What's the cutoff point though? I would assume at some point amassing more wealth will work against them because when everyone is starving then they will revolt. There will be nobody to work for them to amass more wealth. Maybe we will all just steal from each other and kill each other though while they flee to their yachts in the middle of the ocean.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Well one obvious answer is considering the huge number of homeless and tent city population, why haven't they risen up. I suspect because they left it too late and now no longer have the wherewithall.

@rogerbenham Yeah, but 0.17% of the U.S. population is homeless. I'm not saying it's not a travesty or not a big issue, but it's a miniscule number compared to the entirety. I'm talking about a majority or even just half of the population. I'm talking about a number big enough to hurt the wealthy's bottom line if they are no longer employed and unable to buy products, etc. 0.17% of a population just isn't enough to spark anything. The other 99.83% of the population see the homeless as the outliers. It's not going to shock the rest to take action as long as they still have a roof over their heads and food to eat because it's JUST 0.17% of people who OBVIOUSLY did something wrong to end up where they are, and it could NEVER happen to the rest (sarcasm).

Let's say even just 35% of the population crumbles into homelessness or starvation. Would that be enough to take the entire system down that the wealthy depend upon for their wealth. There is a point where more money and wealth and control will backfire on them I think. They need to keep it balanced to keep their system working. If not, that's when I think militarism comes to the streets of the U.S. and life as we knew it is over pertaining to a mostly functioning modern society. So at what point does amassing wealth and control backfire on them in terms of keeping the system in their favor while still keeping the illusion of freedom and democracy for that system?

Even kings of yesterday understood that an entire population could kill them if they didn't at least throw crumbs at their feet. They still had to offer something. Sure, he could behead and throw a portion of them in jail, but if they ever joined forces then he would be through no matter his barbaric soldiers. Times might be different though with advanced weapons. 330m people still might not have a chance when fighter planes are dropping bombs on them. Maybe they will be content with a very small population of slaves.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Well at what point does the growth become impossible due to material shortage? We know that most resources are finite. Very soon we'll run out of Helium. Other things will follow. Oil and gas are on the downslope and they seek them ever further afield. Even coal has but 100 years left. Then what? The problem as ever is no thought for 5 or 10 years down the road. 20 years down it from now climate change will be becoming catastrophic. Then what? Ah well, not my problem as I'll be dead.

@rogerbenham They knew about all this in the 50s with Hubbert's Peak pertaining to oil. As for the other resources, I wouldn't put it past them to have had a plan all along to diminish the population somehow on a large scale. People will automatically look at that and think "conspiracy theory" though. With finite resources, it's the only thing that makes sense if you want to live the way you've been accustomed to living since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Al Bartlett gives a good lecture on exponential population growth and finite resources.

@Piece2YourPuzzle Yes I knew about the Hubert's Peak.As I recall 2005 was the last peak. Since then we are more and more relying on inferior and hard to get and expensive oil. My recollection is that in the 50's or 60's there was a world conference on desirable population. The figure arrived at I think was 500 million in the world. Britain had done one just for itself and found 40 million could be sustained.