(01-09-2017, 01:29 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think that this sort of wallowing is doing you the least bit of good.
Maybe it doesn't do him any good, but neither does it do any good for any of us to keep wool pulled over our eyes and not realize what a calamity happened on Nov.8.
Why should we be ashamed that we are very unhappy about how the election turned out, and what difficulties we face on planet Earth as a result?
It would have been so much nicer if we could have kept on the course of relatively-gentle progress that Hillary would have taken us on.
(01-09-2017, 07:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 05:36 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I think Iceland handled the situation well. Bail out the depositors, at least the domestic ones, and let the banks that needed to fail, fail.
Exactly. But neoliberals like Eric insisted that bailouts of the banks would be better.
No, not at all. SomeGuy is probably right. What Obama did was better than doing nothing. But I would have preferred a different course, restructuring and downsizing the banks that had failed and bailing out the depositers. Bail out Wall Street instead of Main Street? No, the reverse would have been better.
Initially, the neo-liberal Tea Party and progressives like Sanders and myself were in agreement against bailouts for the banks. But that was where the agreement ended.
I have written before that another round of bailouts of banks too big to fail might spark a revolt by both right and left. That would be very unpopular. But that's where we're headed if Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau are thrown away, as the neo-liberals and Tea Party want.
(01-09-2017, 09:26 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]SomeGuy Wrote:A regeneracy does not imply that all problems are solved, only that a consensus has been reached about how society is going to try to solve them, and that the populace is willing to allow them to play it out for the remainder of the 4T.
I just saw this. Here you are assuming your premises. You are assuming the 4T will end soon. Thus, if Trump manages to win a second term, a feat achieved by 78% of the presidents in my lifetime, 2016 will be a regeneracy because Trump will have been the last president of the 4T. Now think about what that means. It says a 4T is such a nothing-burger that whichever party is in control when the generations involved in a 4T are getting too old and so the turning must end defines the structure of the turning.
Past American 4Ts were obvious crises. So you invoke the Glorious 4T that was also a nothing-burger like this one. But exactly what is crisis-like about the Glorious 4T? Yeah we had an Indian war that because the American population in New England was low looks like a big war in terms of casualties per capita. By this measure the second most deadly "war" in American history was the 1634 skirmish between the Pilgrims and Puritans that killed 2. I don't doubt that King Phillips war was a crisis for the New England colonies, but so were all such events for the people affected. And it was over in 1676. Where is the 4T?
I'm not sure how big the war was in the colonies. But the colonies were still pretty much parts of Britain, and that's where the name comes from, from what happened in Britain. And there, the Crisis was very difficult, international, major and consequential. And very significant for the future history of the USA.
I agree though. What is more likely is that Trump stirs up so much trouble that no-one will doubt we are in crisis by the time he's through. He may even be re-elected. But the progressive counterwave will be tidal, if this is a 4T. Only then can we finally break through the logjam that is causing this 4T. 2022 will be the sixth year of a Republican term. Those 6th years are always strong anti-incumbent waves, and this time it should be so strong that the incumbent (Trump, Pence or whoever) is rendered a figurehead. That will be a turnaround as big as what happened early in the 4T for FDR. Of course, I saw that as happening even if Hillary had won in 2016. By 2020, the Democratic recovery in the House and Senate should have proceeded far enough that the next step will be veto-proof power in both houses.
I may be wrong, but if so, then if mikebert is saying that this 4T is a dud, he would be correct. I suspect however that even if my prediction of a Democratic takeover in 2022-24 fails, it will still be an upheaval, but the result will be failure and defeat for the progressive side, which will mean the end of the USA as we knew it and the start of a decline that may be long or short, but precipitous anyway. If the neo/classical liberals win, the result will be total disaster and a failed 4T.
(01-10-2017, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 07:46 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-09-2017, 05:36 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]I think Iceland handled the situation well. Bail out the depositors, at least the domestic ones, and let the banks that needed to fail, fail.
Exactly. But neoliberals like Eric insisted that bailouts of the banks would be better.
