Extreme armchair take but I think things could be pretty good, and in many ways better than they are now. We would have to forgo a lot of luxuries that even the poor in imperial countries take for granted - foodstuffs shipped from halfway across the globe, individual automobiles, abundant animal products, inexpensive electronics, and so forth. Much more focus on leveraging resources in a population's immediate surrounding area and less reliance on international shipping and global supply chains, though those would be used for essentials and what luxuries can be reasonably made available. On the other hand, much of the busy work we've made for ourselves and has been made for us would be gone. Most of the financial industry goes kaput, advertising is spun down to a much smaller public awareness initiative, and the newly freed up manpower from these and other vestigial sectors is allocated to more productive enterprises.

I don't know how helpful it is, but your question made me think about this representation of wealth redistribution. Without changing anything about our production or consumption, basically everyone outside Europe, Japan, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand would gain wealth if it were to be meted out equally. Now what "wealth" constitutes is vague, but if there's even a loose correlation between it and tangible assets I think this is a positive sign. Again, this is not a particularly well informed opinion, but it seems reasonable to me that everyone could attain the same material quality of life as the lower US working class, but without all the maluses imposed upon them for suppression and wealth extraction. This all depends, of course, on absolute international cooperation and prioritization of a sustainable, equal future :copium: