When all work is done by manual labor, every person tends to have value, based on the manual labor he or she can perform. The person tends to feel a sense of accomplishment for having "made" something as well.

Once most of the physical work is done by fossil fueled machines, manual labor has much less value. The world is sorted into different classes of people--the few who design the machines; the few who finance the machines; the few who plan and organize what the machines do. The many people who would have done manual jobs in the past are no longer really needed, except for minimum wage jobs. Everyone who participates in the system sees so little of the total, that they feel little sense of accomplishment, when they have completed their piece of the total. The Gini coefficient becomes quite high.

Perhaps I am not understanding the concept here.

If we are speaking post powerdown then with most communications lost then whose is to know who is where on the economic rung?

Right now let me make an observation that may tend to show what the future might hold.

I recently went to two guns shows. I also in the last week visited two sporting goods stores where one dealt solely with firearms.

What I saw was astounding and has happened just within a few months.

The gun shows first. One before Jan 2009. Moderate supplies of all items. Moderately full of purchasers and browsers .Trade was brisk with quite a few new firearms and quite a bit of ammunition. Prices were a bit above normal. This was around Nov 2008.

The next gun show was two weeks ago. The difference was amazing. First it was so crowded you had to stand behind someone to get to a table. There were over 500 tables/setups by those selling. The crowd was enormous and you had to shuffle slowly down the aisles.
There was few new firearms. Most all was used and rather used at that. Ammunition was almost non-existant and was very expensive. I saw really few firearms of real value. This was mostly older stuff that was used and dealers were making a killing at high prices.

I might add that the attendees were not your run of the mill gunowning types. Yes some collectors but what I saw was families. Women with their husbands and children. Buying,buying and buying. Walking out with lots and lots of purchases. The parking lot was overcrowded.

Then the two dealers. One used to have many shelves full of powder,bullets, brass and all the rest. Now all his shelves had been taken down and he had mere handfuls of ammo. Some very oxidized meaning very old. Nothing at all is the most desired calibers. He had zero reloading equipment. No restocking in a couple months and no more inventory on the way , he said. Shocking to me. I always stop by when in the neighborhood.

The next was just a firearms dealer. He had NOTHING. Maybe a rack of older used shotguns and a few rifles and almost no handguns. His shelves were totally bare. He said "Can't sell what I can't get."

I don't see how he was going to stay in business.

So it seems to me that firearms and defense is going to be a huge part of the 'equality' issues. Surely everyone is stocking for a couple reasons.

One. They finally have realized we are sinking fast. They are now on board and most will by weapons vs land and gardening. What they have they value I believe they are intent on defending.

Two. Obamas mutterings and House Bills that are out and out threats to make very big changes in the laws governing firearms. They see it as an assult on their freedoms to defend themselves and their property.

This to me is where the equality or lack of it wlll manifest itself.

Money might become meaningless to many shortly. We are seeing extreme weather changes. That storm that blew thru Arkansas and Tennessee came up here. I heard it roaring like 100 locomotives as it passed just to the north of me by 2 miles. Hail and hard hard rain.

So yesterday I saw the damage. A 75 ft radio tower toppled. A barn in the path totalled. A huge grain bin with an big kink in its side. Some hi tension twin leg power lines thrown on the ground like tinker toys. It was very localized. Only a mile wide and no circular movements. Just one very very strong wind. Never heard wind blow like that in all my years and I have been in several nearby tornadoes.

The times are achanging. We really can't see to what except it won't be BAU.

Airdale-perhaps OT but I wanted to make these observations. Folks are arming up rapidly and fully. If someone comes to take their weapons? Then hell will start immediately.

Your map of gini coefficients looks kind of like a map of diversity versus homogeneity. There is more sharing in areas where there is more racial homogeneity, less where less.

Nate -

I contend that regardless of whatever political system one is operating in, there will always be a natural tendency for the more ambitious, more ruthless, and more sociopathic individuals to rise to the top. It has always been thus, and I think always will. I also contend that this process is naturally self-reinforcing: the rich tend to get richer. Wealth and political power are joined at the hip, and one goes with the other. The laws favoring inherited wealth are a clear manifestation of this process.

Whether it is a Wall Street hedge fund operator, or a Russian oligarch, or an Afghan warlord, a certain type of individual will naturally gain advantage and power over his/her peers. Attempts to devise social systems to stymy this natural tendency are doomed to failure, as the same such people will soon seek out and successfully occupy the positions of power that control who gets what. All we can hope for is to try to level things out as best we can.