No, not at all. SomeGuy is probably right. What Obama did was better than doing nothing. But I would have preferred a different course, restructuring and downsizing the banks that had failed and bailing out the depositers. Bail out Wall Street instead of Main Street? No, the reverse would have been better.
Initially, the neo-liberal Tea Party and progressives like Sanders and myself were in agreement against bailouts for the banks. But that was where the agreement ended.
I have written before that another round of bailouts of banks too big to fail might spark a revolt by both right and left. That would be very unpopular. But that's where we're headed if Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau are thrown away, as the neo-liberals and Tea Party want.
Maybe the next time "Too Big to Fail" will be replaced with "Too Big to Bail Out". Bankers who were bailed out late in the late Double-Zero Decade have learned nothing except that the government will bail them out just to prevent an economic collapse no matter what economic crimes they commit for quick profits. The last time people reflected soberly on the need to preserve the financial industry lest it take everything else with it. The next time, the masses might be out for blood if the President and both Houses of Congress are widely unpopular. Government will need to protect depositors and retail customers such as big businesses with payrolls and accounts for revenue, accounts payable, and accounts receivable.
In such a case, economic elites going into the financial crisis will be at great risk of being dispossessed, exiled, incarcerated, or even exterminated. They might have made decisions that have caused mass death through wars for profit that proved even more destructive than profitable, corporate use of forced labor, and decisions to abolish the welfare system in a time of mass unemployment -- with consequent starvation. Such is a consequence of creating a pre-revolutionary scenario.
Here is an article by Modelski that gives K-wave dates. In it you see the 1914 and 2030 dates you mention.
http://www.sociostudies.org/almanac/arti...alization/
Now look at some of these dates. Railroads has a date of 1792 and Cotton has a date of 1740. The first railroads came in 1825 and cotton began its growth right after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. Obviously, the 1792 and 1740 dates are not based on growth rates of the railroad and cotton leading sectors. So where do they come from? They come from the leadership cycle. These are leadership cycle dates and are based on global politics, that for earlier cycles were measured using army and naval share and great power wars, etc.
I do not perceive China as doing more than agenda setting right now, flexing their muscles in their near abroad, just the USSR did in the late 1940's and early 1950's (Berlin Crisis, NATO, Warsaw Pact, Korea), and Russia is doing now.
Quote:I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices that. On the other hand, at least he's actually willing to discuss the theories.
He is still one of the few people on this message board, now or when I first joined, that I actually enjoy talking to. But it is a really annoying habit.
Quote:To be fair, I don't think it's a reaction to the election, as he was the same way before the election when everyone was assuming a Clinton win.
That may well be true, I wasn't here before the election. I am just going on my memories of how he was a year and change ago, when last I was here.
(01-10-2017, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I have written before that another round of bailouts of banks too big to fail might spark a revolt by both right and left. That would be very unpopular. But that's where we're headed if Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau are thrown away, as the neo-liberals and Tea Party want.
What are you talking about? It's Dodd-Frank that institutionalizes "too big to fail" and guarantees there will be bailouts next time around too.
Quote:Now look at some of these dates. Railroads has a date of 1792 and Cotton has a date of 1740. The first railroads came in 1825 and cotton began its growth right after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. Obviously, the 1792 and 1740 dates are not based on growth rates of the railroad and cotton leading sectors. So where do they come from? They come from the leadership cycle. These are leadership cycle dates and are based on global politics, that for earlier cycles were measured using army and naval share and great power wars, etc
Mike, I literally just reread the book. All of the dates are based on 1) naval tonnage, and 2) Corroboration from production figures for selected "leading" industries. You will note that neither of these things have anything to do with prices or interest rates, and they explicitly denied using them in the book. So, comments like "
interest rates should have been rising since around 2000. They haven't. Also we should be seeing inflation, actually lots of it given all the money creation" are off-base.
Quote:I do not perceive China as doing more than agenda setting right now, flexing their muscles in their near abroad, just the USSR did in the late 1940's and early 1950's (Berlin Crisis, NATO, Warsaw Pact, Korea), and Russia is doing now.
