, even the food supply. Nature does not restrict the food supply to a few privileged groups.

[americandream]

Once private property or it's other version government owned property laws were established, the rest was inevitable. It set up the possibility of personal or corporate accumulation, which of course was pursued by some. Money is just another version of private property.

In the natural world the world is shared, no overwhelming force is applied to those who live and eat in a place. In a natural world forces act to limit population and there is generally always new territory to migrate. When there isn't population falls.

The current situation is the result of certain governments being formed that push us toward accumulation and growth. The governments control everything, even the food supply. Nature does not restrict the food supply to a few privileged groups.

Its a culture thing. We took the wrong turn at the Romance and evolved into a form of malignant modernity. The trick now is to reverse the wrong turn and get back onto that communistic evolutionary track nature clearly defaults to (in other words, capitalism is a mutation, I suspect.)

edit: if we don't do this quick enough, the evolutionary process which is entirely dispassionate will default to whatever it does in that context (which will involve a mix of widespread climate destabiliation as well as a globalised mutant social economy that has now full exhausted its habitat...its anyones guess what that will be but theres a high risk of the life process defaulting back to its early life synthesising stage.)

[Plantagenet]

As we move from resource abundance to constraints wont the elite increasingly view middle class consumption as more of a liability rather than an asset? To what degree will this result in policies that further weaken and constrain the middle class.

Most of the wealth that exists in the world today has been produced by people who invent software, or people who manufacture iphones, or people who produce oil, or people who sell billions of identical hamburgers.

Almost all the people in the elite depend on middle class consumption.

The elites are just as addicted to wealth creation by marketing to the middle class, as the middle class is addicted to cheap fuel, iphones and McBurgers.

I don't think the elites are going to wake up one morning after a TED seminar on climate change and suddenly start utterly change their behavior by closing their factories and not selling hamburgers and junk at WalMart. People are what they are.

The financial and social structure of the world has developed fitfully over the last 200 years since the industrial revolution started, and I can't see any of the elites voluntarily walking away from producing junk for consumers anymore than I can see the middle class voluntarily stop consuming junk.

[Ibon]

The financial and social structure of the world has developed fitfully over the last 200 years since the industrial revolution started, and I can't see any of the elites voluntarily walking away from producing junk for consumers anymore than I can see the middle class voluntarily stop consuming junk.

Good health care, private ownership of an automobile, disposable income to fly on vacation, funding your offspring's education, stable employment.

These are the early days and the above mentioned a few years ago were assumed as a given and have now been abandoned by a growing underclass of the disenfranchised. More and more its as you say, making / buying junk. Less energy intensive junk for sure.

From both sides, the producer and consumer of junk, there comes a point when participation starts to fall off. You can see the stress lines having formed.

Remember when Mitt Romney got nailed about talking about "those" voters who would never vote for him anyway. "those" that spunge off of society and don't participate anymore in the free enterprise system. Those slightly less than humans.....

Not to pick on one party or one person but this is an example of how the elite views those no longer in the game, or those who they think they can earn a buck off of by throwing a few crumbs.

You are right though, as long as there is enough resilience for a couple of billion to play the game will go on. It's falling back to those couple of billion that is exactly the process I am talking about.

Keep an eye on this trend.

[Plantagenet]

Remember when Mitt Romney got nailed about talking about "those" voters who would never vote for him anyway. "those" that spunge off of society and don't participate anymore in the free enterprise system.

Its never a good idea to tell the truth in an election. You've got a much better chance of getting elected if you tell people pleasant little lies.

this is an example of how the elite views those no longer in the game, or those who they think they can earn a buck off of by throwing a few crumbs.

Not really. The elites aren't monolithic in their views---there is also a set of elites who back the democrat party, and they rightly see people who are dependent on government as people who are more likely vote for democrats.

You are right though, as long as there is enough resilience for a couple of billion to play the game will go on. It's falling back to those couple of billion that is exactly the process I am talking about.

That may well happen, but I don't see it happening as a conscious policy of the "elites." The economic damage done by peak oil will be an ugly, painful process that will hit the elites as well as the middle class. The "elite" aren't responsible for peak oil---peak oil is a consequence of geologic reality on this planet and IMHO the elites will be blindsided by it just as surely as the middle class will be blind-sided by it.

[ralfy]

Ultimately, the 1 pct relies on increasing production and consumption of goods, and thus a growing global middle class, as the value of money (which is the main asset of the 1 pct) is maintained only given continuous economic growth. However, that global middle class will continue growing as more people worldwide want basic needs, if not more.

[Quinny]

I have met many 'middle class' people who over the last few years have realised the american dream is a sham.

They studied and worked hard all their lives and despite a short period of 'success' have ended up losing everything.

In my experience a lot of these people can become bitter, but a few simply adapt to their new circumstances and consume less. Getting off the hamster wheel of earning more and consuming more is quite liberating for many. It's the system and it's leadership that needs destroying, not the people who are simply participants in the only game in town,

[Ibon]

Ultimately, the 1 pct relies on increasing production and consumption of goods, and thus a growing global middle class, as the value of money (which is the main asset of the 1 pct) is maintained only given continuous economic growth. However, that global middle class will continue growing as more people worldwide want basic needs, if not more.