Projecting into a post-peak world, I can only envision this situation becoming more extreme for the US. More isolated wealth, more conflating of militarism with police, more repressive measure in an ever-growing surveillance state. In other words, a grim totalitarian regime.

This current financial crisis does actually have a silver lining , of sorts: for it clearly reveals who actually calls the shots in this country, and it's neither the President nor Congress.

Nate,

I don't have all the answers, but I do have a modest proposal. Plato and Aristotle assumed a society much like their own when they proposed the multiple of 4-5. Our society is much larger and more complicated.

But the idea that there should be a limit seems to be one that would provide an answer to inequality. So we need a structure that scales from the smallest business/society to the largest.

So my proposal is this: For every new level of management the increase in pay shall be no more than 25-30%. The average team size for each manager will be no lower than 3 with a median of around 7 (we can figure out the ideal numbers later - let's just talk about ideas right now).

The highest level of management can flout this restriction and increase their own pay by inserting extra layers of management, but this would make their organisation unwieldy, expensive and uncompetitive, so the system should be somewhat self-regulating.

The ratio of highest pay to lowest pay can easily get higher than Plato's and Aristotle's suggested figures, but cannot reach the hundreds or even 1000x (or higher) that we currently see.

aeldric

Nate:
For the past I don't know how many years I have lived my life according to the old axiom

Ignorance; is simply not knowing.
Stupidity; is opening ones mouth and proving it.

This is why I seldom post in the comment section. I'm going to set that aside for a moment, and see if I can add something to the discussion.

Yesterday "mish" had an interesting link to bartering;
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/04/bartering-services-to...
(wish I knew how to do that "tiny url" thing)

Because of my ignorance I got about half way through your post, and through in the towel, I was hopelessly lost, I had no comprehension of what GINI meant. (I clicked on the link provided, no help there)

At any rate, I suspect that in the very near future, we, or I should say, the bulk of the population (I'll be long gone by that time) will turn to some sort of bartering, with the service industry using a time is money arrangement.

Interesting post Nate. We often feel that society has evolved from human brainpower alone. However, sources of energy have defined and enabled our civilisation. Human society, to a certain extent, simply went along for the ride. Source

Darwin's physicist grandson Charles Galton Darwin has been mentioned previously on TOD but some posters may be unaware that during the mid 20'th Century he became interested in population, resources and speculation about the future. His book THE NEXT MILLION YEARS is available as a free pdf.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/405285/The-Next-Million-Years-by-Charles-Galto...

-- I am in favor of equal opportunity for all but given the diversity of human size, health, motivation and other characteristics as well as luck - I cannot believe that there has ever been equality or that it can be expected in the future.

i have worked with low income folks for 30+ yrs. i evolved from concern of a racial based conflict/war to a belief that we ever had serious conflict it would be based on wealth disparity.

certainly i think some areas of the US would have racial/ethnic based conflicts, notably the deep south & i would guess the southwest border areas, as well as sections of cities.

re the questions; for 1.What sort of social equity disparity fits us best, and for how many?

i think something like dunbar's number 150 or less is max with a high degree of wealth distribution built in. scares me how we might get there, but eventually this is the best 'human' solution for ecology[tragedy of the commons], communication, and wealth sharing.

our time as agrarian is miniscule compared to hunter-gather lifestyle. our primary adaptions genetically are set up within this mode & it fits the ecology of our earth. heaven help us getting there.

however we can & have evolved; but we do this by building on our past which i mean here we have to accept our primary genetic heritage; build in 'kind' restraints to our tendencies for excesses, and live within our ecological niche.

it usually take trauma/breakdown to do some rewiring of ourselves, individually & socially. i think that is what TOD provides as u say nate , basically thinking thru the possible solutions for after the breakdown.

In regard to question #2 the answer would have to be either depending on the wealthy. It comes down to Machiavellianism. If leaders insist on making gains on the backs of the masses then we will be happier with equivalent wealth levels so that this can not happen. Creates group cohesiveness with nothing to compete for. However, if there is no equivalent wealth level or that the masses except the leader are equals it is possible that the people will be happier with a wealthier leader. The leader would need to lead with respect, consideration and the understanding that the pedestal that they stand on is only held up by the people. It is a symbotic relationship that when respected ensures that the masses needs are met as best as they can be and the masses respecting and supporting the leader. Provided that this leadership exists people would be happier than with being equal to all individuals. Excuse the example but it is like a sled dog team. All the dogs want to be the lead dog but few have the skill, strength or wish to have the responsibility. Most are horrible lead dogs and are much happier having a strong leader at their helm. Humans really aren't much different from this. So the answer is without a strong and true leader equality is near to happiness but greater happiness occurs with a true leader. So how come we have so few true leaders historically or now when we truly need them?