I perceive differently. I view China's agenda-setting (switch from a command economy to capitalism, rapprochement with the US vs the Soviet Union, subsequent retooling of their military after viewing the Gulf War and the Taiwan Strait Crisis) as beginning in the 1970s and ending in the mid-90s. Exactly when it should have been according to the model. In this view, I expect a macrodecision phase to start in the 2020s and end in the (early?) 2040s. If events don't play out that way I will of course reconsider, but we're not there yet. Once again, the fact you have some "revised" M & T model that claims that a new leadership model started in the 90s and that the IT revolution doesn't count as a k-wave because *cue a bunch of shit about interest rates and prices ported from some other model you've read* is not really relevant to M & T's predictions.
Quote:You referred to the 2030 date as a K-wave “peak”. This implies 1792 was a railroad K-wave peak. What production figures were peaking in 1792?
No, it does not. Check the tables again, that's midway through Britain II, and the leading sectors peaking around that time were pig iron production and raw cotton consumption, where Britain was pushing 80% of global consumption. The railroad sector STARTED around that time, and despite an initial lead in Britain (where it was invented) leadership of that sector passed to the United States over the course of the 19th century, leading into US I.
(It is worthwhile to point out that China actually exceeded 19th century British pig iron production as early as the 11th century, but at a much lower per capita level, they discuss it in the book.)
Quote:You made an assertion of a “K-wave peak” in 2020-5. That assertion carries assumptions about prices and interest rates. This is not my definition, is it a core element of the K-wave concept. Are you sure M&T used the term “peak” wrt to the K-wave? My recollection was that they used the K-wave in a much looser sense, like some scholars refer to “Kondratieffs” without going into any more detail. I do not think those dates were intended by the authors to be confused with standard K-wave peaks. Certainly not anything on which to build predictions.
You're being deliberately obtuse. The phrase "k-wave" was used in M & T, and they defined beforehand how they were using it, and specifically stated it that they were using it in a different way from the work done by people like Kondratiev in terms of prices. Like I said, it is unfortunate that they chose a phrase that has other meanings, but repeatedly insisting that since they used a phrase to mean one thing, they must have meant it to mean all the others as well is being obtuse to the point of autistic.
They made predictions, and the fact that those predictions don't include things you want to tack on (viz interest rates, consumer price inflation, etc.) is not their problem.
Quote:Why would these things characteristic of an agenda-setting era? The Soviet Union was doing similar things in the 1930’s.
The Soviet Union embraced capitalism in the 1930s? Do tell. Agenda-setting/delegitimization follows an Implementation phase, and occurs during the startup of the next set of leading sectors. The 1930s does not qualify in that respect.
(01-10-2017, 01:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Why would these things characteristic of an agenda-setting era? The Soviet Union was doing similar things in the 1930’s.
The Soviet Union embraced capitalism in the 1930s? Do tell. Agenda-setting/delegitimization follows an Implementation phase, and occurs during the startup of the next set of leading sectors. The 1930s does not qualify in that respect.
Embracing capitalism was a means to an end. Stalin achieved the same end by forced collectivization. The object in both cases (as far as the Leadership Cycle in concerned), was to build national power. To argue that national power building efforts in China is valid while the same in Russia is the 1930's is not, simply because the latter happened in wrong period according to your theory, is same stuff of which you are accusing me.
Check the tables again, that's midway through Britain II, and the leading sectors peaking around that time were pig iron production and raw cotton consumption/
Are you saying British cotton consumption and pig iron consumption
peaked around 1792? Seriously? Are you high?
Pig Iron:
https://books.google.com/books?id=Oyg9AA...es&f=false
Cotton
http://www.iisg.nl/hpw/papers/broadberry-gupta.pdf
Period Raw Cotton Consumption (tons)
1697-99 550
1700-09 550
1710-19 650
1720-29 750
1730-39 850
1740-49 1050
1750-59 1400
1760-69 1750
1770-79 2400
1780-89 7750
1790-99 14300
1800-09 29800
1810-19 46700
1820-29 83250
1830-39 160350
1840-49 263150
I don't see a peak in cotton consumption around 1792. Even if you put it on per capital terms it still is monotonically rising.