Let's call this relationship between the middle class and the elite a kind of dysfunctional symbiosis. As long as resources allow high consumption rates this symbiosis is not going away as you and many others have pointed out.

When resources constrain enough to slow way down economic growth than where is the fat to be trimmed? With the high consuming middle class.

Thus we will see that the elite, when they see the game is dwindling down on pumping up consumption, will move toward the opposite strategy of hording.

Some of that can be seen already as trillions of dollars of assets are sitting on the sidelines not being pumped back into the economy.

I think we underestimate how quickly this dysfunctional symbiosis can be abandoned.

We talk about how an eventual steady state economic system could be achieved and we often frame this as coming from some enlightened economic policies.

What I am pointing out here is that there is a far easier, more draconian, and probably for the elite a far more tempting path to take once resources are drawn way down. You disenfranchise that segment of the population who previously fed you but now is your competitor.

This rare moment in our species history where affluence was able to trickle down to a broad middle class was only possible due to fossil fuels. To assume that resource constraints will allow this segment of our population to continue is folly.

It will be a hollowed out form of capitalism that will promise much and deliver very little. Don't we see this already happening?

The middle class is screwed. And yes, this will be good for the biosphere and good for the long term goal of reaching sustainability.

Sorry to state the obvious.

[Ibon]

It's the system and it's leadership that needs destroying, not the people who are simply participants in the only game in town,

It takes two to tango in this dysfunctional symbiosis. And this grand game of musical chairs as resources constrain further wont bode well for those participants.

[Ibon]

The largest employer, a mid size factory, in a small town decides to shift production to Asia. A couple thousand employees who dedicated their work and service were given a crisp letter of termination and thanked for their service. The decision by the CEO and CFO to move production was easy and they greatly increased their personal wealth as their labor costs were reduced by 80%.

Familiar story we all know. The heartlessness of the CEO and CFO to abandon, without a second thought, the relationship with all those loyal employees.

Profit motive is only one form of greed and worked like a charm during the rise of consumption and the rise of the middle class.

When economic activity slows way down then other forms of greed take over. A shift takes place toward a steady state economy where the elite will express this greed like refusing to play and hording.

For the middle class that will be like when the irrigation gets turned off on a golf course in the desert.

Great for the local desert ecology. Bad for the grass.

[Pops]

Where your scenario goes awry is that the alien, asking to talk to talk to leaf blower guy's leader, would have been introduced to Mrs. Leaf-Blower.

All politics is local and there is nothing more local than the kitchen table. The one percenter CEO who moves production overseas is no different than the mom & dad who choose Netflix over Cable or generic Cola over Pepsi.

Your point is that we shouldn't blame the 1% for our troubles, that we, the 99%ers are the problem. Yet in your scenario it is the Brass who nod in understanding at the alien's lecture and presumably go on to save the world by reducing the consumption of the 99 but in so doing they also reduce their own accumulation. That won't happen voluntarily, they didn't get to be the 1% by being altruistic, according to your own definition.. The only difference between the 1% and everyone else is zero, lots of zeros but zero nonetheless - any 1980's disaster movie should teach that LOL.

The retreat will be led from the rear.
.

[Ibon]

Where your scenario goes awry is that the alien, asking to talk to talk to leaf blower guy's leader, would have been introduced to Mrs. Leaf-Blower.

and she would have said, "Hey alien, where can I buy those shiny pants you wearin?"

That won't happen voluntarily, they didn't get to be the 1% by being altruistic, according to your own definition.. The only difference between the 1% and everyone else is zero, lots of zeros but zero nonetheless - any 1980's disaster movie should teach that LOL.

By all our own definition there is a consensus that we don't need to wait for any voluntary action since resource constraints are taking us there. We are now drawing ever closer, as your own thread on the Kopit article points out, that there is a point economically where the return of a profit for the risk and cost of the investment will cause oil compnaies to leave the oil in the ground.

I am saying for the venture capitalists, the elite who drive the economy, this works the same where economic activity slows to where the risk of capital investment increases as the return diminishes to the point where the elite will keep their wealth in their pockets, hording instead of playing the game. At that point the game grinds down quickly. That will be a conscious and voluntary move.

This will be good as it will cause the global middle class to atrophy away from the levels of consumption that they will never voluntarily give up.

The retreat will be led from the rear.

The retreat will be movements from the front and rear, kind of like Ourobus

[Plantagenet]

This rare moment in our species history where affluence was able to trickle down to a broad middle class was only possible due to fossil fuels.

Quite true

To assume that resource constraints will allow this ... to continue is folly.

It depends on the nature of the resource constraints.

As oil production peaks the world is shifting to NG. It remains to be seen if the transition will be successfully completed, and what a global economy powered by NG will be like.