Question #3. There will be no one answer. Some areas will sort is out naturally while others will insist on wars and others will find democratic ways to achieve the ends. Like the effect of a post peak world, it will depend on the area, its culture and her resources. All three will help sort out the mess the same as has happened down through history.

Question #4. Will the 'have-not' replace the 'haves' and reset the social timer. That is a given. History is full of examples of this. As the saying goes, history repeats itself.

Twas asked:

1. What sort of social equity disparity fits us best, and for how many?

none. The BEST is equanimity (not equality), i.e., where it is within a very close range defined by clothing, or access to good cuts of meat.

2. Would we be happier with everyone roughly at equivalent wealth levels, or a very few having most of the wealth, so long as basic social and physical needs are met for the masses?

Happiness has nothing to do with any of that. To equate happiness with property is to assume the Adams/Jeffersonian paradigm of life, liberty, and property. Very parochial, very 18th century.

3. Will all this sort itself out naturally, or by war(s), or be 'chosen' democratically?

All of the above.

4. If a paradigm shift arrives, and those previously in the 'have-not' category displace the previous 'haves', will this just reset the social timer on when such an inflection will happen again, in reverse?

No. See Pareto and his theory of the cycling elites.

5. Bonus question: If we find reasonable answers to the above, how would they apply, if at all, to inter-generational equity or inter-species equity?

Intergenerational equity will be this: the baby boomers (1946-56), the punk rockers (1956-64), and Gen X (1965-1972) sacrificing their retirement to pay for the debt they're dumping on their grandchildren.

Interspecies equity is not possible. We've driven so many into extinction,the only equitable thing is our own extinction, post haste. Since that is likely to be resisted and certainly not possible en masse voluntaire, you can forget about interspecies equity.

We WILL be able to talk about interspecies equity in the 2100s and 2200s, after we will have gone through our own die off and now understand our position in the greater scheme of things.

1. What sort of social equity disparity fits us best, and for how many?

Ideally, all basic needs in Maslow's hierarchy would be shared equally: food, water, land, transportation, energy, shelter, clothing; and all other needs could be met according to individual desire. If the 80:20 rule holds, most likely 80 percent of the population will be satisfied with the basic needs, while 20 percent will have wants they wish fulfilled.

2. Would we be happier with everyone roughly at equivalent wealth levels, or a very few having most of the wealth, so long as basic social and physical needs are met for the masses?

A person with wealth isn't automatically something to make another unhappy. It's not the wealth, but the attitude. A wealthy person who does not consider him/herself better than I am will not make me envious or resentful, while a nouveau-riche with an uppity attitude will.

3. Will all this sort itself out naturally, or by war(s), or be 'chosen' democratically?

The only difference I can see between democracy and dictatorship is that in a democracy you get to vote for the jerks who will dictate. No one is going to vote for an equalitarian or inequalitarian society. All a vote does really is sanctify the status quo, so whatever works out will work out and we'll vote afterward to legitimate the arrangement.

4. If a paradigm shift arrives, and those previously in the 'have-not' category displace the previous 'haves', will this just reset the social timer on when such an inflection will happen again, in reverse?

Well, what do you think? Look at the situation in the US (or any other country for that matter). Those "in power" despise those not in power and vice versa. As soon as one party takes over from the losers, they do the same things the losers did and that they said they wouldn't do. No, if the have-nots take over from the haves, they'll behave pretty much the same as the haves before them did--and it'll just go back and forth like this, probably forever--unless there is a moral regeneration in humanity, a reorganization of the genetic makeup to make for a more "collective" social experience, something that is about as likely as discovering intelligent life on Earth.

5. What happens to US politics/economic system when middle class can no longer act as buffer between rich and poor?

Then we look more like Haiti or Zimbabwe or any other country where there is a vast population of poor and a few with the gold and the guns--and the will to keep it that way.

6. Bonus question: If we find reasonable answers to the above, how would they apply, if at all, to inter-generational equity or inter-species equity?

Huh?

Thanks. Now I know about gini. I lke ah-ha's.

Umm. You left climate change out of the picture.
"It's all going to plan. Someone else's plan."