I thought that's where you were going with that. No, it's not the same, because I am applying M & T's theory as written. It makes specific predictions for what we should expect to see in the not-too-distant future, and it should be judged by those predictions and nothing else. You are welcome to come up with your own theories and post them here, and I enjoy reading them and discussing them, but listening to you sometimes is like listening to somebody who took an exercise of diet plan, modified it and combined it with two or three others, then complained that since they didn't gain muscle/lose weight the way they wanted, that the original program is invalidated.
(01-10-2017, 04:44 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ]Check the tables again, that's midway through Britain II, and the leading sectors peaking around that time were pig iron production and raw cotton consumption/
Are you saying British cotton consumption and pig iron consumption peaked around 1792? Seriously? Are you high?
God, I wish. No, their share of leading sector commerce peaked around that time (actually early in the 19th century). The
link to the book is right here, the tables showing what they were measuring and when can be found by scrolling down to page 99. The peak of the odd-numbered k-wave looks like it occurred towards the end of the macrodecision period which started in 1792.
Quote:Are you saying British cotton consumption and pig iron consumption peaked around 1792? Seriously? Are you high?
Likewise, the trade in pepper is much larger today that it was in the Dutch Golden Age, and yet it was clearly a leading sector then, and not a leading sector now.
(01-10-2017, 10:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2017, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I have written before that another round of bailouts of banks too big to fail might spark a revolt by both right and left. That would be very unpopular. But that's where we're headed if Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau are thrown away, as the neo-liberals and Tea Party want.
What are you talking about? It's Dodd-Frank that institutionalizes "too big to fail" and guarantees there will be bailouts next time around too.
It's interesting how you turn the obvious into the obviously opposite, and then call it the same thing. You actually managed to label me a "neo-liberal" because I might support higher taxes on Greek rich people. Are you a gymnast? A yogi who can do all kinds of contortions?
No, Dodd-Frank provides for the break-up of banks that are too big to fail. Republicans want to repeal it so that the financial gamblers can pursue their wrecking-ball schemes without interference.
(01-10-2017, 04:34 PM)Mikebert Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2017, 01:19 PM)SomeGuy Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Why would these things characteristic of an agenda-setting era? The Soviet Union was doing similar things in the 1930’s.
The Soviet Union embraced capitalism in the 1930s? Do tell. Agenda-setting/delegitimization follows an Implementation phase, and occurs during the startup of the next set of leading sectors. The 1930s does not qualify in that respect.
Embracing capitalism was a means to an end. Stalin achieved the same end by forced collectivization. The object in both cases (as far as the Leadership Cycle in concerned), was to build national power. To argue that national power building efforts in China is valid while the same in Russia is the 1930's is not, simply because the latter happened in wrong period according to your theory, is same stuff of which you are accusing me.
In contrast, forced collectivization did nothing for the common man, and only served to tighten the grip of the central government.
You have any references for that?
Believe it or not, later Communist leaders - which is to say, not Lenin, Stalin, or Mao - actually did care about the people to greater or lesser extents. That was especially true of Gorbachev and Deng. In the case of Deng, capitalism was a means to improving the lot of the people, especially insofar as it avoided any repeat of the Cultural Revolution, in which millions of innocents died.
(01-10-2017, 05:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2017, 10:40 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ] (01-10-2017, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I have written before that another round of bailouts of banks too big to fail might spark a revolt by both right and left. That would be very unpopular. But that's where we're headed if Dodd Frank and the Consumer Protection Bureau are thrown away, as the neo-liberals and Tea Party want.
What are you talking about? It's Dodd-Frank that institutionalizes "too big to fail" and guarantees there will be bailouts next time around too.
It's interesting how you turn the obvious into the obviously opposite, and then call it the same thing. You actually managed to label me a "neo-liberal" because I might support higher taxes on Greek rich people. Are you a gymnast? A yogi who can do all kinds of contortions?
No, Dodd-Frank provides for the break-up of banks that are too big to fail. Republicans want to repeal it so that the financial gamblers can pursue their wrecking-ball schemes without interference.
Dodd-Frank has been around for years now. How come no big banks have been broken up? Why are Sanders and Warren saying that additional action is needed to break them up?
Oh right, because Dodd-Frank does nothing of the sort.