We are in population overshoot. So I guess that these things will sort themselves out naturally. Things will be out of our control.

We have to emulate a surfer on a wave.

Class society developed with agriculture and surplus beyond that needed to feed just the producers. Prior to agriculture you did not have class society. In the 20th century the remnant hunter-gather societies that did not have a class structure.

We will not revert to hunter-gathering, or if we do, it will mean a vast diminution in our numbers, and it will be vast retreat even from what hunter-gathering was 12000 years ago, i.e. before the advent of agriculture. We've wiped out the animals that supported that way of life, and much else.

We have to return to the soil, but we cannot return to agriculture as it was practiced by the Egyptians or Romans or even the medieval serfs. Nor can we continue with modern industrial agriculture which is depleting the soil and aquifers and much else. It is going to have be a lot more labor intense, but also scientific and skilled, otherwise it won't work.

There's not going to be the opportunity for huge surpluses to accumulate. Attempts to appropriate them will be tantamount to restoring serfdom, but serfs will not be able to make the new agriculture work -- the soil is far more depleted.

For that reason I believe inequality, almost no matter how you define it, will be radically reduced if not eliminated. I don't think the large material surpluses needed to support a class of parasites will be avialable.

But the parasites are still on top and will do a lot of damage before we get there. I saw a poll recently that said only 53% of Americans still support capitalism. I doubt that any two of us in the 47% agree on what the alternative might be. But apparently many more people are starting to think about it than I would have imagined.

What's for sure is that communism won't come as Marx envisioned it, based on a high level of material production bequeathed us by capitalism. But I hope that we can retain large parts of what science learned in the industrial era and the ages leading up to it, and redirect it to learning how to adapt to living within our new budget of above groud resources.

Since people are inherently different from one another they have different desires which will "fulfill" them appropriately. So Gini coefficient is as useful as IQ. Gini says something about economic happiness like IQ about intellectual test acheivement. Beyond that both say little. Of course both money and test scores mean a lot in our society.

Culture changes could retrain people as to what "counts". The serotonin release should not be for competitive accomplishments defined in terms of money, possessions, test scores. Happiness acheived by the individual means a high internal GINI coefficient. In a European social welfare state a much lower income is needed to acheive said "Gini Happiness" coefficient than in USA. Mental health, sense of physical and social security in the face of recession or PO or climate change due to a less individualistic approach to governing and sharing allows less adrenalin, panic attack mentality. The purposeful destruction of union structures, etc. since 1970s to disturb the social order by the cpaitalists, banksters, what have you is antisocial. The capitalist own happiness has been reduced due to lower sense of security in life, more competitive society. Not to mention those down the totem pole.

So I would say that a low GINI coefficient means that soicety has recognized that "Money isn't everything" and that inequality creates insecurity and stress for all participants. Unhappiness(lower mental and physical health) for all is created by inequality.

The question of generations and cultures seems appropriate. Older cultures tend to stability. Younger ones(new world) are more dynamic and changing (higher GINI coefficient). Intergenerational equity is a big deal. Generations think differently and propel much of this inequity by generational typical beahviour. After crisis wars the dominating theme is equity to avoid similar suffering in future. After stabilization the crisis recedes in popular consciousness and the post crisis birth cohorts ("boomers/Xers") accept inequality. By the time they realize the consequences of their actions the system has broken down again. However when one considers that postwar birth cohorts might be bored with maintaining a disciplined equality, particularly in a dynamic culture like USA, then one might consider the marketplace competition for status to be the primary motivator in life of an otherwise bored primate, barred from violence in terms of murderous warfare of their fathers. Now that the postwar system has broken down violence must take place in terms of war, systemic change(alt energy replacing FFS, USD based finance/military hegemony replaced).

So we must relearn contentment with having little but our children or grandchildren will repeat our stupid mistakes most certainly.

Economic disparity. What works.

Here is something I paraphrased from a book I read sometime back.

Second quarter nineteenth century.
White settlers begin to move into parts of the southern highlands and a little beyond. Parts of now Tennessee,Georgia and the Carolinas and W. Virginia. Mostly English,Scotch-Irish,German and a very distinctive Appalachian culture grew. Once established they became community interdependent and had all the control over their future and what they did and how they lived. All with different skills and relying on each other for their needs and wants. They were somewhat cutoff due to locale and terrain. Life worked. Things work fine. They were happy.

Suddendly after a depression,not affecting them much, government programs were introduced. Industries moved in that were not locally owned. Corporations. The people there provided the labor but did not share in the profits or anything else. It all became now a 'cash' economy where before it was not. Families became dependent on the jobs. Hospitals came,roads paved,and local politicians seemed to think heaven had descended.

Unions were not allowed. "If you unionize we will shut it down!"
Thus the corporations executives became the powers in these towns and communities. They ruled de facto. Where life once centered around the family farms it now changed markedly. This was all the school gradutes had to do. Work there or move on.

For some time it worked. Prices were low. Families still owned some land. Times seemed good.

But in time prices started to rise. Wages in the urban areas way off skyrocketed and enticed their young folk away. Then came the toursits and cheap motels and bad food restaurants. But rural wages remained very low and around the minimum wage levels.
Junk came disguised as authentic 'mountain crafts'. Summer vacation homes proliferated taking much good land. Certain areas once pristine became havens for toursism and became a curse on the land and people.
Local ownership of land decreased tremendously. Land developers drove prices thru the ceiling.

The now poor families had to see their birthrights to the land gone. Their inheritances. Nothing now to pass on to their children. State government continued to push for the tourist dollars.
The young feel helpless as well as their parents. They can't afford housing on what was once their own lands.

They begin to be looked down upon by the city people and suburbanites as poor white trash. They have lost control over their futures.They have bad teeth now as well as bad health.

Its all a sham now. The rich business man comes to deliver an address to the graduating high school class. "You are the future of this country and soon we will pass the torches on to you."

Its all bullshit. They go to the nearest cocktail lounge for martinis and a good laugh. There will be no torches.

Some,very few, of these people still live on a small piece of highup land in the most inaccessbile parts of mountains. They are almost all gone now. They remember how it once was.

Does anyone shed a tear for what was once shining and good? No.

The mountains they loved and lived on are now having their tops sheared off for a seam of coal to keep the other folks who came as tourist happy and spending wildly. They can do little about it. They are the forgotten ones. They took their memories and skills with them as they died and went into the cold ground.

Airdale-economic disparity then? Who makes these economic rules then? Who pays the dear dear price? Who built this country and who now owns it?

We residents of the developed countries are the wealthiest people in history, despite income inequality. Practically no one is hungry, too many are obese, and we do so little physical work we are not physically fit. We also have more leisure time than any previous generation, working 40 hour weeks compared to 60-70 hour weeks 150 years ago. And most importantly, there is no slavery.

We receive free (government paid education). We are relatively free of infectious diseases like smallpox, black death, yellow fever, polio, etc. We all have possessions no one even dreamed of two centuries ago.

However, we are not prepared for peak oil and peak other resources. This is because we lack political will and because of public ignorance. Our system is bankrupt because we tried to have everything: cheap energy, large houses (as opposed to low maintenance and energy efficient), Medicare, Social Security, etc.

Personally I am prepared. I moved to a small town that has good agricultural soil. I can bicycle to all the places I regularly need to go, however, I am so close that I could easily use an electric golf cart or plug in electric vehicle. I can grow my own food if necessary. I also designed and built my own 21st Century home, 200 tons of aerated concrete with a 100 year roof, so I have no maintenance and super low electricity and gas costs.

Gated communities and guards is not my idea of successfully navigating resource depletion. We evolved to compete and cooperate, context and resource dependent. How to find the sweetspot on this spectrum is a question of increasing importance.

To address this concern it seems to me we need to start by acknowledging that a globe of "gated communities" is what we have now, not only within states, but also between them.

Is there really a "sweetspot" waiting just around the bend for us, be it on some ski hill, or perhaps a permaculture eco-cottage, while a days travel away others starve or die for want of a few $ worth of medicine? Just where did the rare earths in that PV panel come from anyway?

1. What sort of social equity disparity fits us best, and for how many?

2. Would we be happier with everyone roughly at equivalent wealth levels, or a very few having most of the wealth, so long as basic social and physical needs are met for the masses?

What would she say?

3. Will all this sort itself out naturally [...]

Not quite sure what you mean by this

Enough.

Happy Easter

I always enjoy Nate’s post because I often disagree with the Anglo type stress on competition, with its dichotomous partner on the other end of the pole, cooperation, being downgraded to a kind of milquetoast essential that is little discussed.

Human beings are deeply social, exist and thrive only in situations of mutually satisfactory social interaction. They cooperate, naturally, that is how tasks are accomplished.

However, the basic mechanisms are, in my order:

First, imitation, emulation, mirroring, and joining in by replicating; adopting behaviors, improving them, recycling them endlessly, thus refining them; thereby providing feed-back and feed-in, not to mention gratification or even joy. (Besides the joy part there are some interesting studies and discussions dealing with AI or robots.) Imitation may even be mindless until it somehow becomes mindful, that is integrated and thus subject to analysis and revision.

Second, complimentarity - one person pushes up, the other down, say; one runs, the other stays back; two different complimentary actions fit into a functional (or even emotional) process. These behaviors rest on the perception of some super-ordinate goal, desired end point, or the contrariness of some of the participants, etc. Anyone can think of examples. It balances imitation, which would be devastating if it was not tempered.

Third, cultural transmission or at the individual level, direct teaching. Those who know, have learnt, have experience, transmit, thru various means, stored knowledge, or the use of tools constructed over time (eg. writing, math) and technology (car, building a bridge.) These moves go beyond simple spontaneous imitation because they are planned efforts - taking many forms.

All of these actions, including imitation, the most basic, are fitted into a particular culture with its norms. Altruism, giving and taking care with no direct expectations of return is a fundamental part of this social matrix. The words altruism and cooperation don’t even describe it properly, as they point to behaviors that are exceptional. (Jane is generous or altruistic; Joe is a good team player; Mr. Rothenrot believes in cooperation, etc.)

Competition plays a role. It is always framed, curbed, socially circumscribed. A leader who kills another to take his place can be accepted. Sometimes. Opposing ideas or plans serve moving forward, etc. Only so much competition, varied in different societies, is tolerated. In times of plenty (oil age) it can get out of hand, because the riches of the few don’t impact the lives of the many. That time is now coming to an end.

Nate wrote: we cooperated in order to vanquish other tribes. Yes...and that is the danger. Recognised since forever, but in Int’l law, in our times, since post ww2.

GINI, resource depletion, hierarchy, growth

Those are all tied together. We try to finess inequality by increasing growth, so everyone gets a little bit more. That's more or less the root definition of "political liberalism". All our political and economic institutions are founded on that principle: give the masses more bread and circus to keep them quiet. Liberal economics carries through to liberal "values", liberal "(mis)education" and so forth. Our society,culture and technology are all founded on MORE.

When that fails, the masses will get uppitty. They will not be able to down another martini.

I go back to what Daly writes about: scale, distribution and allocation. The market - allocation - DOES NOT address scale and distribution. In a world without limits, that is OK because there is always "Head west, young man". The US Constitution - a liberal document - destroys community; that was the explicit purpose - union. But now that we've hit limits, solutions that do not address scale and distribution make no sense - eg the stimulus package, eg our soon to be $4T deficit.

The stimulus and the deficit - just to take them as examples - are what Monbiot means when he talks about cats in a sack; we are fighting each other for what we can get.

Scale, distribution and allocation - the economic system that is coming must address all of those because it will not otherwise have any legitimacy or sustainability. Liberalism - growth - is dead and we are passing through a transition into something else. Maybe fuedalism, maybe something better if we can strengthen our communities against the authoritarians and militarists. Go to your local state legislature - virtually every bill here in Maine is about carving up markets and defining haves and have-nots. The piranhas (Naomi Klein) are hard at work preserving their interests and as a result delegitimizing the entire political and economic structure. So there will likely be a transition through classical fascism, where the state merges with business interests - eg bail out and give bonuses to the bankers and bust the unions. Bertram Gross wrote "Friendly Fascism" in 1980. I have to reread it, but it strikes me the Obama administration fits the description perfectly.

cfm in Gray, ME

Social inequity and high GINI coefficients are in part a function of high heat dispersal from excess resource use. We're at the top of a hot blow-off top social storm. If you doubt it, just look at the media in the US and Britain. Bread and circuses.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1486034

So in answer to number 1, I would propose that Plato's/Aristotle's 4:1 5:1 maximum disparity ratio were based on energetics of an earlier time based on wealth not powered by fossil fuels. I've heard a 20:1 ratio proposed as a tenable disparity in our current civilization. I would expect that ratio to diminish as we descend and lose cheap fossil fuels.

2. Would we be happier with everyone roughly at equivalent wealth levels? Happiness is in part based on basic needs, but then there are many other non-wealth indicators that reflect a functional civilization that would impact happiness. Money is a form of information about production and consumption within the economy. Contrary to what economists will tell you, not everything is about money.

3. Will all this sort itself out naturally, or by war(s), or be 'chosen' democratically? We're so far into overshoot that there is no way to avoid the wars to reduce us by about 80% of our population unless the other three Horsemen come a'calling. My guess is that most of the 4 Horsemen will arrive together.

4. If a paradigm shift arrives, and those previously in the 'have-not' category displace the previous 'haves', will this just reset the social timer on when such an inflection will happen again, in reverse? Social inequity is a function of resource imabalance, which is a function of overshoot, in part. Once we reduce the population and blow off the cheap fossil fuels, the inequities decline, IMO. You could even look at the cyclical nature of political systems (socialism vs. capitalism, etc.) in terms of relative energetic inputs and social structure to find some correlations.

5. What happens to US politics/economic system when middle class can no longer act as buffer between rich and poor? To quote Mt. Redoubt, "Boom."

At some point, the maximum power principle suggests that we respond to the decrease in energetic inputs with a more cooperative civilization. I just hope to live through the interim.

1. I'm not sure. As the owner of a computer, I'm probably way above the world median. I wouldn't want to do without my intertubes. But then there are those who rake in astronomically more than I, apparently as a result of being born to a privileged class. Naturally, I think they should have less.

2. Due to overpopulation, I think that equivalent wealth levels would leave us all pretty close to destitution if not starvation.

3. I doubt that people will 'choose' to limit themselves. It hasn't worked so far, so I'll say it will sort itself out naturally. Note that war(s) are as 'natural' as the other Horsemen of Calypso.

4. I think the "Mad Max" phase of this paradigm shift could well be bloodier than the French Revolution. Not sure if it will happen that way, but there's a potential for it. I believe the Mad Max phase will be short lived, however. It's unsustainable after the 'have-not-so-much' run out of ammunition.

We do have the technology in place for a much longer lasting "1984" phase of surveillance/police state society, which is self-limiting in its own way, but could go on for decades or maybe a century. Note that the Egyptians managed to maintain "stability" for three or four thousand years.

5. It will cease to exist. The reversion to a deindustrial state will not be linear, however. I'm not sure "democracy" will be able to survive the transition.

6. Earth's ecosystems will right themselves, but the process will take quite a long time. It might be instructive to look at the Permian/Triassic boundary for an estimate of how quickly such a recovery takes place. As for the inter-generational thing, we've already effed our grandchildren, unfortunately. I don't think my G-G-Generation would recognize the world in which any great grandchildren will live, if I am lucky enough to leave any.

When it is perceived that all are sharing the pain then society will have peace no matter what happens to resources depletion. About the worst thing a person could do during WW II was to be a food hoarder. People were willing put off buying a new car and other goods because they perceived it was for the good of everyone. They willingly gave away resources in the form of things like aluminum pots and pans and the grease from frying pans. It all comes down to what people perceive. Right now we perceive what Madison Ave tells us to perceive. Madison Ave tells us we will be unhappy if we don't have what didn't even exist 20 years ago. What is really so bad about being in a cell phone dead zone?

These types of questions have been asked for millenia. Plato suggested humankind would be most fulfilled in a society where the maximum wealth disparity between highest and lowest was 4:1. Aristotle suggested 5:1.

Interesting to note that when a society is considered in aggregate, these are close to the results of Vilfredo Pareto in the early 1900s. He found that across a wide range of times, places, and social structures, in stable societies 20% of the population held 80% of the wealth or income. The same ratio held across various subsets of the population: within the richest group, 20% of that group held 80% of the group's wealth.

I have always suspected that this type of power distribution represents a "compromise" that gets the best results for the society overall. Some concentration of wealth is necessary to provide capital for investment in the technology of the day. But excessive concentration leads to social instability.

We must share knowledge.
Learning skills make people more independent.
Teach.
Educate.
Try to be a model for others.

Here are my off-the-cuff answers --

1. What sort of social equity disparity fits us best, and for how many?

I don't know exactly. However, it would be much, much less than the current GINI level in the U. S. Ballpark, maybe 10:1 or so. Plato and Aristotle weren't completely off base.

2. Would we be happier with everyone roughly at equivalent wealth levels, or a very few having most of the wealth, so long as basic social and physical needs are met for the masses?

Roughly equivalent wealth levels would be easier. I think it is bad for the leaders to be too much in the stratosphere economically. While I have a distaste for the rule of the few, the one thing I can relate to about the "philosopher kings" in Plato and Pythagoras is that they do not benefit directly economically. They rule wisely because it's their job.

3. Will all this sort itself out naturally, or by war(s), or be 'chosen' democratically?

I vote for "naturally." I'm such an incurable optimist! If the stock market crashes, and the wealthy own most stocks, this makes everyone worse off, and may in fact leave the people at the bottom starving. But the relative position of the poorest and richest is narrowed. Intuitively, it looks like this is what explains the difference between the 1920's and the 1950's in the U. S. A.

4. If a paradigm shift arrives, and those previously in the 'have-not' category displace the previous 'haves', will this just reset the social timer on when such an inflection will happen again, in reverse?

It doesn't matter whether the haves and have-nots displace each other or not. What matters, equality-wise, is that the ratio is kept at (say) 10:1 and not allowed to go to 100:1, 1000:1, or whatever it is now. (And what about the ratio between the rich in America and the poorest in other countries?) But the basic ratio between rich and poor needs to be set in stone that is more solid than just the normal political process. Otherwise the rich (or the "haves") will just eat away at the system by putting more money or political capital into the political system, and eventually upset the ratio.

This is basically what happened between 1950's and the 2000's in the U. S. A. In the 1950's and 1960's, as much as we could complain about stereotyped conformity, incomes were much more evenly distributed. Being in a union was normal. By the 2000's, this had all come unraveled via the political process and undoing the progressive income tax. It has to be in the constitution or something like that.

5. What happens to US politics/economic system when middle class can no longer act as buffer between rich and poor?

"Just watch" is the quick answer.

6. Bonus question: If we find reasonable answers to the above, how would they apply, if at all, to inter-generational equity or inter-species equity?

They don't. The question of scale (how physically big the economy can get) has to have absolute priority here. There's no point in discussing the equity of distribution, until you know what exactly you're distributing. If for example we decide that the earth can generate enough human wealth to support 1 billion vegans living at an otherwise European standard of living, then we can talk about how to divide that up. But otherwise, we could all be equal but all be starving.

The same thing applies generally to intergenerational equity -- if you don't care about sustainability over the long haul (greater than 100 or 200 years, at least), then we could conceivably blow it all in a glorious final decade, culminating in the final 15 minutes where everyone lives like an American CEO. Some years ago there was a "voluntary human extinction" movement. But if you don't go for that, then we have to decide, on principle, on sustainability for future generations. Once we've resolved this issue, then we can move on to deciding how to divvy it up.

The standard American capitalist ideology justifies inequality as providing incentives. Work harder and you'll make more money than the person who doesn't. Come up with a better idea, and you'll be rewarded.

The problem is, it doesn't work that way - not any more, at least.

The people who make the greatest contributions to the betterment of society usually DO NOT get rewarded all that well. We all know about the "starving artist" stereotype, but it is based on a reality, and it goes well beyond just artists. Most of our scientists receive pretty mediocre compensation, given the contribution they are making to society. Many corporations make sure that the people who actually invent the new products and new ways of doing things receive nothing more than token compensation; they generally do not get most of the profits that accrue from their creativity.

On the other hand, consider the people in our economy who ARE prospering these days. I could point your attention in the direction of Wall Street, or Washington, or the executive suite of any corporation, but I need not belabor the point; you all read the headlines. The people who are getting the disproportionate amount of wealth are not being rewarded for their creative productivity, but rather for their "creative destruction".

Thus, while the claimed justification of inequality as incentive sounds good in theory, in practice it does not actually work as claimed, at least not beyond a certain minimal extent. There is probably a law of diminishing returns at work. Offer to pay someone twice as much to work twice as hard, and you just might get that result. Offer to pay someone ten times as much to work ten times as hard, and that very likely won't happen. A little bit of disparity-as-incentive can go a long way, but the mistake comes from making that the only tool in the toolbox, and thinking it can be infinitely extendable.

Thus, I wouldn't get worked up over the mere existence of inequalities. The interventions into the economy that would be required to achieve 100% perfect equality are so extensive, and the harm they are likely to cause so devastating, that IMHO it simply isn't worth it. What we do need to do is to have some simple rules that will serve to keep income and wealth disparity down to a fairly low level. I don't much care whether that level is 3:1 or 4:1 or 5:1 or 10:1; any would be preferable to what we have now.

Of course I will try to add some math to this. Does anyone know what causes the Pareto-type law in GINI? I think it has to do with dispersion of skills. An exponential distribution of rates (i.e. how hard or efficiently an individual person works essentially) leads to an inverse power law in cumulative wealth after a spread of years.
Will this maintain under a new paradigm?